Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement for Wokingham Borough’s Submitted Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) December 2012
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Background to the Duty to Co-operate...... 3 3 How the Council has Co-operated in the production of the MDD and other planning documents...... 5 Formal cross-agency working involving Wokingham Borough Council...... 6 Local Enterprise Partnership...... 6 Transport – Local Sustainable Transport Fund applications ...... 9 Transport – other partnerships...... 11 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area...... 12 Waste Disposal ...... 14 Joint working along Blackwater Valley ...... 14 Homes and Community Agency led partnership ...... 16 Co-ordination of development around AWE sites...... 17 Informal cross-agency working by Wokingham Borough Council ...... 17 Infrastructure Delivery Plans for Wokingham Borough’s Local Development Documents ...... 17 Other discussions/issues informing the approach of the MDD...... 20 Summary of consultation with the relevant agencies during evolution of the MDD...... 23 Details of earlier consultation...... 23 How MDD policies reflect the cross agency working and/or earlier consultation ...... 30 Table 1: Summary of Duty to Co-operate bodies involvement in each policy of the MDD ...... 30 4 Conclusion ...... 35 Appendix 1 - How Wokingham Borough meets the Duty to Co-operate requirements for the MDD DPD: ...... 37
1 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
1. Introduction 1.1 This is one of a series of supporting documents prepared by Wokingham Borough Council to accompanying the Submission of the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (MDD DPD) to the Secretary of State1 and will inform its subsequent examination. They compliment and clarify the contents of the supporting documents that were produced when the Council consulted upon the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June 2012). In a number of cases, they provide updated information i.e. 5 year housing land supply at 1 October 2012 which was not available at the time of the consultation or they respond to matters raised during the consultation in the summer. This document along with the others supporting the Submission is also available on the Council’s website.
1.2 This document explains how the Council has taken account of strategic planning issues that impact across the boundaries of local authorities and also how it has achieved its Duty to Co-operate requirement. This document therefore includes cross- references to other documents which explain specific projects where the authority has co-operate on strategic priorities.
1.3 The Localism Act 20112, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)3 and The Town and Country (Local Planning) (England) Regulations (the 2012 Regulations)4 were all introduced between the consultations undertaken by the Council on the Draft Options for the MDD (June 2011) and the Proposed Submission (June 2012). Therefore, the earlier stages in producing the MDD were undertaken in line with the Regulations5 and Government Guidance6 in force. Nevertheless, as this document confirms, the Council has consistently engaged (and sought engagement) from neighbouring and other local authorities together with other bodies throughout the evolution of both the MDD and the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy (January 2010)7.
1 Available at www.wokingham.gov.uk/submittedmdd. 2 Avaialble at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents. 3 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2. 4 Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/contents/made. 5 The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (as amended) 6 Planning Policy Statement 12 – Local Spatial Planning (June 2008) 7 Available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/planningpolicies/ldf/new-ldf-core-strategy/.
2 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
1.4 This continued the earlier collaborative working of the Council with other agencies for the delivery of solutions to addressing strategic/cross boundary issues (summarised in paragraphs 2.4 to 2.14 of the Core Strategy). An ongoing collaboration since the 1990s is in the Blackwater Valley (along the boundary of Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire and involving relevant local authorities and other partners) to improve recreational access and nature conservation along it following mineral extraction. More recent examples include the continued joint work around the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area with other local authorities and Natural England and most recently the delivery of the improvements to M4 Junction 11 with Reading Borough Council and the Highways Agency (opened Summer 2010). Further information on these and other matters relevant to the Duty to Co-operate are set out in Section 3 and Appendix 1.
1.5 Whilst the formal Duty to Co-operate in plan making arose through the Localism Act, the actions of the Council have long recognised this. Therefore, as explained below, the Council considers it has achieved the requirements associated with the Duty to Co-operate.
2. Background to the Duty to Co-operate 2.1 Under Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011, an additional clause (number 33A) is inserted into the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which outlines the requirements for the Duty to Co-operate. This additional clause states:
Duty to co-operate in relation to planning of sustainable development (1) Each person who is— (a) a local planning authority, (b) a county council in England that is not a local planning authority, or (c) a body, or other person, that is prescribed or of a prescribed description, must co-operate with every other person who is within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) or subsection (9) in maximising the effectiveness with which activities within subsection (3) are undertaken.
2.2 The Act also requires a Council to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in relation to the duty for the preparation of all Local Development Documents including the MDD DPD. The Act also defines ‘strategic matters’ which relate to the duty as follows:
3 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
(a) sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and (b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use— (i) is a county matter, or (ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter.
2.3 The requirements of the clause inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) has been clarified by Regulation 4 of the 2012 Regulations which states:
(1) The bodies prescribed for the purposes of section 33A(1)(c) of the Act are— (a) the Environment Agency; (b) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (known as English Heritage); (c) Natural England; (d) the Mayor of London; (e) the Civil Aviation Authority; (f) the Homes and Communities Agency; (g) each Primary Care Trust established under section 18 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or continued in existence by virtue of that section; (h) the Office of Rail Regulation; (i) Transport for London; (j) each Integrated Transport Authority; (k) each highway authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Highways Act 1980 (including the Secretary of State, where the Secretary of State is the highways authority); and (l) the Marine Management Organisation.
4 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
(2) The bodies prescribed for the purposes of section 33A(9) of the Act are each local enterprise partnership. (3) In this regulation “local enterprise partnership” means a body, designated by the Secretary of State, which is established for the purpose of creating or improving the conditions for economic growth in an area.
2.4 In addition to the legal tests associated with the Duty to Co-operate under Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended), the NPPF (paragraph 178) indicates “Public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities8 set out in paragraph 156”. The NPPF (paragraph 156) indicates that the strategic priorities are: the homes and jobs needed in the area; the provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development; the provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat); the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities; and climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.
2.5 Therefore, the guidance provided on strategic priorities within the NPPF gives a clear indication of the nature of planning issues that should be considered under the Duty to Co-operate.
3 How the Council has Co-operated in the production of the MDD and other planning documents. 3.1 As explained in Section 1, the Council has consistently worked with other authorities and agencies for the delivery of projects reflecting the strategic priorities outlined by the NPPF. Whilst paragraph 1.4 provides examples of what the authority has and continues to do, the reminder of this section explains the various formal and informal arrangements that the Council is involved in relating to planning matters, it then continues through considering how the authority has consulted the various bodies through the evolution of the MDD DPD (including reference to the Statements of Consultation LPS10, LPS15 &
8 These are different to the Strategic Policies to which a neighbourhood plan should conform under Section 61E (5)(5)(b) of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
5 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
LPS179) before finally explaining how MDD policies have emerged from these two elements. Appendix 1 then clarifies this general information and provides specific details of how each Duty to Co-operate body has been involved in the production of the MDD with reference to specific policies within the document (as appropriate).
Formal cross-agency working involving Wokingham Borough Council
Local Enterprise Partnership 3.2 Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) – The LEP is led by businesses, business groups and the six Local Authorities across Berkshire10). The LEP seeks to ensure that Thames Valley Berkshire maintains its status as a high performing economy within the UK, that it continues to be the ‘Silicon Valley’ of Europe and that the UK maintains its position as the most popular place for Foreign Direct Investment in Europe.
3.3 The strategic priorities for the LEP are based around keeping innovative and best in class and include the following: Ensuring we have transport infrastructure fit for 21st century. The LEP has focused particularly on rail infrastructure to ensure an efficient alternative to road usage. The LEP have already benefited from Government backing for our Western Rail Access to Heathrow project, lobbied for electrification of the Mainline Railway, and will see the construction of Crossrail. The LEP will be responding to the Government’s Airport strategy consultation; Driving better information technology infrastructure through the Superfast Broadband initiative to bring particularly rural areas up to the same level of connectivity that most of us enjoy and then pushing for ultrafast broadband and better mobile networks across Thames Valley Berkshire. Building a world class workforce and making sure the next generation of residents are equipped for the future world of work. The LEP has focused on employability soft skills and apprenticeships and will be promoting Digital Learning Centres to upgrade everyone’s skills in new technologies For SMEs the LEP is working on access to finance, finding the gaps in provision working with banks and trying to improve business confidence and promoting exporting
9 Available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/planningpolicies/ldf/managingdevelopmentdelivery/submissionmdd/. 10 These are Bracknell Forest Council, Reading Borough Council, Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, Slough Borough Council, West Berkshire Council and Wokingham Borough Council. More information on the LEP is available at: http://thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/.
6 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
The LEP will work together to form an effective inward investment offer and also ensure we serve the needs of the existing corporates already here to grow their businesses
3.4 The first of the LEP’s strategic priorities is covered in proposals 13 to 1611 of Policy CP10 in the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy. These proposals (including safeguarding the alignment of the Crossrail extension12) are then covered by Policy CC08 of the MDD. Therefore, a key priority of the LEP is reflected in the approach of the MDD. Electrification of the Great Western mainline is one of the improvements envisaged in Core Strategy policy CP10 (14) and this is currently underway (electrification from London Paddington to Newbury, Oxford and Bristol is due to be completed by 2016 and to Cardiff by 201713).
3.5 Additionally, the allocation of a site for the Science & Innovation Park (MDD policies TB13 and SAL07) (in line with Core Strategy policy CP16) reflects the third objective of the LEP since it enables the retention of the world class workforce. This objective is also supported through the approach in MDD policies TB12 and TB14 through the encouragement of employment skills plans and for appropriate research/academic related development at the University of Reading’s Whiteknights campus.
3.6 The LEP also manages the Berkshire Strategic Transport Forum (BSTF) which was established by the predecessor Berkshire Economic Strategy Board (BESB) in 2007. The BSTF comprises representatives from all the Berkshire Unitary Authorities together with the Highway Agency and Hampshire County Council. The success and importance of the BSTF was reflected in the then South East England Partnership Board’s (SEEPB) decision to appoint BSTF as the organisation to lead the Thames Valley Delivering a Sustainable Transport Strategy (DaSTS) in 2009. A Stage One Final Report was published in May 2010. Table 6.1 (pages 115-121) lists 15 Strategy Responses and identifies the investment, management and policy measures which are considered within each. A number of these responses related to actions envisaged within the MDD:
11 Proposal 13 is Reading Station Improvements, Proposal 14 is Great Western mainline electrification), Proposal 15 is Western Rail Access to Heathrow and Proposal 16 is the extension of Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading. 12 The safeguarding of the extension of Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading is consistent with the information available at: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/safeguarding/maidenhead-to-reading. 13 See http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/great-western-electrification-delivering-the-plans/.
7 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
a) Strategy response 1 ‘Investing in new and improved public transport infrastructure which supports a growing Thames Valley economy’. This includes measures such as new stations, increased rail capacity and strategic park and rides. These approaches are reflected in the railway improvements detailed in Core Strategy policy CP10 (13-16) and the provision of the park and ride in the vicinity of M4 junction 11 (Policy CP10 (7)). These improvements are included in policies CC08 and SAL09 of the MDD; b) Strategy Response 2 ‘Improving journey time reliability on the highway network in the Thames Valley’. This includes the Managed Motorways Project by the Highways Agency (relevant to the M4) and also the proposals to improve the junctions on the M4 serving Reading (see Core Strategy Policy CP10 (6 & 22)); c) Strategy Responses 7 ‘Measures to ensure that business in the Thames Valley can maximise the agglomeration benefits of the links with Heathrow airport’ and Response 8 ‘Measures to ensure that the resident population can reach employment opportunities at Heathrow airport sustainably’. This includes improved public transport enhancements between the Thames valley and Heathrow airport as envisaged by Core Strategy policy CP10 (15) and MDD policy CC08; and d) Strategy Response 10 ‘Measures to ensure the Thames Valley remains a vital gateway to the North and South.’ This includes improved orbital public transport linkages between Reading, Guildford and Gatwick. This would arise through the implementation of the Oxford to Gatwick rail service as detailed in paragraph 3.18.
3.7 It is recognised that a number of the measures Thames valley DaSTS study were initially examined as part of the Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study produced in January 2003 for the then Government Office for the South East. Figure 4.1 (page 4-6) illustrates the range of public transport improvements envisaged including a park and ride near M4 junction 11 (Core Strategy policy CP10 (7)) with intra urban express bus services along the M4 to Heathrow from this point and similar services between Bracknell and Reading (via Wokingham). The Thames Valley multi-modal study also recognised the importance of improved rail links into Heathrow (Core Strategy Policy CP10 (15) and MDD Policy CC08)). As the information within the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) bids in paragraphs 3.8 to 3.16 below confirms, the some of the measures envisaged in the Multi-Modal Study and subsequent DaSTS are being implemented or will be shortly. It is therefore important that the MDD retains these measures to deliver the solutions for the Thames valley’s transportation issues.
8 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Transport – Local Sustainable Transport Fund applications 3.8 Reading LSTF bid - The LSTF is a £560 million Government funding pot which local authorities nationwide have bid to for implementation of packages of measures over the next four years. Reading’s bid, which totalled £24.2 million, includes plans for a new pedestrian/ cycle bridge across the Thames (paragraph 1.82), expanded Park and Ride facilities in neighbouring boroughs (figure 8) and a bike hire scheme (figure 6).
3.9 The bid comprised a package of measures that will address the core fund objectives of supporting the local economy whilst reducing carbon emissions. In the Reading urban area, this would mean creating an additional 7,200 daily bus trips, 12,050 daily walk trips and 2,300 daily cycle trips across the town, whilst at the same time cutting congestion by up to 10%. All of these things combined would result in a 29,000 tonne reduction in CO2 and an estimated economic benefit of £340 million for the town as a whole. Reading’s LSTF bid has the formal support of both Wokingham Borough and West Berkshire Councils, as well commitment from other key partners such as NHS Berkshire West PCT and Thames Valley Berkshire LEP14. A key aspect of the bid is to engage directly with local residents to influence and maximise the effectiveness of green travel initiatives any investments. Reading Borough in June 2012 was been awarded £20.7m from the Department for Transport, following a successful bid to the LSTF.
3.10 The bid application envisaged a number of specific measures within Wokingham Borough including Park & Rides at Mereoak, Thames Valley Park and Winnersh Triangle. The locations of these have been defined in policy SAL09 of the MDD thereby demonstrating how the Council is working in partnership to address transportation issues for the Reading area. The Council has commenced the pre-planning stages for the Park & Rides at Mereoak and Winnersh Triangle since on 9/11/12 it concluded (following a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening) that neither scheme would require an EIA (applications SO/2012/2132 and SO/2012/2130 respectively)15.
14 More information on the Reading LSTF application is available at: http://www.reading.gov.uk/residents/parking-road-and-travel/TransportStrategy/lstfbid/. 15 Details of these planning applications can be viewed at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/planningapplications/searchplanningapplications/.
9 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
3.11 Influencing Travel Behaviour in Wokingham LSTF bid – In addition to the successful partnering by the Council in the LSTF Bid lead by Reading Borough, the Council submitted its own application16. This application resulted in an award in May 2012 of £2.75m to improve sustainable travel and boost economic growth within its area. One target for Wokingham is to achieve reductions in car usage and deliver a 10 per cent increase in public transport patronage on the A329 transport corridor. The enhanced public transport along the A329 corridor reflects proposal 10 within policy CP10 of the Core Strategy which has been re-affirmed by MDD policy CC08. In addition, the improvement in public transport along the corridor will arise through the implementation of the Wokingham Station Improvements (Core Strategy Policy CP10 (4) and MDD policies CC08 and SAL09).
3.12 Wokingham’s LSTF programme has the support of neighbouring local authorities (as confirmed on page 3 of the application), as well as commitment from other key partners such as South West Trains, First and Thames Valley Berkshire LEP. The inclusion of the measures associated with the LSTF bid in policies of the MDD indicates how the Council is working in partnership to address transportation issues for the A329 corridor (including those parts outside of the borough). This is the shortest route between Reading and Bracknell (defined regional/sub-regional centres in Policy TC1 of the South East Plan) and passes through Wokingham town.
3.13 Sustainable Chilterns Gateways LSTF bid - Wokingham Borough Council is the leading partner for this project on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Buckinghamshire County Council, Chilterns Conservation Board and the CTC. The application was successful (May 2012) in being awarded a £868,000 grant to support rail and cycling to access the Chiltern’s Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) for tourism17.
3.14 The successful bid developed with the CTC (Cyclists’ Touring Club) is targeted and focuses on three gateways, selected for their potential impact as hubs for ‘car-free’ cycle-based tourism. The three areas covered include a southern gateway via Twyford, Henley-on-Thames, a central point of access via Great Missenden, Chesham, Amersham and a northerly point of
16 More information of the Wokingham LSTF application is available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/news-and-events/latest-news/boost-to-travel- and-economic-growth-in-the-wokingham-borough/. 17 More information on the Sustainable Chiltern’s LSTF application is available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/news-and-events/latest-news/multi- million-pound-funding-to-influence-travel-behaviour/.
10 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
access centred on Tring and Berkhamsted. The project will support tourism and leisure access out of the Chilterns into larger urban destinations.
3.15 Whilst the approach of the MDD might not initially indicate a relationship with this application, the extension of Crossrail (CP10 & CC08) from Maidenhead to Reading will ensure the maintenance of a frequent rail service to Twyford and thereby allow interchanges for the line to Henley-on-Thames (see paragraph 3.18 for further explanation). Additionally, the Secretary of State for Transport has indicted that they are intending to seek electrification of the railway from Twyford to Henley-on- Thames concurrently with that underway of the Great Western mainline18 (see paragraph 3.4). This LSTF application contributes towards delivery of the fourth strategic priority outlined in paragraph 156 of the NPPF in supporting cultural infrastructure within the AONB.
3.16 Bracknell Forest’s Town Centre regeneration with improved travel choices LSTF bid - Bracknell Forest Council was successful (May 2012) in securing £1.6m of Government funding through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF)19. The bid included transport measures linked to the regeneration of the town centre. The funding award will allow these measures to be delivered earlier than expected and hopefully bring the regeneration scheme a step nearer. Wokingham Borough Council is a key partner to delivering the wider cross-boundary benefits and congestion management through greater availability of real-time travel information and new systems to manage the operation of major road junctions across Bracknell Forest Borough (including along the A329 corridor (see Wokingham’s LSTF bid for relationship with MDD concerning improvements on this corridor)).
Transport – other partnerships 3.17 Cross Thames Travel Group – This includes Reading and Wokingham Borough Council’s, Oxfordshire County Council and South Oxfordshire District Council. The Council’s Core Strategy (policy CP10) together with those of both Reading and South Oxfordshire recognise the importance of delivering measures to improve Cross Thames Travel. The Council recognises (Core Strategy paragraph 2.10) that the Oxfordshire authorities do not consider that a case has been made for an additional bridge, and that all other options should be considered first. The Cross Thames Travel Study (March 2002)
18 See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-level-output-specification-2012. 19 More information on the Bracknell forest LSTF application is available at: http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/localsustainabletransportfundbid.
11 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
produced by the Group outlined a range of interventions (page 34) for improving movement without the need for an additional bridge. These included enhanced public transport services around Reading (including additional Park & Ride’s) together with a direct link between the Oxford and Gatwick railway lines (page 35).
3.18 The Council considers that its involvement within the Reading LSTF Bid (paragraphs 3.8-3.10) provides part of the solution to addressing this issue and clearly demonstrates how the enhanced public transport services alternative to an additional vehicle bridge20 are being delivered. With regard to extension of the Gatwick – Reading train service to Oxford, both the Council and Oxfordshire County Council recognise the importance of the remodelling of Reading station (Core Strategy Policy CP10 (13)) to enable this to be delivered. In addition, the extension of Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading would also support the delivery of a Gatwick – Oxford service since this could enable the release of rolling stock from the Paddington to Reading section of the service from Oxford and its redeployment instead from Reading to Gatwick21. A Gatwick-Reading service could then commence in when either the improvements to Reading (2015)22 or the completion of the main Crossrail services (2018)23 are completed.
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 3.19 Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership Board - The Thames Basin Heaths, which covers parts of Berkshire, Hampshire and Surrey is a rare example of lowland heathland. It is home to three important bird species, and protected by international law as a 'Special Protection Area' (SPA). The heaths, and the birds that nest and breed there, are easily disturbed by people and their pets. Following the designation of the SPA in March 2005, the then English Nature (now Natural England) expressed concern over the implications of additional homes within the 11 local planning authorities
20 An additional pedestrian/cycle bridge across the Thames is part of the Reading LSTF Bid (paragraph 1.82). 21 As recognised on pages 57 and 58 of the Draft Oxfordshire Rail Strategy (Jan 2012) (available at: http://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/documents/s13673/CA_JAN1712R33%20Rail%20Strategy.pdf) and page 3 of Wokingham Borough Council’s response (17 Feb 2012) to the Great Western Franchise Replacement Consultation (available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=202980&type=full&servicetype=Attachment). . 22 Details of the timing of improvements at Reading station are available at: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6339.aspx. 23 Further details on Crossrail (including timing) are available at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6308.aspx and http://www.crossrail.co.uk.
12 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
(including Wokingham Borough) 24 that contain or are very close to the SPA on the breeding success of the birds due to increased recreational disturbance. Through the examination and subsequent adoption of the South East Plan, it was recognised that a specific policy approach to ensuring the likely significant impacts upon the birds breeding success from additional homes was addressed. This resulted in the inclusion of policy NRM6 in the South East Plan.
3.20 Following the identification of the issues around the SPA by Natural England, the 11 local planning authorities have worked closely with each other, the Regional Assembly/Partnership Board (closed in July 2010) and other partners (including Natural England) to plan for the long term protection of the SPA in a consistent and coordinated way. This resulted in the establishment of the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership (JSP) which first met in October 200725.
3.21 The current work of the Partnership is based around the co-ordination of three areas of work: 1. Agreeing and implementing a Delivery Framework (DF) for the long-term protection of the SPA; 2. Agreeing an approach to the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM); 3. On site management
3.22 The JSP Board now meets twice yearly and includes an elected member from each of the 11 local planning authorities around the SPA. The DF was endorsed by the JSP Board in February 2009. Whilst the DF does not form part of the development plan; and therefore is not to be used directly for development control purposes; it provides an SPA wide agreed basis for policy formulation and the Local Planning Authorities are enjoined to refer to the DF in the preparation of their Local Development Framework (LDF) and supporting documents. South East Plan Policy NRM6 identifies that the mechanism for the policy is set out in the DF and indicating that its principles should be incorporated into LDFs. Core Strategy Policy CP8 adopts these principles. On 14 July 2011, the 11 Councils around the SPA along with Hampshire County Council and Natural England signed an Agreement to collect contributions to fund the SAMM project. Policy SAL05 of the MDD applies the principles outlined in the DF and Core Strategy Policy CP8 to ensuring that appropriate avoidance measures for addressing the impacts of development upon the SPA can be delivered.
24 The other local planning authorities within the JSP are: Bracknell Forest Council, Elmbridge Borough Council, Guildford Borough Council, Hart District Council, Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (RBWM), Runnymede Borough Council, Rushmoor Borough Council, Waverley Borough Council and Woking Borough Council. 25 Details of the work of the JSP are available at: http://www.surreyheath.gov.uk/planning/tbh/TBHJSP.htm.
13 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
3.23 The Council has consistently consulted on Development Plan Documents with the other local authorities within the JSP since the publication of the initial Delivery Plan (which included consistent cross-authority delivery of avoidance measures) from English Nature in Summer 2005 following the designation of the SPA (see paragraph 3.48).
Waste Disposal 3.24 re3 26 – This is the Partnership between Bracknell Forest, Reading and Wokingham Borough Councils and FCC Environment (formerly Waste Recycling Group) set up to increase the amount of waste that is reused, recycled and composted across the three boroughs and to minimise the amount of waste sent to landfill. The Councils and FCC Environment are working together to provide local residents and businesses with first-class facilities for recycling and disposing of waste over the twenty-five years ending in 2031. In 2011/12, re3 managed 190,530 tonnes of contract waste and increased the recovery rate to 80.07% from 72.6% (2010/11). Whilst the work of re3 is primarily related to future work that the authorities will undertake in respect of developing new planning policy for waste, it is still relevant to the MDD. This is due to the ability of the partnership to continue minimising waste even though the number of households will increase through the growth planned within each authority. The approach to minimising waste has informed MDD policy CC04.
Joint working along Blackwater Valley 3.25 Blackwater Valley Network/Countryside Partnership - Since 1971 when the first Blackwater Valley strategy was published, the local authorities in Berkshire, Hampshire and Surrey along the Valley have been working in partnership to improve the Valley’s environment and open it up for public recreation. Today the Blackwater Valley Countryside Partnership (BVCP)27 plays a vital role in co-ordinating work in the Valley and provides a focus for the efforts of other organisations and individuals by providing the essential valley-wide overview. The role of the BVCP is to deliver an expert, experienced and centralised resource to: Co-ordinate projects and actions of all involved parties and stakeholders in the Blackwater Valley for mutual benefit. Increases sustainable usage of the Blackwater Valley especially for informal outdoor recreation.
26 See www.re3.org.uk. 27 The Local Planning Authorities who fund the Partnership are: Guildford Borough Council, Hampshire County Council, Hart District Council, Rushmoor Borough Council, Surrey Heath Borough Council, Surrey County Council and Wokingham Borough Council
14 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Ensure wildlife and landscape protection. The BVCP is also active in the local planning process and comments on local plans and individual planning applications, in order to ensure that: The Blackwater Valley remains a continuous green space attractive to wildlife and the community.
3.26 In addition, specific planning policies have been established for the Blackwater Valley and are contained in the “Blackwater Valley Strategy 2011 – 201528 which has produced jointly by the Partnership of behalf of the authorities which fund it (which includes Wokingham Borough). This document is a framework for action in the Valley and contains general policy guidelines for conservation and recreation. Within the Study, there is the intention of creating a footpath along the Blackwater Valley within Wokingham Borough. This proposal was in the Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP) (policy WR17) and has been carried into the MDD (Policy CC03).
3.27 The Blackwater Valley Network includes the local planning authorities in the Partnership together with Bracknell Forest Council. The Blackwater Valley Network (Apr 2003) published ‘…a study to assist in optimising the future economic growth in the area. Such a study should clarify the extent of the Blackwater Valley Sub-Region and identify the best locations for economic growth on the basis of taking advantage of local potential. It should help in identifying areas where labour supply is constraining growth and take positive measures to relieve this problem, either by the provision of more housing or by the improvement of public transport’ as required by RPG9 – The Regional Planning Guidance for South East England. This then informed the successor South East Plan. More recently (April 2011), the Network (excluding Waverley Borough) published a Water Cycle Study (WCS) Scoping Report. Prior to the commissioning of the Sub-Region Study, the Council has (and continues to) consults the Network members on its Development Plan documents (see paragraph 3.48).
3.28 As part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment29 of the plan making process the implications of development on the water environment must be taken into account. Unmitigated, further development as well as climate change will adversely affect the environment and the water supply capabilities in the area. A WCS will provide the required evidence, together with an agreed strategy to overcome any constraints and to identify suitable mitigations. The WCS Scoping Report undertaken by
28 Available at: http://www.blackwater-valley.org.uk/BV_Strategy_2011-15_text_only.pdf. 29 Required under The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 – see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1633/contents/made.
15 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
the Blackwater Valley authorities (see paragraph 3.25) (with inputs from the water and sewerage companies together with the Environment Agency) recognises the importance of addressing water supply and flood risk issues within the borough (including the role of sustainable drainage). This has therefore informed the approach in MDD policies CC04, CC09 and CC10.
Homes and Community Agency led partnership 3.29 Berkshire Local Investment Plan 2011-14 - The Local Investment Plan (LIP)30 outlines and integrates, the housing, economic development and infrastructure plans for the next twenty years for Bracknell Forest, Reading, Slough, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham Unitary Councils, the Berkshire East and Berkshire West Primary Care Trusts, The Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service, Thames Valley Police, the Highways Agency, Network Rail, the Environment Agency, Natural England, and incorporate the representations of several major Registered Providers (formerly Registered Social Landlords). It lays out how we are all working together to deliver new housing and urban regeneration as part of sustainable communities.
3.30 The preparation of the LIP has involved consultation and the involvement of a wide range of partners. The LIP provides a robust foundation for our continuing conversations with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and other Government bodies as we move on to discuss and agree the Local Investment Agreement. This will be done in light of the publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and confirmation of the nature of future HCA funding streams and the funds allocated to Berkshire.
3.31 The LIP (Table 34) indicates that there are a number of strategic priorities for housing within Wokingham Borough. These include the implementation of the allocated Strategic Development Locations in policies CP18-21 of the Core Strategy together with the provision of extra-care and specialist housing (which reflects the approach of Core Strategy Policy CP2 as amplified by MDD Policy TB09). The Council (April 2012) completed a dementia and supported living development which the HCA had contributed towards31 as part of the LIP priorities for Wokingham Borough. The Council is working closely with the HCA under the auspices of its LIP to ensure early deliver of the SDL’s, especially north and south Wokingham SDLs.
30 Available at: http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/berkshire-local-investment-plan-2011-to-2014.pdf. 31 http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/news/specialist-housing-scheme-gets-underway-wokingham.
16 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Co-ordination of development around AWE sites 3.32 Co-ordination of planning arrangements around the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) sites at Aldermaston & Burghfield – The MDD (paragraphs 3.12-3.18) summarise the issues regarding development in the vicinity of these AWE sites upon the authorities near to the site – Basingstoke & Deane Borough, Reading Borough, West Berkshire and Wokingham Borough. The Council has and continues to work closely with these authorities (including both land use and emergency planning) together with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (formerly the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate within the Health & Safety Executive) in assessing the implications of development around the two AWE sites. This includes undertaking consultation on proposals where they could be affected by the AWE sites and annual monitoring of approvals to review the work.
3.33 The policy approach of the MDD (policy TB04) reflects that within West Berkshire’s adopted Core Strategy (July 2012)32 which maintains consistency in how proposals around the AWE sites will be assessed.
Informal cross-agency working by Wokingham Borough Council
Infrastructure Delivery Plans for Wokingham Borough’s Local Development Documents 3.34 Joint working with infrastructure providers in the drafting of the Core Strategy and subsequent Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) associated with the four allocated Strategic Development Locations (SDL) - Through the production of the Council’s Core Strategy, the authority worked with a range of internal (including highways, education, community care) and external providers (including the PCT, utility companies, Fire & Rescue Service) in developing the approach to development within the borough in policies CP18-21. Prior to the Core Strategy’s adoption and the subsequently drafting of the SPD for the SDL33, the authority engaged closely with these and other internal & external providers to refine the approach to delivering infrastructure which met the wider needs of these new and existing communities. This is clearly demonstrated in the adopted Infrastructure SPD for the SDL which amplifies the requirements set out in the Core Strategy.
32 See policy CS8 of the Adopted Core Strategy available at: http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=25436. 33 The SPD’s for the SDL are available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/masterplanning/sdls/.
17 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
3.35 Production of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the MDD - In developing the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the MDD34 the Council contacted all relevant internal and external service providers and utility companies, including the PCT, police, Network Rail, Mobile phone operators, Wokingham Borough’s Children Service’s, etc. Whilst the Infrastructure Delivery Plan explains the issues for delivering infrastructure within the borough, a number of the discussions associated with the document informed policy approaches within the MDD. These are explained below.
Water consumption issues 3.36 The discussions of the authority with Thames Water, South East Water and the Environment Agency (pages 4 – 17) through the production of these Infrastructure Delivery Plans and the Blackwater Valley WCS Scoping Study (see paragraph 3.28) together have emphasised the need to reduce water consumption within the borough. Whilst the introduction of water metering by the water companies will help to reduce water usage by existing residents, the inclusion of the “internal potable water consumption target of 105 litres or less per person per day (as part of the requirement to meet full Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4)” in policy CC04 indicates how the MDD addresses this matter for new homes. The “Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the MDD” emphasises how reducing water consumption within the borough forms part of the wider approach to ensuring adequate water supply across the region. As the Statement of Consultation upon the Proposed Submission MDD (LPS17) indicates (pages 73 & 74), the water companies and the Environment Agency support the inclusion of the maximum daily water consumption of 105 litres per person within policy CC04. These discussions also informed the approach to MDD policies CC09 and CC10 concerning addressing flood risk and ensuring the provision of sustainable drainage.
Transport 3.37 Whilst a number of the measures to the borough’s transport network arise from the Council’s involvement in Local Sustainable Transport Fund applications (see paragraphs 3.8 to 3.16), the MDD Infrastructure Delivery Plan35 also details
34 Available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/planningpolicies/ldf/managingdevelopmentdelivery/submissionmdd/?assetdet4358739=210330&categ oryesctl4497852=3388. 35 Available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/planningpolicies/ldf/managingdevelopmentdelivery/submissionmdd/?assetdet4358739=210330&categ oryesctl4497852=3388.
18 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
the specific engagement undertaken with the Highways Agency and other highway bodies (pages 24 - 29). Paragraph 1.4 indicates how the Council partnered the Highways Agency and Reading Borough Council in successfully delivering the improvements to M4 Junction 11. Other improvements to the transport network are envisaged by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which reflects those set out in Core Strategy Policy CP10 and amplified in MDD Policy CC08. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (pages 30 - 37) also details a number of public transport improvements which are consistent with those in Core Strategy Policy CP10 and MDD Policies CC08 and SAL09. The MDD Infrastructure Delivery Plan (page 34) recognises the work undertaken by the Council with Network Rail and South West Trains on delivering improvements to station in Wokingham (envisaged under Core Strategy Policy CP10(4) and MDD policies CC08 and SAL09). These are expected to be completed in August 2013.
Education 3.38 The Council as a unitary authority has undertaken internal discussions (as explained in pages 48 – 60 of the MDD Infrastructure Delivery Plan) to enable consideration of whether there are sufficient primary and school places to enable the delivery of new homes within the borough. Within the Strategic Development Locations allocated by the Core Strategy, new or enhanced primary and secondary provision is envisaged. This mechanism can also be used (where necessary) to provide for the homes envisaged under MDD policies SAL01-03. As paragraph 3.45 below indicates, the officers of the Council’s education service have regular meetings with their counterparts within the other Berkshire authorities. The Council recognises that cross-boundary education requirements could be an issue where the designated area extends into the administrative area of a neighbouring authority, and there are no other schools within that area.
3.39 For primary schools, with the exception of the designated area for Hatch Ride Primary (Pinewood/Crowthorne) (extends into Bracknell Forest and the proposed development at TRL36), as map 1 indicates, none of the other designated areas of the Borough’s primary schools extend beyond the borough boundary into areas where there additional development is envisaged. Additionally, there are no designated areas of primary schools outside of the borough which extend into Wokingham Borough. The Council has had discussions with Bracknell Forest concerning the implications of any additional homes within the designated area of Hatch Ride Primary and have agreed (through the Statement of Common Ground with Bracknell Forest on their Site Allocations DPD) that this will be addressed.
36 Policy SA5 of Submitted Site Allocations DPD
19 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
3.40 For secondary schools, the designated areas of Wokingham Borough’s Maiden Erlegh and Bulmershe Secondary School's extend into Reading as illustrated on map 2. Of the sites proposed for allocation in policies SAL01-03 of the MDD, only the University of Reading's Bulmershe Campus (policy SAL02) lies within a designated secondary school area which extends into Reading Borough. Since the Borough Council resolved to grant planning permission for residential development of this site, any issues of capacity will have been assessed in reaching this decision. Whilst the designated area of Oakbank Secondary School extends into both Reading and West Berkshire (as illustrated on map 3), it overlaps with other designated areas within these authorities (The John Madejski Academy for Reading BC and The Willink School in Burghfield Common for West Berks DC37). Since the areas of Oakbank Secondary designated area outside of the borough overlaps with those of other schools which could meet any of their additional educational requirements, it is not considered that this raises an issue under the Duty to Co-operate. For secondary schools outside of the borough, only the designated area of Edgbarrow , Crowthorne (in Bracknell Forest Borough) extends in Wokingham Borough. Within the designated area of Edgbarrow lies the Hatch Ride/Old Wokingham Rd housing allocation in policy SAL01.
Healthcare 3.41 The MDD Infrastructure Delivery Plan (pages 62 – 66) indicates how the additional requirements for healthcare (following discussions with the PCT) arising from both the Core Strategy and MDD will be addressed. This includes some improvements/expansion of existing surgeries such as that agreed in Ash Court, Rose Street, Wokingham (planning application F/2012/0321) on 4/5/12.
Other discussions/issues informing the approach of the MDD Discussions with the Environment Agency 3.42 The Core Strategy (paragraph 2.20) indicates the importance of ensuring appropriate measures are in place to address any risk of flooding, taking account of the history of such events in the borough. The Council therefore worked closely with the Environment Agency in drafting policies on flood risk and sustainable drainage which have been included within the MDD as policies CC09 and CC10 which continued the joint work with the Agency on the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2012).
37 The designated area of Oakbank within Wokingham Borough also overlaps with those of other secondary schools
20 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Ensuring consistency in policies for sites/locations crossing the borough’s boundaries 3.43 Additionally, the Council has particularly recognised the importance of seeking a consistent approach to planning policies for development where a sites lies within Wokingham and one of its neighbouring authorities (where this is not covered by one of the earlier joint working mechanisms). Consequently, the Council has addressed this through ensure boundaries align for affected sites/locations within the MDD: a) Green Belt boundary – the boundary defined in MDD policy TB01 aligns with the areas within the neighbouring authorities of Bracknell Forest Council and the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (RBWM); b) Development limits - a number of the borough’s settlements directly adjoin those within neighbouring authorities i. (Pinewood (Crowthorne) with Crowthorne in Bracknell Forest; and ii. Earley, Shinfield (N of M4) and Green Park with Reading It was therefore appropriate to ensure that the development limits defined in MDD policy CC01 align with those set by the borough’s of Reading and Bracknell Forest; c) The University of Reading’s Whiteknight’s Campus – both the boundary defined and the associated wording in MDD policy TB14 is consistent with Reading Borough’s Adopted Sites and Detailed Policies DPD (Policy SA6)38. This is important as the Whiteknights campus lies within both Reading and Wokingham Borough’s and the larger proportion (roughly ⅔) is within Wokingham Borough; d) The Shinfield Road District Centre in Shinfield (N of M4) is predominantly within Reading Borough with a small area within Wokingham Borough. The boundary of the centre in MDD policy TB15 aligns with that defined by policy SA15 of Reading Borough’s Adopted Site Allocations DPD. e) The Dukes Ride local centre next to Crowthorne station is predominantly within Bracknell Forest with a small area within Wokingham. The boundary of the centre in MDD policy TB17 aligns with that defined by policy SA13 of Bracknell Forest’s Submitted Site Allocations DPD39; and f) The allocation of open space in policy SAL04 of the MDD to support the implementation of planning policies of Bracknell Forest (Core Strategy Policy CS440 and Site Allocations DPD policy SA8).
38 Available at: http://www.reading.gov.uk/businesses/Planning/planning-policy/sites-and-detailed-policies-document/sdpdadopted/. 39 Available at: http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/siteallocationsdevelopmentplandocument. 40 Available at: http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/corestrategy.
21 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Informal pan-Berkshire work 3.44 There has been collaborative working for many years between the policy function of the Berkshire Authorities through an officer group. Initially this group was set up to co-ordinate the preparation of the Berkshire Structure Plan and Minerals and Waste planning documents, although it was also a useful group for exchanging information on planning policy matters generally. The Officer group remains and meets regularly and exchanges information on experiences of the development plan process and discussion of cross boundary or common issues and jointly procured the Berkshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (July 2007)41.
3.45 These regular joint land use planning meetings are replicated across the authorities within other service areas i.e. environmental health, education, housing strategy and transport and also include intra authority discussions by Chief Executive and Leaders on cross boundary/common areas of interest. Through joint working, Wokingham Borough (on behalf of all the other Berkshire authorities except Slough) has commissioned a methodology for undertaking a gypsy and traveller assessment in line with the guidance published in March 2012. Wokingham Borough is using this joint methodology to assess the needs for gypsy and traveller pitches within its area through to 2026. The Berkshire authorities in the West Central Berkshire market area (September 2006) commissioned a study to consider the need for affordable key worker housing when formulating recruitment and retention strategies.
Strategic Housing Market Assessment 3.46 The Berkshire SHMA (figure 2.16) (July 2007) indicates that the authority is within the same housing market area (West Central Berkshire) as the authorities of Bracknell Forest, Reading, South Oxfordshire (part) and West Berkshire. The Council’s Adopted Core Strategy (Policy CP17) sets a housing requirement for the borough above that within the South East Plan (Policy H1), which is then meet by the policies of the MDD (particularly SAL01 & SAL02). With the exception of RBWM, the authorities commissioned an update of the SHMA to consider Affordable Rent and updated information on housing needs. This was published in February 2012.
Transport modelling 3.46 Additionally, the Council has a joint transport model with Bracknell Forest which ensures that the impacts of development within both authorities on the highway network are fully assessed. The Council has also undertaken modelling for both
41 Available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/planningpolicies/housing/housing-market-assessment/.
22 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Reading Borough and Hampshire County Council to demonstrate how implementation of both the Core Strategy and MDD can be successfully achieved. Policy CC08 of the MDD in amplifying the approach in Core Strategy Policy CP10 provides further details on highway improvements which were assessed through this modelling.
Summary of consultation with the relevant agencies during evolution of the MDD. 3.47 The information in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.46 demonstrates how the Council’s engagement with a wide range of bodies has influenced the drafting of policies in the MDD. This has included matters associated with highways, open space, utility provision and addressing flood risk/drainage. It has also ensured that where feasible, a consistent approach to the determination of planning applications on sites crossing the boundary of Wokingham with its adjoining authorities is achieved. The information in these paragraphs also indicates how the Council’s engagement has informed a large number of the policies within the MDD. This is explained further in table 1 below.
3.48 Additionally, as required by the Adopted Statement of Community Involvement, the Council consults all the statutory consultees42 at every stage in the production of a local plan/DPD including both the Core Strategy and the MDD. Summaries of the responses to the consultation on the MDD from statutory and other bodies/individuals are detailed in the Statements of Consultation LPS10, LPS15a, LPS15b and LPS17, depending upon the stage in the process reached. With regard to the MDD DPD and consultation, the Council has consulted in line with its Adopted Statement of Community Involvement. We have consulted all the necessary statutory consultees, neighbouring authorities, local and adjacent Town and Parish Councils together with those the authority has committed to engage with – non-neighbouring partners within Blackwater Valley Network and the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership.
Details of earlier consultation. 3.49 The Council’s Statements of Consultation (LPS10, LPS15a and LPS15b) provide details of the comments made on the Initial Options for the Housing Site Allocations DPD (August 2006) together with the subsequent Draft Options for the Managing
42 In line with the Duty to co-operate, this will have included all neighbouring district and county council’s, Environment Agency, English Heritage, Natural England, Network Rail and the PCT
23 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Development Delivery DPD (June 2011). Whilst these Statements of Consultation detail all the comments received, a summary of the issues which arose from the Duty to Co-operate bodies and how they were addressed is set out below:
Consultation on Initial Options for the Housing Site Allocations DPD (August 2006) 3.50 Whilst all the Duty to Co-operate bodies were consulted at the Initial Options for the Housing Site Allocations DPD (August 2006) (as explained in paragraph 3.48), the only bodies to respond (and comments) are outlined below. This information also indicates how any issues raised have been considered as part of the submitted MDD (taking account of the Council’s response in LPS10). a) Surrey County Council (ref 31) – no comment Actions in MDD – n/a b) Network Rail (ref 920) – promoting land for development adjoining Wargrave station (LDF site 1WR106) Actions in MDD – the suitability of the site at Wargrave was assessed through the SHLAA and the SA (inc SEA) which informed the Detailed Site Assessment. As appendix 6 of the Detailed Site Assessment indicates, the site was not suitable for a number of reasons, including its location within the Green Belt. c) Highways Agency (ref 1140) – The comments received from the Highways Agency are detailed on pages 16 & 17 of LPS10b. In summary, they request transport modelling be undertaken to ensure that unacceptable impacts on the Strategic Highways Network (particularly the M4) would not arise. Noted that significant development could arise around M4 (junction 11) when assessed cumulatively with Reading’s growth – this must be examined and any issues addressed. There is a need for travel plans associated with all developments (including residential). Concerned that residential development in the borough must be balanced by equivalent employment to minimise any additional out commuting. Need for adequate and timely delivery of infrastructure. Actions in MDD – the Council through both the Core Strategy and MDD have undertaken modelling to demonstrate what impacts (if any) would arise on the road network (including that of interest to the Highways Agency). The Core Strategy (Policy CP10 (6 & 22)) indicates how improvements to junctions on the M4 within the borough form part of the development strategy. The former improvement has been delivered (paragraph 1.4) and the later is retained as a proposal in MDD policy CC08. The approach to housing and employment development within the borough reflects the context for the sub-region provide by the South East Plan. d) GOSE (ref 2860) comments on the SA – need to include more information on data sources and where gaps in information how authority will seek to address.
24 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Issues for MDD – as the authority has taken forwarded the MDD, the authority has updated the baseline information and indicators within the SA (inc SEA). This ensures that monitoring of the MDD effectiveness can be robustly undertaken. e) Natural England (ref 2911) – Comment on SA that authority needs to ensure effective monitoring of impacts of Site Allocations document upon the Thames Basin Heaths SPA are included in the document. This could be achieved by monitoring spread of development around district. Actions in MDD – the authority has worked closely with Natural England and the members of the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership in delivering and implementing an approach to safeguarding the SPA. This informed both Core Strategy policy CP8 and MDD policy SAL05 as explained in paragraphs 3.19 to 3.23. f) Wokingham PCT (ref 3019) – Looking to move patients out of Wokingham Hospital and site was therefore promoted for potential redevelopment (LDF ref 2WK163). Actions in MDD - – the suitability of the site at Wokingham Hospital was assessed through the SHLAA and the SA (inc SEA) which informed the Detailed Site Assessment. As appendix 6 of the Detailed Site Assessment indicates, the site was not suitable for a number of reasons, including uncertainty over whether it was available taking account of the approach in Core Strategy policy CP2. g) Environment Agency (ref 3043) – The comments received from the Environment Agency are detailed on pages 17 & 18 of LPS10b. In summary the agency commented on the need to ensure flood risk was considered in assessing suitability of sites (provided detailed flood risk information of every suggested site), together with issues associated with contamination and source protection zones. Actions in MDD – as explained in paragraph 3.42, the Council has worked closely with the Environment Agency is drafting policies CC09 and CC10. The information on flood risk associated with each site informed the appraisal of each site within the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment together with the SA (inc SEA) and SHLAA. The latter two subsequently informed the Detailed Site Assessment of all suggested sites to identify which should be allocated for development within the MDD. Additionally there was a late comment received from the Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit. This indicated that the authority should consider implications for minerals planning in selecting sites for development. Actions in MDD – the authority has had regard to the mineral implications of developing each of the suggested sites as explained in both the SA (inc SEA) and the SHLAA.
25 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Consultation of Draft Options for the MDD (June 2011) 3.51 Again, whilst all the Duty to Co-operate bodies were consulted at the Draft Options for the MDD DPD (June 2011) (as explained in paragraph 3.48), the only bodies to respond (and comments) are outlined below. This information also indicates how any issues raised have been considered as part of the submitted MDD (taking account of the Council’s response in LPS15a and LPS15b). a) Natural England (ref 0003) – Comment regarding the Habitat Regulations Assessment: Thursley, Ash, Pirbright & Chobham SAC does not include the Castle Bottom to Yateley and Hawley Commons SSSI. Actions in MDD – this correction has been made to the Habitat Regulations Assessment b) Surrey County Council (ref 0004) – no comment Actions in MDD – n/a c) Oxfordshire County Council (ref 0012) – no comment Actions in MDD – n/a d) Highways Agency (ref 0052) – concerned about whether the Council’s transport model adequately assessing impacts on the M4 (especially at Junction 10). Concerned about the cumulative impacts of development on the highway network. Actions in MDD – the Council has undertaken further discussions with the Highways Agency concerning it transport model. The Council alongside the Proposed Submission MDD provided a cumulative assessment of the transport implications of the allocation of the sites proposed, together with those schemes committed within and adjoining the borough. Both the Core Strategy (policy CP10 (22)) and the MDD (policy CC08) include improvements to M4 Junction 10 as a specific proposal. e) Environment Agency (re 0094) – Provide comments on which of the suggested sites were in areas at risk of flooding. A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) should be used as part of site suitability appraisal. Gypsy and traveller sites should not be provide in areas at risk of flooding. Need to consider sustainable drainage measures as part of proposals, especially as the Council along with Thames Water will be the Lead Local Flood Authority. For new burial grounds should consider groundwater levels. Important that approach of SE Plan policy CC7 concerning timely delivery of infrastructure is retained in MDD. Support 10% reduction in carbon emissions and would seek larger reductions. Hydro electric power plants should consider any issues under the Water Framework Directive. Need to consider how proposals can enhance existing habitats and wildlife corridors. SANGs should not be provided on Local Wildlife Sites if other land is available. Proposals along River Thames, Blackwater and Loddon need to consider
26 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
ecological issues as well as the Water Framework Directive. Actions in MDD – the authority undertook an update of its SFRA (February 2012) to ensure it had the latest information to inform site selection. This is demonstrated by the detailed appraisal of sites within the SHLAA, SA (inc SEA) and the subsequent Detailed Site Assessment. This work then informed the allocation of sites in MDD policies SAL01-03 and SAL07-09. The MDD policy on gypsy and traveller sites (TB10) indicates that proposals should avoid areas at risk of flooding. Whilst the MDD policy on burial grounds (policy TB08) does not refer to ground water issues, this is covered by Core Strategy policy CP1 (3). Timely delivery of infrastructure is covered under Core Strategy policy CP4 as enhanced by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which accompanied the MDD (see paragraph 3.35). Environment Agency’s support for reductions in carbon emissions informed MDD policy CC05. The Environment Agency’s comments on flood risk and sustainable drainage informed the Council’s drafting of MDD policies CC09 and CC10, especially as the Council undertook further discussions on these matters as explained in paragraph 3.42. MDD policies CC03 and TB23 recognised the comments of the Environment Agency regarding the role of green networks for biodiversity enhancement and issues within River valleys. The Council’s allocation of SANG in MDD policy SAL05 acknowledged the Environment Agency’s f) RBWM (ref 0120) – no comment but need to consider balance of housing and employment growth in the borough, especially with respect of impacts on neighbouring authority. This is uncertain due to age of Census data. Actions in MDD - The approach to housing and employment development within the borough reflects the context for the sub-region provide by the South East Plan. Issues over age of 2001 Census data recognised, but all authorities are awaiting publication of complete results from the 2011 Census. g) English Heritage (ref 0168) – need to ensure policies cover full range of heritage assets as listed in PPS5 and reflect the aims of the document concerning providing pro-active advice. Welcome increased recognition of importance of heritage issues for the MDD. Actions in MDD – support for increased range of policies covering all heritage assets is noted. The approach in MDD policies TB24-TB26 take account of the comments of English Heritage, whilst recognising replacement of PPS5 with the NPPF. Comments from South Oxfordshire and Bracknell Forest were received after the consultation period had ended. Nevertheless, were relevant, they were considered as part of the drafting of the MDD (as explained below).
27 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
a) South Oxfordshire requested an extension of time for responding. However, this was not considered appropriate. Actions in MDD – n/a b) Bracknell Forest BC – expressed concern about whether all sites suggested around both Wokingham and Crowthorne through the SHLAA were suitable for development, taking account of cumulative impact of proposals in Bracknell Forest. It is important cumulative impacts on infrastructure are considered. In selecting sites for housing, need to consider whether primary/secondary schools can accommodate additional pupils based on cumulative impact of sites within respective designated area. A particular issue is Edgbarrow Secondary School, Crowthorne – the designated area for which extends into Wokingham Borough. Any retention of the WDLP housing allocation of the Hatch Ride site should be assessed for cumulative impacts with the emerging proposals for TRL. Need to ensure adequate SPA avoidance measures are proposed for any site where development would be harmful to the site. A comment regarding whether there is adequate capacity at Rooks Nest Woods SANG for all residential proposal was made on the Habitat Regulations Assessment. Wokingham should undertake an assessment of gypsy and traveller needs to assess requirements post 2016. The MDD should then address any identified need. Support approach to development limits and settlement separation areas around the Wokingham town SDL. Also support allocation of open space at Amen Corner. Whilst support cross boundary local centre at Dukes Ride, concerned that Greenwood Rd, Crowthorne should not be designated as this is only a parade of shops and Bracknell Forest is concerned about subsequent impacts of development here on vitality and viability of other centres. Information of traffic impacts of development proposed by MDD must be produced. Actions in MDD – the cumulative impact of proposals around the borough (including for Crowthorne and Wokingham) was considered in the Detailed Site Assessment which then informed the allocation of sites in MDD policies SAL01- SAL03. Other than the retention of the existing allocation in SAL01, no other sites have been allocated in the MDD within the designated area of any Bracknell Forest School. Since the Hatch Ride site in SAL01 is already within the development limits of Pinewood (Crowthorne), the suitability of the site for residential development has been established. Any issues associated with education provision will be considered as part of the determination of a future planning application. The cumulative impacts of all proposals within the MDD on existing commitments within Wokingham and adjoining authorities i.e. the TRL scheme in Bracknell Forest was considered through the transport modelling undertaken as part of the MDD work. The Council has recognised the issues of SANG capacity and suitability and therefore through MDD policy SAL05 has allocated sufficient additional areas to address he impacts of the proposals within both the Core Strategy and the MDD.
28 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
The support for the Council approach to settlement separation, development limits and allocation of open space which subsequently informed MDD policies CC01, CC02 and SAL04 is noted. The support for the Dukes Ride centre (MDD policy TB17) is noted. With regard to Greenwood Road, Crowthorne, the Council considers its retail characteristics is similar to other existing and proposed local centres in MDD policy TB17 and therefore should be designated accordingly. However, to recognise the scale of local centres in Wokingham Borough, the authority (through MDD policy TB16) has refined the approach on the application of the sequential test to recognise this. MDD policy TB10 outlines the approach of the Council to gypsy and traveller sites pending the work on an assessment of needs undertaking using the Berkshire wide methodology (as explained in paragraph 3.45).
Consultation on the Initial SA (inc SEA) of the Draft MDD (August 2011) 3.52 Again, whilst all the Duty to Co-operate bodies were consulted on the Initial SA (inc SEA) of the Draft MDD DPD (August 2011) (as explained in paragraph 3.48), the only bodies to respond (and comments) are outlined below. This information also indicates how any issues raised have been considered as part of the submitted MDD (taking account of the Council’s response in LPS15). a) Environment Agency (ref 0004) – re-iterate previous comments that sites in flood zones 2, 3a and 3b should not be taken forward for allocation. Actions in MDD – the authority undertook an update of its SFRA (February 2012) to ensure it had the latest information to inform site selection. This is demonstrated by the detailed appraisal of sites within the SHLAA, SA (inc SEA) and the subsequent Detailed Site Assessment. This work then informed the allocation of sites in MDD policies SAL01-03 and SAL07-09. b) Natural England (ref 0012) – no comments Actions in MDD – n/a c) RBWM (ref 0047) – no comments Actions in MDD – n/a
3.53 Whilst the authority has sought view from other organisations when it has undertaken consultation on its own planning policy documents, it has responded to similar requests from neighbouring authorities. These comments have covered a range of issues including those relevant to the Duty to Co-operate. Since January 201243, the authority has formally responded to
43 Following enactment of Localism Act 2011 on 15 November 2011.
29 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
consultations from Bracknell Forest and Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council’s and included concerns over the implications for infrastructure (including highways and education) of proposals within a Site Allocations44 and a Core Strategy45 document respectively. The Council has had discussions with both of these authorities which resulted in a Statement of Common Ground being produced with Bracknell Forest. The Council is still discussing matters with Basingstoke & Deane, although the proposed submission Core Strategy has been withdrawn46. The authority has also agreed a Statement of Common Ground associated with the Duty to Co-operate with Surrey Heath BC.
3.54 The information in paragraphs 3.50 to 3.53 demonstrate how the Council’s approach to consultation with other bodes on its own and there plans has also informed policies of the MDD.
How MDD policies reflect the cross agency working and/or earlier consultation. 3.55 As has been explained in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.54, the Council has engaged through a variety of partnerships and other mechanisms with a wide range of other authorities and agencies which have all influenced the drafting of some of the policies within the Proposed Submission MDD. Detailed below is the chronological order of policies within the MDD which have been influenced by the cross agency working explained above.
Table 1: Summary of Duty to Co-operate bodies involvement in each policy of the MDD MDD Policy Which of Duty to co-operate bodies have influenced policy and how Policy CC01: Development limits Bracknell Forest BC and Reading BC – through ensuring where development limits adjoin settlement boundaries of towns/villages in neighbouring authorities, they are consistent
44 The Council’s response to Bracknell Forest’s Proposed Submission Site Allocations document is available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/minutes- agendas/minutes/?entryid164=202685&q=4231135%7eExecutive+%e2%80%93+Individual+Member+Decisions%7e4231141%7eFebruary%7e. 45 The Council’s response to Basingstoke & Deane’s Proposed Submission Core Strategy is available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/minutes- agendas/minutes/?entryid164=204020&q=4231135%7eExecutive+%e2%80%93+Individual+Member+Decisions%7e4231141%7eMarch%7e. 46 See www.basingstoke.gov.uk/go/corestrategy.
30 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
MDD Policy Which of Duty to co-operate bodies have influenced policy and how (see paragraph 3.43). Bracknell Forest BC – support for definition following previous consultation (paragraph 3.51). Policy CC02: Settlement Separation Areas Bracknell Forest BC – support for definition following previous consultation (paragraph 3.51). Policy CC03: Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping Environment Agency, Guildford BC, Hampshire CC, Hart DC, Rushmoor CC, Surrey CC, Surrey Heath CC and Waverley BC – to implement the agreed Blackwater Valley Strategy 2011-2015 regarding provision of a footpath along the part of the river within the borough and to take account of earlier comments on the MDD (see paragraphs 3.26 and 3.51). Policy CC04: Sustainable Design and Construction Bracknell Forest BC, Environment Agency, Guildford BC, Hart DC, Reading BC, Rushmoor BC and Surrey Heath BC – to implement a measure to reduce water consumption to address one of the issues identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plans for the Core Strategy and MDD, approach of waste minimisation, Blackwater Valley WCS Scoping Study and earlier consultation on the MDD (see paragraphs 3.24, 3.34, 3.36, 3.50 and 3.51). Policy CC05: Renewable energy and decentralised energy Environment Agency – to take account of earlier consultation on networks MDD (see paragraph 3.51) Policy CC06: Noise n/a Policy CC07: Parking n/a Policy CC08: Safeguarding alignments of the Strategic Bracknell Forest BC, Buckinghamshire CC, Hampshire CC, Hart Transport Network & Road Infrastructure DC, Hertfordshire CC, Highways Agency, Oxfordshire CC, S. Oxfordshire DC and Reading BC – to safeguard alignments of transport improvements which enable delivery of the measures identified in the LSTF applications, the work of the Cross Thames Travel Group or plans of neighbouring authorities and
31 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
MDD Policy Which of Duty to co-operate bodies have influenced policy and how earlier consultation on the MDD (see paragraphs 3.8 to 3.18, 3.50 and 3.51). Policy CC09: Development and Flood Risk (from all sources) Bracknell Forest BC, Environment Agency, Guildford BC, Hart DC, Rushmoor BC, and Surrey Heath BC – through implementation of measures to address flood risk issues identified in the Blackwater Valley WCS Scoping Study, the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and earlier consultation on the MDD (see paragraphs 3.28 and 3.50 to 3.52). Policy CC10: Sustainable Drainage Bracknell Forest BC, Environment Agency, Guildford BC, Hart DC, Rushmoor BC, and Surrey Heath BC – through implementation of measures to ensure appropriate drainage is provided as identified in the Blackwater Valley Scoping for the Water Cycle Study, the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and earlier consultation on the MDD (see paragraphs 3.28 and 3.50 to 3.52). Policy TB01: Development within the Green Belt Bracknell Forest BC and RBWM – through ensuring the boundaries of the Green Belt within the borough align with those defined within these authorities (see paragraph 3.43). Policy TB02: Development adjoining the Green Belt n/a Policy TB03: Major Existing Developed Site in the Green Belt n/a (Star Brick and Tile Works) Policy TB04: Development in vicinity of Atomic Weapons Basingstoke & Deane BC, Reading BC and West Berks DC - Establishment (AWE), Burghfield Policy implements the agreed approach following the joint work on this issue (see paragraphs 3.32 to 3.33). Policy TB05: Housing Mix n/a Policy TB06: Development of Private Residential gardens n/a Policy TB07: Internal Space Standards n/a
32 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
MDD Policy Which of Duty to co-operate bodies have influenced policy and how Policy TB08: Open Space, sport and recreational facilities n/a standards for residential development Policy TB09: Residential accommodation for vulnerable groups Homes & Communities Agency – policy implements part of the Local Investment Plan (LIP) for the provision of extra-care and specialist housing (see paragraph 3.31). Policy TB10: Traveller Sites Bracknell Forest BC – to take account of earlier consultation on the MDD (see paragraph 3.51). [Additionally, the Council has led production of a joint methodology on behalf of the Berkshire authorities (see paragraph 3.45)]. Policy TB11: Core Employment Areas and Defined Bad n/a Neighbour Uses Policy TB12: Employment Skills Plan Thames Valley Berks LEP – policy implements one of their key objectives (see paragraph 3.5) Policy TB13: Science and Innovation Park Thames Valley Berks LEP – policy implements one of their key objectives (see paragraph 3.5) Policy TB14: Whiteknights Campus Thames Valley Berks LEP and Reading BC – policy implements one of the LEP’s key objectives and ensures a consistent approach to the cross boundary site (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.43) Policy TB15: Major Town, and Small Town/ District Centre Reading BC – policy ensure a consistent approach to the district development centre which straddles the boundary (see paragraph 3.43). Policy TB16: Development for Town Centre Uses Bracknell Forest BC and Environment Agency – to take account of earlier comments on MDD (paragraph 3.51). Policy TB17: Local Centres and Neighbourhood and Village Bracknell Forest BC – policy ensure a consistent approach to Shops the district centre which straddles the boundary and take account of earlier comments on MDD (see paragraphs 3.43 and 3.51).
33 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
MDD Policy Which of Duty to co-operate bodies have influenced policy and how Policy TB18: Garden Centres and other small rural units outside n/a Development Limits Policy TB19: Outdoor Advertising n/a Policy TB20: Service Arrangements and Deliveries for n/a Employment and Retail Use Policy TB21: Landscape Character n/a Policy TB22: Sites of Urban Landscape Value n/a Policy TB23: Biodiversity and Development Environment Agency – to take account of earlier comments on MDD (see paragraph 3.51). Policy TB24: Heritage Assets (Listed Buildings, Historic Parks English Heritage – to take account of earlier comments on MDD and Gardens, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation (see paragraph 3.51). Areas Policy TB25: Archaeology English Heritage – to take account of earlier comments on MDD (see paragraph 3.51). Policy TB26: Buildings of Traditional Local Character and Areas English Heritage – to take account of earlier comments on MDD of Special Character (see paragraph 3.51). Policy SAL01: Allocated housing development sites (Sites Bracknell Forest BC and Environment Agency – designated identified through Wokingham District Local Plan) areas of primary and secondary schools for one of the allocated sites includes areas in both authorities and to take account of earlier comments on MDD (see paragraphs 3.39, 3.40 and 3.50 – 3.52). Policy SAL02: Allocated housing development sites Bracknell Forest BC, Environment Agency and Reading BC - designated area of a secondary school for one of the allocated sites extends into authority and to take account of earlier comments on MDD (see paragraphs 3.40 and 3.50 – 3.52). Policy SAL03: Allocated reserve housing sites Bracknell Forest BC and Environment Agency – to take account of earlier comments on MDD (see paragraphs 3.50 – 3.52).
34 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
MDD Policy Which of Duty to co-operate bodies have influenced policy and how Policy SAL04: New public open space associated with Bracknell Forest BC – one of the sites supports implementation residential development within and adjoining the Borough of housing allocation policy of authority and to take account of earlier comments on the MDD (see paragraphs 3.43 and 3.51). Policy SAL05: Delivery of avoidance measures for Thames Bracknell Forest BC, Elmbridge BC, Environment Agency, Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Guildford BC, Hart DC, Natural England, RBWM, Runnymede BC, Rushmoor CC, Surrey Heath CC, Waverley BC and Woking BC - through implementing the approach of the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership and to take account of earlier comments on the MDD (see paragraphs 3.20, 3.50 and 3.51) Policy SAL06: Allocated Country Parks n/a Policy SAL07: Sites within Development Limits allocated for Environment Agency – to take account of earlier comments on employment/commercial development MDD (see paragraphs 3.50 – 3.52). Policy SAL08: Allocated Mixed Use Sites Environment Agency – to take account of earlier comments on MDD (see paragraphs 3.50 – 3.52). Policy SAL09: Transport site allocations Environment Agency, Reading BC and West Berks DC - to enable delivery of the Park & Ride’s associated with the Reading Local Sustainable Transport Fund application and to take account of earlier comments on MDD (see paragraphs 3.10 and 3.50 – 3.52). (Also provides part of solution identified in Cross Thames Travel (paragraph 3.18)).
4 Conclusion 4.1 Although the earlier stages of the MDD DPD preparation were undertaken before the Duty to Co-operate requirement from the Localism Act and NPPF arose, the Council has a track record of working collaboratively with all the prescribed bodies through to the submission of the MDD. Since the Council will continue to collaboratively with other bodies on strategic and local issues, it is satisfied that it has achieved the legal test set by the Act. As this document demonstrates, ⅔ of the MDD’s policies (30 out of the 45 policies in the document) reflect the Council’s recognition of actions it should implement to ensure
35 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
that this collaboration is achieved. These 30 policies cover a wide range of duty to co-operate matters reflecting those issues which have arisen through discussions and other mechanisms with the relevant bodies as explained in appendix 1. Therefore the policies of the MDD clearly emphasise how the authority has worked with partners to draft and the implement policies which recognise wider issues.
36 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Appendix 1 - How Wokingham Borough meets the Duty to Co-operate requirements for the MDD DPD:
Duty to Cooperate body47 How we engaged and relevant Strategic Issues Outcomes Local Planning Authorities All adjoining local planning authorities have been consulted at each of the adjoining Wokingham stages in the production of the MDD, together with the earlier Core Borough Strategy as explained in paragraph 3.48 1 Buckinghamshire County Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48) plus LSTF bid (paragraphs 3.13 to Policy CC08 of MDD as explained in table Council $ 3.15). LSTF is only strategic issue since no direct link between authority 1. due to River Thames 2 Wycombe District Council Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). No strategic issues as no direct n/a link between authorities due to River Thames 3 Royal Borough of Windsor & Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policies TB01 and SAL05 as explained in Maidenhead # $ consistency of cross-boundary policies on Green Belt) (paragraph 3.43) table 1. and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23). 4 Bracknell Forest Borough Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC01, CC03, CC04, CC08-10, Council * # $ including: TB01, TB10, TB16, TB17, SAL01-SAL04 a) consistency of cross-boundary policies on Green Belt, open and SAL05 as explained in table 1. space, settlement limit and retail) (paragraph 3.43), b) the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23); c) LSTF bids (paragraphs 3.11, 3.12 and 3.16), d) Transport modelling (paragraph 3.46); e) Educational provision (paragraphs 3.39 and 3.40); f) Waste disposal (RE3) (paragraph 3.24); and g) Water supply and recreation across Blackwater Valley (paragraphs 3.25-3.28). 5 Hampshire County Council * Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC03, CC08 and SAL05 as $ including: explained in table 1. a) the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23); and b) Transport modelling (paragraph 3.46); and c) Recreation across Blackwater Valley (paragraphs 3.25-3.28).
47 Those authorities followed by an “*” are within the Blackwater Valley Partnership (see paragraph 3.21-3.24). Those authorities followed by an “#” are full members of the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership Board which also includes Natural England (see paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19). Those followed by a “$” are highway authorities (see row 29).
37 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Duty to Cooperate body47 How we engaged and relevant Strategic Issues Outcomes 6 Hart District Council * # Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC03, CC04, CC09, CC10 and including: SAL05 as explained in table 1. a) the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23); and b) Water supply and recreation across Blackwater Valley (paragraphs 3.25-3.28). 7 Basingstoke & Deane Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policy TB04 as explained in table 1. Borough Council around the AWE sites (see paragraphs 3.32 and 3.33). 8 West Berkshire Council $ Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.49). Work on strategic issues Policies CC08, TB04 and SAL09 as including: explained in table 1. a) LSTF bids (paragraphs 3.8 - 3.10), and b) Development around AWE sites (paragraphs 3.32 and 3.33). 9 Reading Borough Council $ Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC01, CC04, CC08, TB04, TB14, including: TB15, SAL02 and SAL09 as explained in a) consistency of cross-boundary policies on settlement limit, table 1. University of Reading campus and retail) (paragraph 3.43), b) LSTF bids (paragraphs 3.8 - 3.10 and 3.12), c) Cross Thames travel (paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18); d) Development around AWE sites (paragraphs 3.32 and 3.33) e) Educational provision (paragraph 3.40); and f) Waste disposal (RE3) (paragraph 3.24). 10 Oxfordshire County Council $ Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policies CC08 and SAL09 as explained in Cross Thames Travel (see paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18). table 1. 11 South Oxfordshire District Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policies CC08 and SAL09 as explained in Council Cross Thames Travel (see paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18). table 1. Other Local Planning All these other local planning authorities have been consulted at each of Authorities Council has the stages in the production of the MDD, together with the earlier Core cooperated with Strategy as explained in paragraph 3.48. The authority has engaged with these bodies as members of either the Blackwater Valley Partnership and/or the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership Board. 11 Surrey County Council * $ Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policy CC03 as explained in table 1. recreation across Blackwater Valley (paragraphs 3.25-3.28. 12 Surrey Heath Borough Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC03, CC04, CC09, CC10 and Council * # including: SAL05 as explained in table 1. a) the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23); and
38 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Duty to Cooperate body47 How w e engaged and relevant Strategic Issues Outcomes b) Water supply and recreation across Blackwater Valley (paragraphs 3.25-3.28). The Council has also agreed at Statement of Common Ground on Duty to Co-operate matters with Surrey Heath BC (paragraph 3.53). 13 Guildford Borough Council * # Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC03, CC04, CC09, CC10 and including: SAL05 as explained in table 1. a) the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23); and b) Water supply and recreation across Blackwater Valley (paragraphs 3.25-3.28). 14 Waverley Borough Council * Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC03 and SAL05 as explained in # including: table 1. a) the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23); and b) Recreation across Blackwater Valley (paragraphs 3.25-3.28). 15 Rushmoor Borough Council * Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC03, CC04, CC09, CC10 and # including: SAL05 as explained in table 1. a) the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23); and b) Water supply and recreation across Blackwater Valley (paragraphs 3.25-3.28). 16 Runnymede Borough Council Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policy SAL05 as explained in table 1. # the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23). 17 Elmbridge Borough Council # Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policy SAL05 as explained in table 1. the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23). 18 Woking Borough Council # Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policy SAL05 as explained in table 1. the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23). Other Duty to cooperate bodies 19 Environment Agency Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues Policies CC03-CC05, CC09, CC10, TB10, concerning flood risk, sustainable drainage and reducing water SAL01-SAL03, SAL05 and SAL07-SAL09 consumption (see paragraphs 3.28 and 3.36). as explained in table 1. 20 English Heritage Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). No strategic issues concerning Policies TB24-TB26 as explained in table protection of heritage assets within the borough. 1. 21 Natural England Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Policy SAL05 as explained in table 1. the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (paragraphs 3.19 – 3.23). 22 Mayor of London Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). The authority has engaged with The Core Strategy (Policy CP10) and
39 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Duty to Cooperate body47 How we engaged and relevant Strategic Issues Outcomes Transport for London through consulting with its wholly owned subsidiary MDD (Policy CC08) safeguards the Crossrail Ltd at each stage in the production of the MDD. alignment of the proposed extension of Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading. 23 Civil Aviation Authority Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). No strategic issues concerning n/a aviation in the borough. 24 Homes and Communities Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work delivering the Berkshire LIP Policy TB09 as explained in table 1. Agency (see paragraphs 3.29 – 3.31). 25 Berkshire West Primary Care Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues including Delivery of enhanced services through the Trust long term planning for healthcare (see paragraph 3.41). Development Management process (see paragraph 3.37). The new facilities required to support Strategic Development Locations allocated in Core Strategy will be delivered through the respective policy (CP18-21). 26 Office of Rail Regulation Whilst the authority has not directly engaged with ORR, it has consulted The Core Strategy (Policy CP10) and with Network Rail, Crossrail Ltd and the two Train Operating Companies MDD (Policy CC08) safeguards the (First Great Western and South West Trains) that operate within the alignment of the proposed extension of borough. Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading. These policies also safeguard other improvements to the rail network i.e. station redevelopments at Reading & Wokingham together with improvements to the Great Western mainline and Western Access to Heathrow. As paragraphs 3.4, 3.13, 3.16 and 3.33 indicate, these projects are at various stages in their implementation. 27 Transport for London The authority has engaged with Transport for London through consulting The Core Strategy (Policy CP10) and with its wholly owned subsidiary Crossrail Ltd at each stage in the MDD (Policy CC08) safeguards the production of the MDD. alignment of the proposed extension of Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading. 28 Integrated Transport Authority The closest Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) to Wokingham Borough is n/a the one for the West Midlands. They have not indicated that development within the borough would affect their activities. Consequently, the Duty to
40 Wokingham BC – Submitted Managing Development Delivery DPD (Local Plan) (December 2012) – Summary of Duty to Co- operate compliance
Duty to Cooperate body47 How we engaged and relevant Strategic Issues Outcomes Co-operate is not relevant. 29 Each highway authority within The Council has consulted the neighbouring highways authorities and the The Core Strategy (policy CP10) and the the meaning of section 1 of Highways Agency at every stage in the production of the MDD (see MDD (Policy CC08) indicates that the Highways Act 1980 paragraph 3.48). improvements are envisaged to the M4 (including the Secretary of Details of the specific additional engagement and outcomes with adjoining (including Junction 10). These would State. This is through the Highways Authorities (County & Unitary authorities) are detailed in rows 1, follow the successful joint improvement of Highways Agency and the 3-5, 9 and 10 above. The Council through the implementing its Core the Council, the Highways Agency and other bodies listed above Strategy has had discussions with the Highways Agency over the Strategic Reading BC for Junction 11 (paragraph (followed by a $). Road Network, especially the M4 (including its junctions). 1.4). The transport modelling undertaken by the authority to support both the Core Strategy and MDD has involved discussions with the Agency to address any issues identified. Any improvements necessary to the network necessary would be covered within the policies of the Core Strategy (CP10) and MDD (CC08). 30 Marine Maritime Organisation Wokingham Borough has not been contact by any Marine Maritime n/a Organisations concerning any Duty to Cooperate issues associated with Marine Plans since the borough has no coastline. Therefore, the Duty to Cooperate is not relevant. 31 Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Statutory consultation (paragraph 3.48). Work on strategic issues to Policies CC08 and TB12-TB14 as delivering their objectives (see paragraphs 3.2 to 3.5). explained in table 1.
41 PRIMARY SCHOOLS Map 1: Map showing designated areas of primary schools serving Wokingham Borough
KEY: Primary schools
Primary school catchment areas 2012/13
Borough Boundary
© Crown Copyright and database rights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100019592
For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. Scale 1:75,000 at A3 SECONDARY SCHOOLS Map 2: Map showing designated areas of secondary schools serving Wokingham Borough
KEY: Secondary Schools
Secondary school catchment areas 2012/13
Borough Boundary
© Crown Copyright and database rights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100019592
For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. Scale 1:75,000 at A3 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012