HORTON AND WRAYSBURY HORTON AND WRAYSBURY
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan CONSULTATION STATEMENT
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Contents Contents ...... 1 1. CONSULTATION PROCESS ...... 2 Introduction ...... 2 1.2. Organisational Structure of the HWNP ...... 2 1.3. Overview and Timeline ...... 3 1.4. Process details ...... 6 2. CONSULTATION RESPONSES & ANALYSIS ...... 8 2.1. Questionnaire response rate ...... 8 2.2. Questionnaire Analysis - Key Findings ...... 8 2.3. Draft Plan Feedback Survey ...... 9 2.4. Progressing the Plan ...... 9 3. PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION (Regulation 14) ...... 10 3.1. Introduction ...... 10 3.2. Distribution to Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees ...... 10 3.3. Regulation 14 response...... 11 4. Appendices ...... 12 A. Questionnaire Survey 2014 ...... 12 B. Feedback Survey – publicity material and responses ...... 28 C. Pre-Submission Draft Plan Publicity ...... 30 D. Schedule of Pre-Submission Consultation Comments and Responses ...... 32
Page 1 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 1. CONSULTATION PROCESS Introduction
This Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 in respect of the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan (HWNP).
The legal basis of this Consultation Statement is provided by Section 15(2) of Part 5 of the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations, which requires that a consultation statement should: • contain details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood development plan; • explain how they were consulted; • summarise the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; • describe how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant addressed in the proposed Neighbourhood Plan.
This Consultation Statement summarises all statutory and non-statutory consultation undertaken with the community and other relevant statutory bodies and stakeholders in developing the HWNP. In particular it describes how concerns have been addressed and what changes have been made to the final plan as a result of statutory pre-submission consultation. Preparation of the Plan has been overseen and co-ordinated by the HWNP Steering Group which was formed to lead the Plan. Considerable interaction with the community, including surveys, public meetings and events, led to creating the Vision and Objectives and subsequently therefore form the basis for the key policies set out in Sections 4 and 5 of the HWNP. 1.2. Organisational Structure of the HWNP
The Parishes of Horton and Wraysbury, forming one Borough Ward, agreed to work in partnership as a Designated Neighbourhood Planning Area under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.
Agreements signed by Horton Parish Council on 13th November 2012 and Wraysbury Parish Council on 19th November 2012 were registered with the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (RBWM) on 26th November 2012. The neighbourhood area was designated by RBWM on 21st March 2013.
The structure put in place was for the parish councils to delegate to a small Steering Group leading to work across a number of key themes: • Housing • Built Environment & Community Facilities • Open Environment • Business & Economy
The HWNP has been prepared after extensive community involvement and engagement. The HWNP Steering Group has reflected the views of the community of the need for well-designed development principally to address local needs, along with the provision of community infrastructure. Page 2 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 1.3. Overview and Timeline
The community engagement process began in 2013 with two initial consultation events which took place in mid-April 2013 – one in Wraysbury Village Hall, the other in Champney Hall, Horton. At these publicised drop-in events residents listed their concerns and ideas on various topics. Both events were well supported by residents and contact details were taken of those who attended. Main issues identified were:-
* Not enough smaller dwellings for those downsizing or for starter homes * Rebuilds are too large and not in keeping with surrounding properties * New houses need to be appropriate and above flood level * Conserve village appearance by keeping to the character of each area, and to protect the historic environment and heritage assets * Maintain our footpaths and keep access to lakes and other open spaces that villagers have used for many years * Pavements need to be levelled and wide enough for wheelchair users * Protect this area of historical natural beauty and for future generations * Have our ditches cleared out regularly to help reduce flood risk * Maintain and improve bus services and improve road safety.
During the remainder of 2013, the Steering Group met regularly to assimilate the feedback and identify issues highlighted from the initial consultations and to formulate ideas and objectives aimed at addressing villagers’ aspirations.
The Steering Group then concentrated on establishing a Vision for the area, and nominated Topic Group leaders to work on Housing & Built Environment, Community, Environment, Business & Economy. The Topic Groups continued to gather information including contacting local groups, and a Neighbourhood Plan website was set up to keep residents informed of progress and to receive comments. The Parish Council websites were also used to inform on the Plan’s progress.
The Steering Group continued to narrow down the options and formulate key objectives from residents’ concerns. A major questionnaire survey was then constructed to get the views of the community on the initial aims. This was run from 1st September to 7th November 2014 online via the Borough Council’s Survey Monkey system so data could easily be assessed. Paper copies were made available to those without computer access and special meetings with the Age Concern groups were held, along with assistance at the village Container Library for young and old.
Publicity for the questionnaire was extensive, with a glossy leaflet drop to all addresses in our neighbourhood, plus an article and advert in the local magazine, which has 2,500 copies distributed to all households and drop points in both villages, and also using the villages’ Facebook group and the Neighbourhood Plan and Parish Councils’ websites. Posters were on display in the villages. Open Days were held during September 2014 to promote the questionnaire in both villages which received good community response and there was a stand at the popular St. Andrew’s Church Garden Party event.
Page 3 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
Fig.1 Questionnaire publicity leaflet
The Steering Group then worked on analysing the responses and comments from the questionnaire during the early part of 2015 and from those, formed Objectives on the various Topics – Housing & Built Environment, Community, Environment, Business & Economy. An area Character Assessment was carried out by planners organised by Planning Aid England. This has been added to with our local knowledge to make it more comprehensive and to be used as a means to inform on design standards.
It was recognised that further engagement with the community was needed to seek views of parishioners on the proposed policy ideas, and to explain the constraints to development regarding flood zones and Green Belt in our area.
An Open Day was held in April 2016 in Wraysbury Village Hall where residents and enterprises were invited to view and comment on the policy proposals for the HWNP. At the all-day event, there were display boards highlighting around ten broad policy ideas focusing on planning based issues that emanated from the earlier questionnaire. The survey continued
Page 4 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 online until early May to give everyone the chance to view the emerging plan and to post their comments.
Promotion for this was through a neighbourhood wide mailshot, posters, plus the websites, Facebook and local paper publicity, with more than 200 responses being received.
Fig.2 Press publicity for the feedback Open Day
After analysing the evidence gathered from the various surveys, the Steering Group finalised the Draft Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan in September 2016.
The Regulation 14 Pre-Submission Consultation on the document was launched at St Andrew’s Church Garden Party in Wraysbury on 3rd September. This was followed by a public Drop-in event on October 10 (4pm-8pm) in Wraysbury Village Hall.
The consultation ran for an eight-week period from 3rd September until 31st October, 2016. A co-ordinated publicity campaign was undertaken which included distributing a four-page A5 colour leaflet to all addresses in Horton and Wraysbury, detailing where the full draft plan could be viewed and comments could be made.
The leaflet also contained a non-technical brief version of the Plan which set out the most important points – and publicised the open day events. A notice and link to the Plan was added to the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan website, the Wraysbury Parish Council website, the Wraysbury News Facebook group and the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Facebook page.
In both villages, copies of the full paper version of the Draft Plan along with large printouts of the Summary Version were available in key stores and community sites, and large publicity banners were displayed in both villages. The consultation was covered in the local press and notifications were sent to statutory and non-statutory consultees. Page 5 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
1.4. Process details
Approaches to engage the community The central focus of all consultation information has been the HWNP website, with links to the parish councils’ websites. This has been a useful and well-publicised source of valuable and up-to-date information about all aspects, and stages, of HWNP development. In addition to the website, there were updates on the Wraysbury News Facebook Page – a useful information hub for both villages. It was recognised that not all sectors of the community had access to the internet, so information also went out via the Primary School, community and nursery groups’ email lists, plus the library and Age Concern. Leaflets and posters were also used as well as publicity in the Wraysbury News magazine, which is distributed to households throughout the ward, and the local press.
HWNP Drop-In Days Drop-In Days gave the community the opportunity to look at the Plan including the vision and objectives and emerging policy proposals. The events had informative visual displays as well as leaflets, and members of the Steering Group were available to advise and discuss the plan with the public. Hand-outs and feedback forms were provided and 'Post-It' boards for people to add spontaneous comments. The Feedback sessions were very useful to gauge responses to the objectives and policy proposals and to help shape the direction of the Plan.
The following surveys and consultation activities were undertaken: -
• Initial Drop-In day consultation events, one in Horton and one in Wraysbury – April 2013 • Engagement with local groups including visits by members of the Steering Group – 2013/14 • Community Questionnaire Survey launched - 1st September to 31st October… extended to 7th November 2014. • Community Questionnaire Survey Drop-in event at Wraysbury - 4th September 2014 • Questionnaire display and stand at Wraysbury church garden fete - 6th September 2014 • Community Questionnaire Survey Drop-in event at Horton - 11th September 2014 • Draft Policies Feedback Survey Drop-in Day at Wraysbury (Based on you said – we did) – 9th April 2016 • Draft Policies Feedback Online survey - April-May 2016 • HWNP Pre-Submission Draft consultation launched at Wraysbury church garden fete – 3rd September 2016 - and online from 3rd Sept to 31st Oct 2016 • HWNP Pre-Submission Draft consultation Drop-in and Q&A event – 10th October 2016
Page 6 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
Fig.3 Banner at the HWNP stand at St. Andrew’s Church Garden Party
People were informed about the HWNP and all Drop-In Days in the following ways:
• Glossy leaflet drop to all addresses in the two parishes • An advert and article in the Wraysbury News magazine (delivered to all houses in the ward) • Use of social media including information on the Wraysbury News Facebook group and the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Facebook page, the Horton & Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan website and the parish councils’ websites. • Posters in shops and key places in the villages. • Articles in the local newspapers • Large banners in both Horton and Wraysbury, facing the main road.
Stakeholder consultations Throughout the process, The HWNP Steering Group worked closely with both Wraysbury Parish Council and Horton Parish Council (both joining to form the HWNP – being one ward).
Other consultees that the Steering Group engaged with included neighbouring parish councils, the borough council, local landowners, and local community groups.
* An example of community involvement was this message emailed to the members of Wraysbury Action Group, a residents pressure group, by their Secretary in October 2014 to generate interest in the early ideas for the Plan: -
Page 7 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
Help shape the future of your community Having been involved with the first steps of looking into the Neighbourhood Plan quite a while ago now I am personally keen to see that as much of our community as possible get the opportunity to have their say! Please read the attached information from the group who is leading on this and take just a few minutes to fill in the Questionnaire at their website here: www.hwnp.co.uk. It is vitally important that as many people as possible, all members of your household - young and old, get the opportunity to contribute to our Neighbourhood Plan. If you aren't aware of what a Neighbourhood Plan is, please visit the website above and learn more, and why it's important for you to have your say. We all feel so passionately and proud about Wraysbury - so please, don't leave it to someone else to say what you think! Have your say today! -- Su Burrows, Secretary WAG
Engaging with hard-to-reach groups As a result of the engagement process, the Steering Group considered that there were some groups that weren’t being engaged well in the process. As a result, specific actions were undertaken to address this:-
• Elderly less mobile residents or those without email: Sessions were held at the Age Concern group and local Pop-In meetings with the Steering Group Chairman invited to speak at both. • Young families: Contact was made with the local Primary School and Nursery groups. • Young people: The Steering Group Chairman was invited to speak at a group session with the local Scouts & Guides Troops.
2. CONSULTATION RESPONSES & ANALYSIS 2.1. Questionnaire response rate
There were 487 responses. This represents a response rate of:-
* 24% when taken on the number of households - 1,996 (census 2011) * 12% when taken on the electorate - 4,050 (RBWM figures from 2012) * 9.5% when taken on the number of residents – 5,156 (RBWM data on adults & children 2012)
NB: The Steering Group feel that the percentage relating to households could be more indicative as the majority of responses were completed by one member of a household. The comment from the Plan’s RBWM link officer was:- “This is a very good response rate and compares well with surveys undertaken by the Ascot NP group (circa 5% achieved online) and Hurley & The Walthams NP group (c. 10% achieved using a hard copy delivered to all households).
2.2. Questionnaire Analysis - Key Findings
The views of parishioners with regard to new homes showed that they would prefer them to be on previously developed land so as to preserve the openness of the Green Belt, SSSIs, edge of settlements and the countryside in both Horton and Wraysbury. There was a big majority (86%) of Page 8 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 residents who supported this approach, and 80% who would prefer the Neighbourhood Plan to set the criteria for size, density bulk, including rebuilt plots and house extensions.
It was agreed by 278 (79%) residents that there should be a greater mix of smaller 2/3 bed starter homes and for some level access for retired people. The elderly and less able would prefer smaller properties close to the centre of the village as they often were unable to drive and the bus services were too infrequent.
The survey showed 81% in favour that any rebuilds should not reduce flood storage capacity which could increase flooding elsewhere.
There was strong support to conserve the historic buildings in the plan area, to maintain the character of the villages as well as the community facilities along with the local shops. Also important was to preserve open green space, along with maintaining current footpaths and seeking further leisure routes through permitted paths.
2.3. Draft Plan Feedback Survey
This survey on the policy proposals was valuable and produced a good number of responses, some by hand on the day of the Drop In event in April 2016, and some online via the website through Survey Monkey. Around 175 people came along and posted 279 comments across 11 key policy proposals, while via the website there were 35 responses stating whether or not they agreed on the policy proposals listed.
The results underlined what was discovered during the questionnaire.
Residents overwhelmingly supported having policies dealing with the size and designs of new builds, including residential extensions, and that they should not be over-dominant to their surroundings and be in keeping with the character of the area. Also fully supported was the need to have smaller properties for downsizers and first time buyers who wish to stay in the villages.
However, a policy that was being promoted to restrict the loss of small dwellings through enlargement and redevelopment met a significant amount of opposition on the grounds that it would prevent families enlarging their properties to meet their changing requirements. The Steering Group therefore decided to remove this draft policy from the Pre-Submission version of the Plan.
Other key points that had strong support were to maintain front hedge landscaping to preserve green streetscenes - and to have sufficient on-site car parking. The feedback also showed approval for the policies on identifying and conserving our open green spaces and to have more footpaths for recreation. Conserving facilities in the ward was strong.
2.4. Progressing the Plan
Every comment received from surveys, public consultations and meetings has been reviewed in detail by the Steering Group and actions made to help shape the Plan. Updates on the progress of the Plan were posted on the Plan website and advertised in the Wraysbury News magazine which is delivered to all addresses in the ward. Page 9 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 3. PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION (Regulation 14) 3.1. Introduction
The Pre Submission HWNP was published for consultation on 3rd September 2016 and made available until 31st October 2016 on the HWNP website where Response Forms were available and comments could also be made via a Survey Monkey link. Paper copies were available at key locations in both villages in the ward.
A co-ordinated publicity campaign was undertaken which comprised: • Glossy leaflet drop to all addresses in the ward • Drop-In events to engage with the community • Information in the Wraysbury News magazine (delivered to all houses in the ward) • Use of social media including information on the Wraysbury News Facebook page, the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan website and the parish councils’ websites. • Articles in the local newspapers, and posters in shops and key places in the ward. • Large banners in both Horton and Wraysbury, sited to face the main road.
3.2. Distribution to Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees
In accordance with requirements of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations, statutory consultees were informed of the consultation by letter or email with a Pre-Submission draft of the Plan attached. Hard copies were available on request. In addition, a range of parties that the Steering Group considered were likely to have an interest in the plan were also written to.
The list of statutory consultees that were written to is as follows: Horton Parish Council / Wraysbury Parish Council / RBWM / Environment Agency / Natural England / Homes & Community Agency / Historic England & English Heritage / National Trust / Network Rail / Highways Agency / Primary Care Trust / Datchet Health Centre / Affinity Water / Thames Water. Neighbouring councils: Datchet, Slough, Spelthorne, Runnymede.
Other consultees: Colne Valley Regional Park / Chiltern Homes / RK Leisure / Age Concern / Wraysbury Village Club/ Churches: St Andrew’s, Wraysbury; St Michael’s Horton; and Wraysbury Baptist. Public Houses: The George Inn / The Perseverance / The Crown / The Horton Arms (formerly the Five Bells). Local sports clubs: Wraysbury Bowls Club, Wraysbury Cricket Club, Wraysbury Football Club and Wraysbury Lawn Tennis Club. All properties mentioned in the Plan.
Page 10 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
Letter to statutory and non-statutory organisations:
Horton and Wraysbury Draft Neighbourhood Plan Consultation
The 3rd of September marks the beginning of the formal consultation on the draft consultation. Both Horton and Wraysbury Parish Councils agreed in principle to go out to consultation. The statutory time set is 6 weeks but the Parish Councils are extending this to the 31st October. You will find copy of the plan on the Horton and Wraysbury Parish Councils websites and the Neighbourhood Plan website www.hwnp.co.uk . In addition, there will be a form on which you can reply. There will be two opportunities to go to meetings to express your opinions at: Horton on 20th September from 4 to 7p.m. at Champney Hall Wraysbury on 10th October 4p.m. to 8.00 p.m. at Wraysbury Village Hall
All these details are given to you on a leaflet to be delivered to every house and business in the two Parishes. Printed copies of the plan will be available in certain locations and can be loaned for people to read. Please do respond if you have points to make. These comments will be considered by both Parish Councils before the final Plan goes to the vote by our residents.
Margaret Lenton (Chairman of Wraysbury Parish Council and of the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.)
3.3. Regulation 14 response
In total there were 35 respondents to the Pre-Submission Consultation. This included statutory respondents the Environment Agency, Natural England and Thames Water along with residents and other stakeholders.
The schedule of comments and the respective responses made are shown in the Appendix section.
Page 11 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 4. Appendices
A. Questionnaire Survey 2014
The results from the 2014 questionnaire survey ran to 157 pages. The following extracts from the questionnaire are the most pertinent to the Neighbourhood Plan.
Question 3:
To what degree do you agree with the Vision and Objectives (detailed below)? 1 = Not at all agree ...... 5 = Completely agree
Rating Response Answer Options 1 2 3 4 5 Average Count 6 7 15 67 326 4.66 421 answered question 421 skipped question 53
The Vision and main Objectives of the Plan are to:- • Preserve and enhance the rural and historic character of our villages • Maintain our green open spaces and surroundings for recreation and well-being, and to protect the Green Belt • Respond to the housing needs of our communities by development and building that is sympathetic to the area and has a mix of housing types to include family homes, affordable housing, single person households and for our ageing population • Seek easy access to local quality health care for all ages of the community • Have adequate bus services that properly serve our villages, • Improve road safety for all road users and have better paths and pavements for our pedestrians • Protect and encourage small and medium-sized businesses, including retail and make it attractive for people to work and shop locally • Ensure proper flood protection including dredging and maintaining ditches and water courses and to support the River Thames Scheme
Question 9:
Change of Use: Do you think it is acceptable to allow change of use in the following categories?
Don't Answer Options Yes No Response Count Know Residential to Business 110 177 52 339 Business to Residential 250 47 41 338 Other 9 8 28 45 Please give an example if you selected Other above. 31 answered question 356 skipped question 118
Page 12 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
Residential to Business Business to Residential No Other
Don't Know
Respondent Please give an example if you selected Other above. ID 3570007969 Stringent plans must apply to any of the above. 3564256317 Care would need to be taken to select sites which could ensure reasonable separation. Too many houses in my road are businesses with vans and lorries in and out and parked in the 3562584462 road. Recent problems with change of use by shops adjacent to the George Public House and 3557267869 restaurant. 3555892707 Unused / empty business land available could be used for new residential homes 3547744534 if the circumstances are right. CONVERTING LARGE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES TO MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY BY SUBDIVIDING INTO 3545241460 APPARTMENTS We need to be careful of the type of business for change of use. Current planning laws allow to 3544306752 much freedom for the type of business Office next to Harcourt in residential historic setting of village, changed use from office to retail - now have profusion of vehicles, making my turning into the Harcourt road hazardous, as vehicles pull out in front of me, thinking I am signalling to turn into the shop area when actually taking the Harcourt road turning, also garish neon lit signs which look really ugly in 3543191625 this setting. Don't think this was an acceptable change of use for local residents. 3541521944 It depends on the business type or what business we might be losing. All within reason – since the greater flexibility eases the pressure produced by rigid box 3538757093 controls - and frozen thinking just ends up with rigor mortis. Restoration of use/habitation of derelict properties on corner opposite the Perseverence. It is 3537267239 a blight on Wraysbury. 3532497196 Morris-type development at Hythe End 3530430527 Retirement Homes If a business folds up it is obvious that something should happen to the property. Residential 3519536830 to Business is more problematic. 3518193443 Within reason and careful controls
Page 13 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent Please give an example if you selected Other above. ID Charge of use from Business to Residential would open the prospect of getting around conventional planning restrictions. e.g. At TW19 5DH there is a considerable properly development business already operating with plant and heavy equipment from a supposedly residential house and ' barns'. If changes were brought those out buildings would quickly 3516752464 become residential against green belt and flood plain restrictions. 3516069342 Allow an internet business from a residential home. 3514398807 Fish and chip shop or convenience store in a residential area. Area management has to be flexible but sometimes it is not well thought out i.e. the new 3513331832 convenience store and then next to it some fashion place which wants all the parking spaces! 3507592420 Depends on what type - No to retail car sales on residential roads for example 3505345369 Residential and business to transport where appropriate PC needs to buy brownfield sites and set up small units. There are plenty of examples of great 3492275194 units in other areas that enhance the local amenity. 3492250416 Again need to sort of all illegal homes as business first No one cares. 3458710049 Redundant Farm buildings to Residential 3458465842 Leisure facilities could be further developed 3458462030 Leisure facilities There is a housing shortage so a business to residential could deal with this if its an appropriate 3447838121 location Too broad a question. Resident to business depends entirely on what sort of business. The 3446439967 same applies in reverse If allowed to turn residential into business how would this be in keeping with the village ethos. 3436504364 how would this be policed not allowing the area to be made into a small trading estate 3433996319 This depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
Question 19:
Please tick all items that you think have had a bearing on flooding, and select one that you feel was the most significant Most Response Answer Options Had bearing significant Count Development on flood plain 202 76 259 Ditch maintenance 219 99 298 Failure of owners to maintain river and ditch banks 193 78 259 General development 154 43 191 River management 189 189 306 Run off from cultivated fields 121 31 148 Water course obstruction 186 75 248 Other 51 26 70 If you selected other above, please enter the description in the box. 100 answered question 340 skipped question 134
Page 14 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Development on flood plain
Ditch maintenance
Had bearing Failure of owners to maintain river and ditch banks General development
River management Run off from cultivated fields Most significant Water course obstruction Other
Respondent If you selected other above, please enter the description in the box. ID Constant rain brought about by jet stream and non-stop low pressure systems 3570298181 across SE. The failure to dredge the Thames. The jubilee River and the failure of the parish 3570007969 Council to insist that all water courses are reinstated and maintained for full capacity of flood water. Much of the problems have arisen when "someone" decided to stop dredging the 3564256317 river bed and consequently allowed the water to continue rising. Ditch maintenance must be improved at the present time very little is done. Trees 3558069976 need surgery urgently 3558033252 Ditch maintenance is very poor! plus the trees need urgent surgery
3557771854 NB: Most of above items have together added to the flooding in the village. Diversion of River by-passing Maidenhead and Windsor main cause of disastrous 3557267869 flooding in 2014 Dredging of the Thames in this area has not been done since the 1980s. Then the 3557251727 Jubilee River was built to keep Maidenhead dry so now we get that water coming down here too - it is a disgrace and very unfair to us all in Wraysbury. 3557235696 The Jubilee River control at fault here 3556119985 Jubilee River being used to save Windsor and Maidenhead at our expense. Thames alleviation scheme should have started down river. As it is, the effective 3555243347 removal of the flood plain between Maidenhead and Windsor has meant more problems down river from the Jubilee. 3555046337 Jubilee River
Page 15 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent If you selected other above, please enter the description in the box. ID Jubilee River - floods plains in Windsor & Maidenhead bypassed therefore dumping more water at a faster pace to Datchet & beyond! EA kindly sent me letter to say our house at 0.5% chance of flooding but that's if the Flood Relief 3554867439 Scheme is finished & likely not to be completed for over a decade - what was the point of the letter?! Will the scheme be finished? This has to be the priority although the other facts listed will help. 3554780830 Jubilee river 3552303480 Lack of dredging 3552232214 Flooding of non-cultivated land opposite our property It's criminal that people are allowed to get away with non-permeable driveways, despite the conditions imposed on every planning approval. I understand a condition is imposeable by law but this remains toothless as it's yet to be applied anywhere. Very careful consideration needs to be taken about risking wider flood damage to areas of Wraysbury that didn't flood at the start of the year, by linking Wraysbury 1 and 2 lakes with the Thames. I think local people should be 3552090508 directly culpable if this happens and different properties are flooded as a result of power granted to the local plan. Despite all the knowledge and history of Wraysbury held by some members of the community, I still don't feel this will be enough, as the topography of the area has never been as it is today due to development, Jubilee River, and the ever-changing gravel pits (loss of trees, floodplain, etc.) Adequacy of road drainage. The road outside our house floods with minimal 3548563802 levels of rainfall. we have the Wraysbury Ditch at the bottom of the garden .It seems that it used 3547194159 to be sprayed each year by the council .It isn't anymore and gets blocked very badly so much that the water can't flow at all. Rivers and ditches should be cleaned up in the summertime (of all the rubish and 3546944382 possibly made deeper so they don't overflow the rivers should be dredged 3544306752 Volume of rain is the main issue here 3544279174 Jubilee River 3544170616 Failure of the council to clear Road side Drains which , leads to flooding. Jubilee diversion (and lack of for these residents) Arrogance of environment agency staff back in December when they made checks (told me face to face in a 3543577521 patronising manner that there was no chance of water getting up our street/park, note, we live on The Green and it subsequently flooded) Blocked drains in the village - puddles around drain covers suggest that blocked 3543191625 drains are just not being dealt with. 3543028575 Jubilee River The main problem directly contributing to flooding in Wraysbury, Horton and Datchet is, of course, the Jubilee river project, (do not allow anybody to repudiate 3540391502 that), and until funding is forthcoming for the proposed Lower Thames Strategy, this will continue year after year whenever adverse weather conditions or above average rainfall occurs
Page 16 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent If you selected other above, please enter the description in the box. ID I am a Civil Engineer and development of housing in the floodplain is only likely to have been a very minor factor in recent flooding. So far as Wraysbury is concerned – I believe everybody knows that it was actually caused by the greater throughput water on this part of the river due to the Jubilee bypass of the river 3538757093 carried out at enormous cost to protect residents of Bray. Government assertions otherwise are simply nonsensical by any standards – it does not need an engineer to see that if you pour what amounts to 2 rivers into one you are likely to get overflowing of the river you're pouring it into – it really is just a simple as that. Residents unaware of the need to restrict use of dishwashers/washing machines during floods. Not enough advice communicated. Also, more advice needed 3538372576 regarding disposal of household waste into the drainage system during floods which can cause blockages and build-up of waste. i.e. cooking oil flushed into drains of some households. 3538325054 jubilee cut All the storm drains in this area are completely silted up. The Water Board 3537928281 informed me when they were fitting new pipes 3537681375 Jubilee river management 3537378998 Neighbour pumping water out of his basement at number 27 3537342317 Jubilee River 3537220142 Jubilee River 3537122414 Opening the Jubilee River to dump water on Wraysbury Clearly there are numerous factors at work here, but they all pale into insignificance when compared to the only real option available: the LTFRS. Please 3537098515 - let's make a real and concerted push for this to become a reality and not just a documented plan in the Environment Agency's filing cabinet. 3534443650 Jubilee River operation Backwater of Friary Island totally blocked. The main river at Friary Island is the 3532838565 narrowest section downstream of Oxford! An effective backwater flow would help floodwater pass.. 3532497196 Jubilee River 3531990149 block paving of driveways restricts absorption and increases surface water 3531030465 We need to clear the Wraysbury Drain Aviva Water's refusal to allow public access to Queensmead Lake and inability to 3530671447 do anything to prevent lake overflow 3530430527 Jubilee River 3528742299 Drains are never cleared. Perceived mismanagement of Jubilee River and failure to plan for the effects of 3527436308 dumping two river loads of water into the Datchet area and downstream. 3526414515 The redirection of water to Wraysbury waterways from other areas If the flood plain "Thames Field" was to ever be built on all occupants of Ouseley 3525459508 Road and Friary Road and surrounding roads would be totally under water and devastation would occur.
Page 17 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent If you selected other above, please enter the description in the box. ID Thames Water not opening gates correctly to allow water to flow in the correct 3521854212 way for the conditions Probably the most significant is the weather and the increase in rainfall. Beyond 3521444440 our control The Thames should be dredged and along the river trees have fallen in and are 3520903022 slowly making the river narrower, the environment agency seems to concerned with frogs than people, especially boaters and those living close to the river Development of the Church Lamas lakes as a flood alleviation channel by the 3518376146 Environment Agency without consideration to houses built in their East Berks division across the border from their North West Surrey division. Local authority giving planning permission to excessive sized buildings with 3518324087 impermeable driveways and garden garages/outbuilding in the highest of flood plain areas next to the Thames 3518227836 Poor local river controls when we were flooded this year and some years ago 3518074225 Jubilee River being opened at night, at high tide. 3516581662 Drainage apparently not installed/maintained adequately. 3514302055 Jubilee river 3512845561 Jubilee River Very concerned about the Jubilee River as the up river water filling the Jubilee 3512280152 River is put back in the river in Datchet affecting Wraysbury. Total lack and understanding of river management. Jubilee river has totally 3512262226 altered the flood levels downstream of Eton. 3512160805 DELIBERATE FLOODING UPSTREAM FROM JUBILEE RIVER Use of the jubilee river to protect Maidenhead and Windsor against the interests 3511253694 of Wraysbury 3509924895 JUBILEE RIVER 3509893240 Jubilee River development. Jubilee river caused extra serious flooding in Datchet Wraysbury area and urgent 3509813068 action need to extend the scheme down river but of course this will be forgotten as the months pass since the flooding 3508593119 Provision of mains drains without adequate flood isolation valves construction of the Jubilee River - I think that has had the most significant 3508465436 negative impact on the possibility of flooding in Wraysbury 3508080807 Jubilee Relief Canal Need to dredge rivers, maintain ditches, clean drains. Ditches have full grown 3507592420 trees in them - this is how long we have gone without maintenance. Roads flood as well, which we should be able to manage better. Discarded rubbish dumped in the ditches and water courses caused blockages 3507270992 and diverted the water into the streets Failure of the EA to maintain the capacity of the R Thames and control of the 3505922303 Jubilee River 3505345369 Lack of southern extension to Jubilee River
Page 18 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent If you selected other above, please enter the description in the box. ID These questions are not really useful as the average person or Councillor or MP for that matter has no clue about flood plains. The question should be are you 3492275194 happy with some flooding, no flooding and how much would you be willing to contribute to your wish? The lack of finishing section two and three of the flood protection - Jubilee river was never intended to be on its own, the second and third parts down The Thames should have been done simultaneously. I don’t care what anyone says, 3473557757 opening the gates to protect Windsor and Maidenhead DEFINITELY did for Wraysbury. If the next two barriers had been erected so the gates could have been opened all down the Thames, the flow of water could have been managed properly. 3472302778 Jubilee river directing away from Maidenhead to Datchet. Loss of flood plain along route of Jubilee River has exacerbated flooding 3472000777 downstream 3471917163 Jubilee river. The Jubilee river caused most of our problems, lack of dredging in the Thames, 3471553978 flood banks not maintained The Jubilee River I consider to be the worst offender contributing to flooding in Horton, Wraysbury, Egham, Staines, Chertsey i,e. Maidenhead and Windsor are 3462306362 protected at the expense of the above. Insufficient/lack of river dredging also significantly contributes to flooding To minimise flooding at peak water times the overall capacity of the Thames would need to be increased. The only effective way to do this is to reduce 3461221015 obstructions and the main obstructions are the bridges. All arches that have been blocked should be opened. Bridges with multi pillars should be replaced with complete spans. Worst offender is the Jubilee bypass that saves Maidenhead and Windsor at the 3461003904 expense of Wraysbury, Horton, Datchet, Eton etc. 3460558912 Jubilee river 3459202024 The Jubilee River 3458710049 Farmers did not cause flooding of any land 3458465842 In adequate drains which is down to Thames Water. Sadly this area was badly let down by the environment agency who failed to 3455282615 maintain flood defences adequately 3455016079 all the flood ditches are blocked 3454716357 Caused by Jubilee Ditch My next door neighbour lived in the house for nearly 80 years. she said "the men" used to come round every seven years to clear the Colne Brook at the bottom of 3454042623 the garden. We have been here over 30 years and have never seen any activity accept for an angling club on the far bank. 3452412789 Windsor/Maidenhead flood relieve river. Millennium river. The jubilee river and the large volume of small bungalows being turned into 6-8 3447838121 bedroom properties has between the two upset the balance on with general poor maintenance.
Page 19 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent If you selected other above, please enter the description in the box. ID The extra-ordinary amount of rain during the winter fall on already waterlogged ground. Probably all of the above had a bearing to a greater or lesser extent but it 3447328258 is when they all come together that the big problem exists. Solving our problem just shifts it down stream lack of dredging of the last few years, following sale of the dredging fleet. The 3446439967 Jubilee River stopping at Wraysbury, therefore Windsor was by-passed and its flood plain was not used. Environment Agency not consulting local experts. 3441481669 The drains are rarely if ever cleared. 3441061208 Jubilee River effect House holder not maintaining trees and shrubs overgrowth from falling and 3436504364 blocking watercourse. the council not willing to clear it or making householder pay for clean-up 3435941860 Mismanagement of the Jubilee River 3435319523 Jubilee River problems and dredging work not being actioned 3434442240 Weather 3433942808 Jubilee river
Question 20:
Which of the following issues are important to you?
Response Answer Options Important Unimportant Count Aircraft Noise from Heathrow 277 70 347 Fly Tipping 313 22 335 Maintenance of Green Spaces and Village Greens 344 8 352 Maintenance of Play Areas 278 38 316 Maintenance of Public Footpaths 324 18 342 Odours 170 95 265 Preservation of Existing Farmland 246 59 305 Protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest 266 47 313 (SSSIs) Remaining within the Colne Valley Regional Park 183 103 286 Signposting and Preservation of the Ankerwycke 272 47 319 Historic Site Traffic and Site Noise from Village Businesses 199 98 297 If there is another issue of importance to you, please enter the details in the box 80 below. answered question 365 skipped question 109
Page 20 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Aircraft Noise from Heathrow 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fly Tipping
Maintenance of Green Spaces and Village Greens Important Maintenance of Play Areas Maintenance of Public Footpaths
Odours
Preservation of Existing Farmland
Protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Unimportant Remaining within the Colne Valley Regional Park Signposting and Preservation of the Ankerwycke Historic Site Traffic and Site Noise from Village Businesses
Respondent If there is another issue of importance to you, please enter the details in the ID box below. Aircraft noise from Heathrow especially late at night. Often aircraft are flying 3564484725 over after 11 pm at night disturbing my sleep. The footpath from Sunnymeads down to the village is very uneven which is exacerbated by overhanging trees and hedges in the adjoining gardens - very 3564256317 often obscuring the light from the lamp posts and causing pedestrians to walk in the road. Shoppers car too small, used by people for all day parking. Speeding in the village 3558069976 causes many problems Traffic lights or zebra crossing needed Shoppers car park insufficient space parking on the kerbs presents a danger to all 3558033252 residents Important for the children's play area to be regularly maintained also our 3557771854 footpaths, which are often left overgrown. Lack of parking spaces in the car park by the shops. Most of the cars there 3557251727 nowadays are from people leaving their cars and walking down to the trains. That is not at all fair on the shopkeepers or the shoppers. Poor parking near school in Wraysbury and speeding near school. General 3557139800 roadside rubbish. Increased noise from Heathrow aircraft following changes in flight paths over 3555892707 homes 3555849870 Fencing of the lakes Having lived in the village for 28 years we have seen fences etc. appearing all ove 3555734413 the village and the freedom we enjoyed is non-existent 3555243347 Protection of verges 3555046337 Flood prevention 3554867439 Other options are important but less so currently to us personally. Page 21 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent If there is another issue of importance to you, please enter the details in the ID box below. The landfill site near the old sailing club on Staines Road is under threat of becoming a solar farm. This could set a worrying precedent for losing more of our green spaces. RK Leisure are a cancer on Wraysbury. They have fenced off areas 3552090508 under a mask of public liability insurance, they have complete disregard of any local footpaths that they have just blocked - and this is probably just the beginning. Their unscrupulous behaviour suggests they have more in mind. We simply cannot lose our SSSI lake access to Wraysbury 2. Extensive gravel extraction is disturbing throughout the day, causing pollution 3548563802 and noise. Traffic speeding in the village. The traffic calming is ineffective. Also need cycle 3544306752 path to Staines The children's park fence on The Green still hasn't been fixed over. Year since the trees fell down and the flood. There has also been vandalism by kids. It would be 3543577521 good for the police community support to come by on a weekend/evening from time to time to stop these youths. It would also be good to clean up the kids area. 3543191625 Air quality exceeding European standards and actually shortening our lifespan! 3543161078 Vehicles exceeding 20mph speed limits in Wraysbury village The Post Office proposal to modernise our present post office and the ludicrous plan to close our PO for the month of December - the busiest time of year for 3540643469 them. How are the elderly and car less people supposed to post parcels and cards abroad. People from Staines come to Wraysbury in Dec. because the PO in WHS Staines is not adequate. VAST improvement needed in the children's play area! Remove many old trees to 3538372576 allow light. Much maintenance needed on the equipment in said play area. Better safety for pedestrians crossing the high street. 3538325054 very anti 3rd runway at Heathrow-noise intrusive enough already 3537928281 The riparian services we used to have many years ago. 3537925973 Items left blank = don't know 3537244203 Dog mess needs to be sorted too - it is awful for pedestrians 3537109098 Negative affect Heathrow expansion will have on local area Nothing matters as much as flood protection. No matter how much we invest in 3537098515 our community, our land, our homes - what is the point if floods wash it all away again? 3535719820 Cycle path between Wraysbury and Staines. Cycle paths, generally Police presence: The only time we see them is when they are hiding in the Bushes 3534478083 trying to film someone doing 35 in the 30 zone. 3534443650 Some LA assistance towards maintaining unadopted roads and lighting - not fully Speed of traffic through the village - speed bumps installed in Windsor road just 3531990149 act as chicanes - and do nothing to restrict traffic to the 20mph speed limit! 3530671447 Speeding on Wraysbury Road I think we should have double yellow line on one side of high street, opposite the 3529665617 shops, also disable parking outside frost in car park Page 22 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent If there is another issue of importance to you, please enter the details in the ID box below. 3528742299 Lack of a mains gas supply to parts of the village. 3525459508 Keeping Thames Field as a flood plain NO BUILDING 3521299593 Excessive movements of heavy duty vehicles down small roads i.e. Feathers Lane 3520903022 I do not support an extra runway. 3520706519 Expansion of public footpaths pedestrian crossings My son cycles along the Staines Road to work every day. It is lethal! It's narrow, there are blind bends, puddles come halfway across in the wet. Either there 3519536830 should be a cycle path or the road should be widened and the trees and bushes kept back from the bends. If you don't do it soon, someone will be seriously injured or killed. 3518439788 Current totally inadequate flood management. Cars parking at the eastern junction of Gloucester Drive and Wraysbury Road 3518376146 obstructing the sight of drivers pulling out of Gloucester Drive. Another 2 issues: 1.Cars parked on pavements blocking the walkway when the driveway has sufficient space 2. Massively overgrown hedges and bushes that 3518324087 take up more than half the walkway along narrow roads like parts of Welley Road and Ouseley Road. Foot paths across Church Meadows and around the lakes of Wraysbury have 3516752464 been blocked off. Lack of visible police presence. Drainage and street lighting to be improved and 3516581662 maintained. 3514932159 Signposting and preservation of all local historic sights 3514302055 Speed of traffic down Station Road In addition to Fly Tipping I an upset by the general litter around in the area, this is probably a bit beyond Wraysbury and Horton area but between the villages and 3512280152 the airport it gets very bad. It must look like a third world country to people arriving at Heathrow. Multiple occupancy houses leading to loss of trees and shrubs from people paving 3512262226 over their front gardens. Inconsiderate parking on main roads. 3510416496 cycle paths Number 60 bus to adhere to timetable 3509924895 Thames field is a tragedy it could be a very important meadow for a site of SSI. 3509893240 A ban on all ' land banking' activities. 3509813068 Maintaining roads in good and safe condition 3508759141 No development on Green Belt land. I think Wraysbury would benefit from a more regular bus service to surrounding 3508465436 towns General litter and broken glass, a danger to dogs and children alike, although 3507270992 most folks regularly pick up litter. Dog waste is increasing even though there are plenty of bins.... 3505922303 Increased traffic through village and inadequate parking 3505345369 Poor bus service to Windsor Poor Rail connection to Gatwick 3492275194 Frankly this is all business as usual. No change with this set of questions.
Page 23 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Respondent If there is another issue of importance to you, please enter the details in the ID box below. Again this could be made better if action was taken against illegal business again 3492250416 no one cares councillors & council to interested in saving money - services reduced to below standard 3487420420 pot holes in roads, speeding through village Live music noise. Highway and sidewalk maintenance - the hedges on the way to 3473557757 the station make it impossible NOT to have to walk on the road in some place. It is dangerous. I hate not being able to walk round some of the lakes any more. 3472471587 Dog mess and litter 3472358623 Speeding by residents and non-residents on narrow roads 3472000777 Traffic associated with Heathrow and M25 3471553978 Access to Queensmead lake to local people, more control of RK leisure Parking issues around Wraysbury School needs addressing before the school is 3464908470 allowed to expand further. It's already bigger than the area can cope with and shouldn't have expanded this far Traffic management in parts of Wraysbury need attention - particularly the 3461221015 racetracks that are Station Road, Coppermill Road and Staines Road., Regular dredging Investigation into why the Wraysbury Drain loses its water 3461003904 during the summer months and it miraculously reappears overnight sometime in the autumn 3460558912 Clearing and maintenance of Wraysbury ditch 3459327539 speeding cars in the villages 3458710049 We need to stop the villages been used as a rat run Yes the humps in the roads, they do not stop the speedsters, they overtake at 3456368132 breakneck speeds just the same, it is an accident waiting to happen. Also cars parking on the pavements, you have to step into the road to get by. 3454716357 Flooding 1) When the M25 is clogged up people use Wraysbury & Horton as a rat run to 3454042623 the M4 2) Speeding along Coppermill Road. It never happens when the police cameras are parked in the reservoir entrance opposite us 3446439967 Disruption to WiFi signals and mobile phone signals by Heathrow take-offs 3436567290 Traffic through the village - large vehicles, including public buses speeding. General loss of greenery in front gardens large golden gates and brick walls rather 3436504364 than wooden fencing or shrubs, large frontage gardens having not greenery Traffic using the village as a cut through when the motorways are congested and 3435941860 air pollution from Heathrow and the motorways 3434772856 I would like more accessibility to walk around the village lakes 3433948436 Drivers ignoring speed limits through the villages despite speed humps
Page 24 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Question 24:
Are you in favour of promoting a network of Permissive Paths?
Response Answer Options Response Count Percent
Yes 75.9% 274 No 4.7% 17 No opinion 19.4% 70 answered question 361 skipped question 113
Question 25:
Suggested approach: Seek locations that are Brownfield sites as opposed to building on undeveloped Green Belt land, the flood plain or the edge of a settlement area. Do you agree?
Response Answer Options Response Count Percent
Yes 81.8% 287 No 5.1% 18 Neutral 13.1% 46 answered question 351 skipped question 123
Page 25 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
Question 26:
Suggested approach: To set criteria for size, density and housing type and for house extensions and related development. Do you agree? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 80.6% 286 No 8.7% 31 Neutral 10.7% 38 answered question 355 skipped question 119
Page 26 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Question 27:
Suggested approach: To promote a greater mix of housing types and sizes, especially bungalows and 2/3 bedroom properties and including the supply of level access houses. Do you agree?
Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 79.0% 278 No 7.4% 26 Neutral 13.6% 48 answered question 352 skipped question 122
Page 27 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
B. Feedback Survey – publicity material and responses
Page 28 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
Page 29 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
C. Pre-Submission Draft Plan Publicity
Page 30 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Non-technical summarised version of the Plan delivered to all householders in the ward;
Page 31 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 D. Schedule of Pre-Submission Consultation Comments and Responses
Have you anything to say about Section 4 - the Visions and Objectives?
Ref Org Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM001 Resident Note 1: Concerning Page 13/48 Percentage figures for the Noted. None Required age group of 29 - 60 are not included which they should be. Note 1: Only included figures on “People” Note 2: Page 15/48 Horton & Wraysbury residents aged graphics page to especially demonstrate 16-74 in 2011 in full/part-time or self-employment. how the population of under-30s and over- The Work from Home figures are missing and are vital to 60s has increased to back up the need for this page and show why an improvement of local amenities starter and downsizer homes. is so important. According to Wikipedia and the last census Note 2: Those who work from home (2011) figures "most recent census in which around 12% of the Is listed on the employment page as 9.23%. population work from home and the average distance travelled to work is 14.24 km (nearly nine miles). SM005 PJSA Agree to retain and enhance, but council need to consider Noted. The ability to provide additional None required Chartered that there is a significant requirement for new homes and housing is limited by the extent of the Plan Surveyors the policies of the draft NP do not provide adequate area in Flood Zone 3 and also to the extent C/O Rayner policies on how housing and housing numbers or sites that of the Green Belt. The policies seek to Family Trust can be brought forward for development. increase housing supply consistent with flooding and Green Belt constraints. SM006 Wraysbury Agree with the vision Noted None required Bowls Club SM007 Resident The rural and semi-rural environment is important for the Noted None required health and well-being of residents. I agree with the vision and objectives SM008 Resident Seem sensible Noted None required Page 32 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM009 Resident Good Noted None required SM010 Colne Valley Overarching Vision: The Colne Valley Park CIC supports this Comments noted Relevant section Park vision. However we suggest the opening is changed to “To amended in line Community retain and enhance the rural setting of….” with comments Interest Page 17 d) open environment: We support the 2 existing and also updates Company bullet points. A 3rd bullet point should be added “To made to the encourage sustainable land use in line with the 6 objectives “Profile of the of the Colne Valley Regional Park. Namely landscape, Community countryside, biodiversity, recreation, rural economy, Today” and “Open community participation” Environment” sections’ objectives and policies to include reference to the Colne Valley Regional Park SB002 Environment Flood risk Noted …. No change Agency We welcome objective a) second bullet point and that your already covered by Policy SUSDEV02 required neighbourhood plan will have consideration to flood alleviation measures. However, for your neighbourhood plan to be in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and associated National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG), your plan should also ensure that any new development proposals are located where there is the lower risk of flooding (flood zone 1), avoiding therefore areas at higher fluvial flood risk.
Page 33 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
Have you anything to say about the Policy in Section 5 a) - Sustainable Development?
Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM007 Resident Sustainable development is difficult to quantify since any development in a Noted None required flood plain must by its nature reduce the capacity of the land to store floodwater SM010 Colne Valley SUSTDEV02 We strongly support the reference to Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes Noted Provision of Park (SUDS) and encourage this to be more strongly worded within the policy sustainable drainage Community rather than referring to other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan (of which and porous/permeable Interest there are none) and local plan. It is vital in this area so prone to flooding surfacing for driveways Company that new developments do not increase surface run off which will added to policy NP / contribute to the existing problem. HOU1 RC001 Resident SUSTDEV02 There are a few areas of land in Wraysbury which are open and Noted but None required undeveloped, in the Flood Plain and the Green Belt and close to main national and local roads. For instance land in Station Road, Wraysbury, including that plan policy both opposite the old Green Man. Under this policy these cannot be developed. indicate that new However they are small and of no use for anything else and are very development vulnerable to being occupied by travellers. should not be There should be a flexible policy that allows for appropriate Flood Plain allowed in areas development on these sites rather than a general presumption that there liable to flood should be no development. Further to the above comments, areas such as those opposite the site of the Green Man and further along Station Road in front of the Dive Centre. SB002 Environment SUSTDEV02 We welcome the inclusion of policy NP/SUSTDEV02. However, in relation to Noted. New final sentence to Agency replacement dwellings and extension of dwellings proposals, consideration Policy SUSDEV02
Page 34 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan should also be given to the improvement and reduction of flood risk overall added which covers (both on and off site) in line with the NPPF. this Concern. RC017 Resident SUSTDEV02 This is great in theory, but can it be enforced? Can maintenance of existing Noted The enforcement of flood barriers in people’s private land be enforced and included as policy planning conditions is a rather than a nice-to-have? matter for the LPA. SB006 RBWM SUSTDEV01 Do you need this policy as well as the NPPF? Noted. This is a None required commonly found policy in Neighbourhood Plans and is also used in Local Plans. PC001 Horton SUSTDEV01 Introduction of a Development Policy to ensure that any future building of Look to amend Policy SUSTDEV01 and Parish scale is submitted to the Village Community for consultation with the for the the reasoned Council Developers before it goes to Planning committee. The Development Submission justification have been Schedule is a policy Ascot & Sunnings have which insists that for any version. updated to incorporate developments of more than 10 dwellings or 0.4 hectares, there has to be a the need for a community consultation with the Developers before it is submitted for Development Brief on planning. This is the time when the community would discuss the fabric, all housing design etc. and encourage/persuade the developer to do it in such way that developments of 10 would be sympathetic to the rest of the area. This is particularly important dwellings or more. for Horton now that there are proposed plans to be included in the BLP for Appendices for 27 houses in Coppermill Road and 100 dwellings at Mildridge Farm and Development Brief and with possible Heathrow expansion. Statement of Community Consultation added.
Page 35 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017
Have you anything to say about the Policy in Section 5 b) - Housing?
Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM001 Resident DG4 I think it would be appropriate to make it 7 years before a property can go Noted but this Policy DG4 now (DELETED) onto the open market as this will help build on our local community and allocation has deleted prevent us becoming a transient community. been removed from the Plan. SM003 Resident DG1 (NOW Whilst the NP Steering Group agree that the current parking provisions Noted Policy HOU1 now HOU1) within the Local Plan are sufficient for Wraysbury I think we should still includes parking detail parking provisions that we would require in case the Local Plan standards for the Plan policies change. area.
Page 36 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan DG2 I think there should be more specifics within this policy relating to the Noted Reference to height (now height of new or replacement dwellings. Whilst I appreciate that added to policy HOU2) replacement properties have to be built higher than the originals to NP/HOU2 but this is alleviate flooding, some recent replacement dwellings have been absolutely really a matter for enormous. #4 Fairfield Approach has been built with flood voids and is judgment at the 7.5m high which dwarfs the bungalow at #6. However, there are other development planning applications that have been approved where the height of the management stage building is even greater e.g. 3 Riverside at 8m and 68 Ouseley Road at 8.5m. when dealing with Pending Consideration planning application for 7 The Avenue has a height planning applications. of 8.8m. Can a maximum height of 7.5m be set for detached properties? This would not apply to developments like Old Mill Place and Harcourt as these are developments where all the properties have the same look. This policy includes a requirement of a minimum distance of 1.5m from each side boundary for any new or replacement dwellings and any side extensions. A planning application has been submitted for 63 Welley Road (16/02887) where, from the plans, it appears that there will be only 1m and 1.4m between the building and the side boundaries. However, the Parish Council have no objections to this planning application. Perhaps there should have been an objection on the grounds that this application was not in line with the Pre-Submission Draft Neighbourhood Plan. SM005 PJSA DG4 The Council indicates that they can provide approximately 390 dwellings Site is green belt This is a Chartered (DELETED) per year based on identified capacity. This equates to 7,415 dwellings up to and is within the representation that Surveyors 2029/30. However, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment has flood plain. relates more to the C/O Rayner established an annual need of around 700 for the borough, meaning that emerging Local Plan as Family Trust the Council’s target will only equate to only 55.7% of the identified need. opposed to the This is a significant shortfall and cannot be described as sustainable. Neighbourhood Plan. Page 37 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan Moreover, of the 7,415 dwellings that are identified, only 72 of these This plan has to be houses are within Horton and Wraysbury, suggesting that only 3.7 consistent with dwellings will be required each year within both villages. This is clearly strategic policies in the insufficient and will only worsen the existing situation, driving property Local Plan and national prices up and meaning that people born within the villages will struggle to policy, both of which live in the villages. We believe that the site at Berkyn Manor should come presume against forward for development within the locality under Policy NP/DG4 - development in the Residential Development. The existing Manor House is in a severely Green Belt or areas dilapidated state and could never be brought out of disrepair. We believe liable to flooding. that with the demolition of the existing Manor House, the site could be developed with new residential housing. The Rayner Family Trust are willing to provide discounted market values to local residents of the parish. The site is approximately 3 acres in size and has the potential for approximately 20-25 homes. SM006 Wraysbury WBC members who live in Wraysbury have said that they fully agree with Noted None required Bowls Club these policies SM007 Resident This is a sound policy Noted None required SM008 Resident DG2 (NOW Agree in principle with the criteria as set out. Re: DG2 (NOW HOU2).1, I Noted Reference to height HOU2) wonder whether height level should be included, or does scale and bulk now included in Policy include that. I appreciate rebuilding of properties in the severe flood zones HOU2 is probably required to be built higher with a void perhaps, but some recently seem to be excessive and stand out against nearby properties. SM009 Resident Policies seem to be what is needed in this community Noted None Required RC001 Resident DG3 (NOW Agree with the policy. There is a particular need for small one and two Noted None required HOU3) bedroom properties/apartments for younger adults/families and older persons who would like to 'downsize' within the village. Recent planning
Page 38 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan decisions do not seem to have recognised this. Perhaps we need encouragement for smaller developments with such properties.
RC002 Resident DG3 (NOW It is stated we need affordable housing so why was one, very large house Noted but this None required HOU3) recently put up in the village on Staines Road and not smaller units. refers to a previous decision on a planning application prior to the NP being made DG4 I am concerned about the proposed development between 37-119 Noted This site allocation has (DELETED) Coppermill Road. This is a narrow piece of land and trees will be removed been removed from to make room. There is also the chance of owners parking on the road, the Submission Version which is a busy traffic route and used by a lot of drivers as a race track and of the Plan. this will be very dangerous. I would also miss my view of the sheep on the reservoir. RC003 Resident DG4 It will be interesting to see how many local people under 40 will be able to The policy would This site allocation now (DELETED) afford such housing. How will age be guaranteed! have reduced the removed from the price to below Submission Version of market level. the Plan. RC004 Resident DG4 Agree with policy, as there should be no new housing within 100 metres of Noted but with This site allocation has (DELETED) the River Thames. the Government been removed from not changing the Submission Version Green Belt rules of the Plan. to allow neighbourhood plans to allocate Page 39 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan sites for starter homes in the Green Belt, the policy has had to be removed RC005 Resident DG3 (NOW Agree that smaller properties for downsizing are needed. Support Noted None required HOU3) RC006 Resident DG3 (NOW Agree with policy and the demand for smaller units around the village Support Noted None required HOU3) centres. RC007 Resident DG5 (NOW Would like to emphasise that abandoned or derelict buildings, whether Support Noted None required HOU4) private housing or commercial properties, should be re-developed as small 1 & 2 bedroom homes, and that property developers are strongly dissuaded from building big properties to maximise their profits. Many congratulations on getting the Neighbourhood Plan to this draft stage! We understand how much work has gone into it. RC008 Resident DG4 Agree with the policy. This would seem a good place to build a number of Noted This site allocation has (DELETED) houses for younger people and families without being an eyesore, as the been removed from rest of the road is already built up. the Submission Version of the Plan. DG5 (NOW Agree - as restoring or rebuilding derelict properties, such as Bani’s former Support Noted None required HOU4) store (opp the Percy) would be a priority for us, as it is an eyesore in an otherwise attractive village centre. RC009 Resident DG1 (NOW Broadly agree with all these policies. Support noted None required HOU1) DG2 (NOW Broadly agree with all these policies. Support noted None required HOU2)
Page 40 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan DG3 (NOW Broadly agree with all these policies. Support noted None required HOU3) RC011 Resident DG2 (NOW Policies. lt is true that we must protect the green spaces and semi-rural Agree to some None required HOU2) atmosphere of Wraysbury and Horton, which is why it is so important to extent. The Plan protect the lakes and Ankerwycke, and most of Wraysbury is in Flood Zone has to be 3, below the 100 year flood level', so is unsuitable for development. consistent with Pockets of undeveloped land exist, however, on the fringes of settlements, Secretary of State which are above the 100 year flood level, in Flood Zone 2, and which have advice which is to demonstrable escape routes to Wraysbury High Street, which has been avoid previously accepted as a flood refuge by the Environment Agency and the development Royal Borough. Housing development in flood Zone 2 is accepted by the within Flood Environment Agency and the Royal Borough. The Neighbourhood Plan Zones 2 and 3. contains a sentence which makes a vague reference to this. It should be The Plan is not much more specific, identifying potential areas which could be suitable for required to such desirable development, and containing policies which state that, if the allocate land for Environment Agency are satisfied regarding flood risk, such development development would be supported in principle. especially within The Plan should also favour the treatment of 'brown field' sites in the the Green Belt. Green Belt as 'special cases'. The issue of This approach has already led to the beneficial development of the Green previously Man and Feathers sites. developed land is Neither has a flood escape route as defined by the E.A. Other potentially already covered 'problem' sites such as Bell Weir Garage, the Ferry Lane industrial area, by Local Plan Concorde Garage, Reeds Garage, and the Hythe End Plant Hire depot policy and it is not should be treated in the same way. necessary for the Wraysbury above all needs modest sized sheltered accommodation for Neighbourhood elderly people, close to the High Street, with its two bus routes, Post Office Plan to duplicate Page 41 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan and Pharmacy. Policies should encourage such development. The need for national and Local such policies was demonstrated recently when an application for Plan policy. apartments for the elderly at 9 Staines Road was refused, leading to the Equally policy construction of yet another five-bedroomed house. Another site has gone HOU5 does allow the same way recently. Another lost opportunity and failure of the planning the system. Concorde Garage would be an ideal location for accommodation redevelopment of for the elderly. Policies should encourage this. commercial sites so long as the scheme complies with all other policies such as flooding as residential is a more sensitive land use than a garage site Policy HOU3.2 encourages smaller properties suitable for older persons SB002 Environment DG4 We are pleased to see that the proposed site for allocating a development Concern noted re. Site allocation has Agency (DELETED) of starter homes is located within flood zone 1. However, considerations on safe access but been deleted from the safe access and egress with regards to the proposed site should be given to site allocation Submission Version of ensure that access and egress routes can be provided from the now removed. the Plan. development to an area wholly outside of the 1% annual exceedence Page 42 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan probability (AEP) plus an appropriate allowance for climate change flood extent.
DG6 (NOW For your neighbourhood plan to be in conformity with the NPPF and Noted but this is None required HOU5) associated NPPG, your plan should also ensure that change of uses from covered by the less vulnerable to more vulnerable developments are not located within caveat “subject to the areas of the plan located within flood zone 3b. In line with the NPPF compliance with and NPPG, more vulnerable developments are not compatible with this other relevant flood zone. Furthermore, considerations on safe access and egress should provisions of the be included to ensure that access and egress routes to an area wholly Development outside of the 1% AEP plus an appropriate allowance for climate change Plan”. flood extent can be provided. RC017 Resident DG1 (NOW How can we enforce this? History has shown that commercial priorities Not agreed. The None required HOU1) have outweighed most of the Parish Council’s objections or requests for Neighbourhood sympathetic design in the past. Evidence: Coppermill Road, High Street Plan will be used Wraysbury, Wraysbury Mill; what was the Doctor’s surgery at the end of to determine Douglas Lane. The Parish Councils were completely over-ruled in all cases. planning Big deals to come will be the re-development of B&K Garages in Horton and applications Concorde Garage in Wraysbury. Both of these are imminent. unless material circumstances dictate otherwise. DG2 (NOW Agreed. Can it be presumed to have weight for point 5 below too? Noted None required HOU2) DG3 (NOW Good plan. I don’t think this goes far enough, but I am not sure how to Noted None required HOU3) overcome the various side-steps which Developers can apply to evade this.
Page 43 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan DG4 Very good plan. Can it be gold-plated enough to stop the commercial Noted but site Site allocation has (DELETED) argument taking precedence? allocation is to be been deleted from the removed. Submission Version of the Plan.
DG5 (NOW Good plan. Noted None required HOU4) DG6 (NOW Agreed Noted None required HOU5) SB005 Chiltern DG4 On behalf of the owners of the land between 37 and 119 Coppermill Road – Support noted Site allocation has Green (DELETED) Chiltern Green Homes Ltd – we wish to confirm we are fully in support of but in view of the been deleted from the Homes the proposed allocation of the site to meet the locally identified need for Government’s Submission Version of housing to provide homes for local people – as set out in Draft Policy DG4 announcement the Plan. (DELETED). We recognise the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) not to change the anticipated changes due out this Autumn with regards to supporting NPPF to allow housing on green belt sites in specific circumstances. This would allow Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Plans to allocate such small scale sites in the green belt for Plans to allocate starter homes. In an area which is so heavily constrained by areas liable to small sites in the flood – this site is the only opportunity to assist in providing such an Green Belt for identified housing need within the Plan area. Chiltern Green Homes wishes starter homes the to confirm its willingness to work with the Neighbourhood Plan Steering residential Group, both Parish Councils, and the residents in Coppermill Road, to bring development forward and develop an acceptable scheme to all. would be inappropriate development incompatible with
Page 44 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan national and local Green Belt Policy.
SB005 RBWM DG1 (NOW The use of ‘where appropriate’ gives plenty of scope for hours of discussion Noted “where appropriate” HOU1) by consultants at examination, appeals, local hearings etc. I think this has been removed should be more precise and less open to interpretation either way, do you from Policy HOU 1 mean all developments? DG2 (NOW Unfortunately there is the risk that this policy may achieve the exact Not agreed. The None required HOU2) opposite of what you are trying to achieve if you are not careful. In areas policy requires an where the new large fence to fence houses are built this becomes the assessment of the character of the area and you can get a creeping change due to this. existing character of the area to ensure that new development is compatible with the existing pattern of development. DG3 (NOW Do you have sufficient evidence to justify this? Yes – evidence is None required HOU3) available from Chapter 9 of the SHMAA - plus responses to local consultations.
Page 45 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan DG6 (NOW The supporting text may make it clear what you intend but the policy is Disagree. None required HOU5) likely to lead to the loss of employment in the parishes? Is this helping The policy is deliver sustainable development? This part of the borough is near to compatible with Heathrow and the M25 making it a desirable business location. Commercial Green Belt policy properties can be made viable by upgrading the facilities. I have done a and policies quick property search and at present there are no commercial properties to within the NPPF rent or buy in Horton or Wraysbury. This suggests to me that the area is to increase the desirable to businesses and there would be a significant economic impact if supply of housing commercial space in the area is lost to residential conversions.’ which equally is part of delivering sustainable development.
Page 46 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Have you anything to say about the Policy in Section 5 c) - Built Environment and Community Assets?
Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM001 Resident BE2 HERITAGE ASSETS: On the list of buildings identified as locally important It is not None required heritage assets the derelict village shop next to the Percy should be on that considered this to list. The building is Victorian and had been continuously occupied since the be a heritage late 1800s until 2006. It would be the perfect parade to re generate into shops asset but the a doctors surgery with plenty of parking to the rear. There also needs to be reuse of this more said about improvements to pavements for disabled users including building is relevant slopes and a speed limit of 20mph all the way through the high encouraged by street. Policy HOU4 SM006 Wraysbury BE1 Pleased to see the Bowling Green listed as a community asset. Also that the Noted None required Bowls Club bowls club would get support should there be a need to improve the clubhouse building to ensure the club continues to be a viable asset to the community. SM007 Resident BE1 I agree with this policy Noted None required RC008 Resident BE3 The idea of sustaining and developing existing community facilities and Noted None required improving and providing others is an essential one for the continue life of the village. RC010 Resident BE2 In Welley Road, there was a South Lodge as well as a North Lodge to Noted None Remenham Park. SB006 RBWM BE2 Is the approach positive enough, Historic England may have some comments, Disagree The None required may be more about the positive benefits of heritage assets and there policy is based on contribution? the test set out in the NPPF BE3 Some of the community assets are in the Green Belt will need Very Special Disagree The None required Circumstances to justify extending them. extension may be
Page 47 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan covered by Green Belt policy Have you anything to say about the Policy in Section 5 d) - Open Environment?
Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM001 Resident Public rights of way. Where ever possible gates that are used should allow Noted this is not None required access for Disabled users. I would say 70% of our beautiful paths could be an appropriate accessed by wheel chair if there was an appropriate gate installed. Neighbourhood Plan policy. It is a matter for the Highways authority SM007 Resident This is a good policy Noted None required SM010 Colne Valley OE1 The following should be added to end of the first sentence “…. within the Agreed Policy amended to Park context of the wider Colne Valley Regional Park”. With the increasing number reflect comments Community and scale of development proposals in this part of the south east it is Interest important that a wider landscape context is viewed in local and Company neighbourhood plans to avoid isolation, fragmentation and subsequent decline of landscapes. Page 33, para 1, Line 2: please add the following after the first sentence “However, this network is limited compared to other parishes in the Colne Valley, opportunities should be taken to enhance the network and create circular walks for the benefit of local residents” We do not believe that the words “if possible” are needed in line 3, if a qualifying
Page 48 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan statement is required here , we suggest “where appropriate”, or “where there is a demonstrable need” is used instead.
OE3 OE3: Line 4 – after “Opportunities to enhance public accessibility…..”, please Disagree: None required add “….that links into the network of paths in the Colne Valley Regional The policy does Park……”. As can be seen on the map on page 11, the rights of way network not intend to be within the parishes is relatively limited. Any expansion of the network should prescriptive but to consider how this links in with neighbouring areas. give examples as OE3, Line 4 – after “River Thames Scheme”, please add “and other to the type of development proposals” schemes where enhancement will be sought
Page 49 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan OE4 The Colne Valley Park CIC supports this policy. However, the final bullet point Noted but most None required relating to community infrastructure needs to be tightened up by adding of the sites are “..that outweighs the negative effects of the loss of Local Green Space” or within the Green similar. Belt where the Policy OE4 works very well for local spaces but another policy is required to consideration of ensure that these sites are not considered in isolation and ensure that the the effect upon wider landscape is considered...... openness will be a New Policy OE5. The whole of the neighbourhood plan area is within the consideration Colne Valley Regional Park. There should be a Colne Valley Park policy along Disagree: the following lines ““Proposals for developments must make a positive and The Plan has sustainable contribution towards implementing the objectives of the Colne chosen not to Valley Park: • To maintain and enhance the landscape, historic environment introduce a and waterscape of the park in terms of their scenic and conservation value specific policy as and their overall amenity. • To safeguard the countryside of the Park from recommended as inappropriate development. Where development is permissible it will the development encourage the highest possible standards of design. • To conserve and plan already has enhance biodiversity within the Park through the protection and management sufficient of its species, habitats and geological features • To provide opportunities for protection countryside recreation and ensure that facilities are accessible to all • To through its Green achieve a vibrant and sustainable rural economy, including farming and Belt and other forestry, underpinning the value of the countryside • To encourage policies which community participation including volunteering and environmental education. deal with these To promote the health and social well-being benefits that access to high matters quality green space brings.” Note that the 6 objectives can be shortened to notwithstanding “landscape, countryside, biodiversity, recreation, rural economy and the sites location community participation” if required. Contained within the South East plan - within the Colne Policy WCBV5 – was a specified recognition of the Colne Valley Regional Park
Page 50 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan and its importance within the Metropolitan Green Belt. A consequence of the Valley Regional revocation of the SE Plan has been that there is no longer a Colne Valley Park Park. policy. The DCLG “Environmental report on the revocation of the South East Plan” calls on “local authorities to work together and with other agencies in pursuance of the agreed aims of the Colne Valley Park” Further reasons for inclusion of a Colne Valley Park policy include: 1. The policy can help do something positive with regard to maintaining and enhancing environmental quality and the current rural setting of the 2 parishes by positively encouraging sustainable land uses fitting with the rural open space in which the villages sit. 2. Land acquisition and subsequent dereliction and/or closure to the community is a historical and potential future threat to the area. A Colne Valley Park policy can help protect against this and ensure the landscape surrounding the villages retains positive use and function. 3. Given its proximity to London, Heathrow and the M25, the parishes are under pressure from development. This is a great opportunity for the parishes to include a positive policy focused on what communities do want for green (and blue) space in the green belt rather than a negative /resistant policy focused on what they don’t want. 4. This policy can be useful to help frame responses to National Strategic Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Local Authorities elsewhere have used the Colne Valley Park as a significant part of the reasons to reject inappropriate development, for example Slough has referenced to the Colne Valley ‘strategic gap’ as a key reason for rejection of the proposed freight exchange at Colnbrook. Following an appeal the Secretary of State rejected the development proposal with the impact on the Colne Valley Regional Park being a key reason for the refusal.
Page 51 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan 5. A CVP policy can be used to help secure a positive contribution to local landscapes for the benefit of local communities should NSIP developments go ahead. Securing the best if it comes to the worst. 6. The Green Belt is a strong planning policy that has served a purpose for many decades and continues to serve that purpose at the present time. However, it is being increasingly challenged from many quarters e.g. the recent LSE report “A 21st Century Metropolitan Green Belt”. Looking to the future - Green Belt policy on its own cannot be entirely relied upon to retain open space.
RC004 Resident OE1 Agree with policy – provided it does not harm wild life and impede flood Noted None required water. RC008 Resident OE3 Agree with these, as we enjoy walking around the area and welcome the Noted None required policy of retaining/enhancing footpaths and green spaces OE4 Agree with these, as we enjoy walking around the area and welcome the Noted None required policy of retaining/enhancing footpaths and green spaces RC011 Resident OE1 Horton and Wraysbury are very different villages with different histories, Noted, but None required landscapes and politics. legislation Wraysbury's extensive gravel lakes were all worked out many years ago, and dictates that have been beautifully colonised by nature. All of the most important lakes Neighbourhood have been declared to be Sites of Special Scientific lnterest, and many enjoy Plans cannot deal 'RAMSAR' protection. They are strategically placed between Windsor Great with excluded Park, Runnymede, the River Thames and Ankerwycke to the west, and the development wonderful Staines Moor nature reserve to the east. They are a precious which include resource which must be protected and enhanced. Properly protected by the county matters Councils, the lakes are Wraysbury's best defence against undesirable and minerals. Page 52 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan development. For many years Wraysbury Parish Council has had a formal It is not necessary Policy, which was drafted and proposed by me. 'The mature lakes in the for a village should be retained as open water and managed to encourage nature Neighbourhood conservation and appropriate leisure pursuits'. In contrast, Horton has two Plan to indicate huge active gravel quarries, and no lakes in Horton have been adopted as on a plan existing SSSls. Horton Parish Council favours the infilling of the lakes and their designations such restoration to agricultural land. This is the 'Approved Restoration Plan' as SSSIs as they mentioned in the Neighbourhood Plan. Please think carefully what restoration are not proposed to agricultural land would mean. It would basically turn the lovely lakes into designations that landfill sites, with huge numbers of HGV movements causing noise, mud, dust the Plan is and traffic hazards on our roads for a generation. It would be a disaster and it promoting. would not be done properly. I am unaware of any former landfill site in Wraysbury which has been satisfactorily restored to agriculture. They end up as rough waste ground which attracts fly tipping and other abuses. The results of this difference in emphasis between Horton and Wraysbury were demonstrated when recently, CEMEX submitted very comprehensive plans for the restoration of Kingsmead Quarry, Horton. The excellent plan envisaged the retention of the mature lakes as open water, and their use for sailing and angling. The newer area of quarry near the Colne Brook which is still being excavated was to be infiiled with inert waste, landscaped, and turned into an informal country park, with a good network of public footpaths. Their plan was unanimously approved by the council. Unfortunately, Horton PC objected to the plan, preferring the original Approved Restoration Scheme. Of course, landfill and land restoration companies will make a great deal of money from the infilling of the lakes. The plan was never approved. Instead the lakes were sold by Cemex to RK Leisure, who closed down the long established Kingsmead Sailing Club, turning the lakes into a fenced off commercial angling
Page 53 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan operation. The environmental and countryside recreation policies in the Draft NP are weak and demonstrate a poor knowledge of the lakes of Wraysbury and Horton and the activities which take place on them, and their importance to the landscape and nature conservation. It is essential that very policies are included to protect the mature SSSI lakes of Wraysbury from undesirable development and to encourage public access. I have argued for years for an Article 4 directive on all of Wraysbury’s SSSI lakes. If one had been in place the borough had imposed the excellent policies in their old Local Plan the RK Leisure catastrophe could have been prevented. The SSI lakes of Wraysbury must be listed in the NPlan as community assets and they must be designated as Local Nature Reserves. The clubs which operate on the lakes, the Wraysbury Dive centre, Silver Wing Sailing Club and the British Disabled Waterski Association must be listed as community assets. The NPlan must include detailed maps showing the SSSI boundaries, countryside recreation activities, designated Community Assets and existing and proposed public rights of way, permissive paths and bridleways. SB001 Natural OE1 Landscape Noted but Policy Added reference to England Your plans or orders may present opportunities to protect and enhance locally OE1 and OE 2 working with NT, valued landscapes. You may want to consider identifying distinctive local already covers Natural England and landscape features or characteristics such as ponds, woodland or dry stone these matters in CVRP to reasoned walls and think about how any new development proposals can respect and line with advice in justification of the enhance local landscape character and distinctiveness the NPPF. Open Environment policy. OE2 Wildlife habitats This policy is None required Some proposals can have adverse impacts on designated wildlife sites or other based on the priority habitats, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Ancient approach used in woodland. If there are likely to be any adverse impacts you’ll need to think other made
Page 54 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan about how such impacts can be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort, Neighbourhood compensated for. Plans and is based Priority and protected species on a hierarchical You’ll also want to consider whether any proposals might affect priority approach to species or protected species. To help you do this, Natural England has protecting produced advice to help understand the impact of particular developments on ecological assets protected species. the protection of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land “protected Soil is a finite resource that fulfils many important functions and services for species” is society. It is a growing medium for food, timber and other crops, a store for covered by carbon and water, a reservoir of biodiversity and a buffer against pollution. If separate you are proposing development, you should seek to use areas of poorer legislation. quality agricultural land in preference to that of a higher quality in line with The Plan is not National Planning Policy Framework para 112. (For more information, see our promoting the publication Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and most development of versatile agricultural land13 the best and most Improving your natural environment versatile land. Your plan or order can offer exciting opportunities to enhance your local The Plan already environment. If you are setting out policies on new development or proposing covers public sites for development, you may wish to consider identifying what rights of way and environmental features you want to be retained or enhanced or new features landscaping etc. you would like to see created as part of any new development. Examples might include: - Providing a new footpath through the new development to link into existing rights of way. - Restoring a neglected hedgerow. - Creating a new pond as an attractive feature on the site.
Page 55 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan - Planting trees characteristic to the local area to make a positive contribution to the local landscape. - Using native plants in landscaping schemes for better nectar and seed sources for bees and birds. - Incorporating swift boxes or bat boxes into the design of new buildings. - Think about how lighting can be best managed to encourage wildlife. - Adding a green roof to new buildings. You may also want to consider enhancing your local area in other ways, for example by: - Setting out in your plan how you would like to implement elements of a wider Green Infrastructure Strategy (if one exists) in your community. - Assessing needs for accessible greenspace and setting out proposals to address any deficiencies or enhance provision. - Identifying green areas of particular importance for special protection through Local Green Space designation (see Planning Practice Guidance on this 14) - Managing existing (and new) public spaces to be more wildlife friendly (e.g. by sowing wild flower strips in less used parts of parks, changing hedge cutting timings and frequency). - Planting additional street trees. - Identifying any improvements to the existing public right of way network, e.g. cutting back hedges, improving the surface, clearing litter or installing kissing gates) or extending the network to create missing links. - Restoring neglected environmental features (e.g. coppicing a prominent hedge that is in poor condition, or clearing away an eyesore).
Page 56 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SB002 Environment OE2 We welcome the inclusion of policy NP/OE2 which ensures that new Noted thanks for None required Agency developments will only be permitted if harm to biodiversity will be avoided or support adequately mitigated through compensatory measures. RC017 Resident OE1 Agreed Noted None required OE2 Is there any way of protecting the site where the Trout Farm used to be or has There are no None required it already been demolished? specific proposals SB006 RBWM OE4 Re Local Green Spaces: I think you will need more justification for them than I Noted Details of local have seen. significance added
Have you anything to say about the Policy in Section 5 e) - Business and Economy?
Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM007 Resident BUSEC1 The protection of local facilities is a good policy Noted None required RC017 Resident BUSEC1 This one probably should go much further. There is already a plan for Disagree. It is not None required Concorde Garage in Wraysbury to be turned into a mini-chain supermarket. If appropriate for such a planning permission is granted, other local shops will automatically go the Plan to out of business. The same problem may occur in Horton at B&K Garages. I prevent retail think the retail policy should presume against conversion of existing non-retail competition by premises into retail where there will be a conflict of interest for the local objecting to new retailers. This would allow them to then sell-on their businesses for expansion local stores but rather than seeing their livelihood disappear. This is not a ridiculous idea or seeks to retain concept; look at places like Addlestone where the local community has been the existing shops
Page 57 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan decimated by the Tesco Superstore, leaving a waste-land of tattoo parlours from changes of and charity shops use.
BUSEC2 See comments above. This policy is too wide and would potentially lead to the Disagree. This None required diminishment of our existing retail business. The policy really should be re- policy supports worded to deter conversion where it will inevitably be to the detriment of the expansion of what we have now. employment opportunities in the Plan area SB006 RBWM BUSEC1 There will, in my view, need to be more thought given to what is an Disagree. This None required acceptable marketing campaign? As worded there are many ways this could type of be carried out and you may not end up considering them acceptable? assessment is commonly required by planning authorities and allows an assessment of the robustness of the exercise.
Have you anything to say about Section 6 - Non-Land Use Actions?
Page 58 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM007 Resident TM1 Good policy Noted None required SM008 Resident TM1 I hope that these are taken forward Noted None required RC005 Resident TM1 Important to retain the pharmacy. Also road and pavement maintenance. Noted None required PC001 Horton TM1 Additional comments needed relating to the incessant traffic in Horton, HGVs It is recognised Extra initiatives added Parish etc. and the need to reduce/curtail this, particularly to put restrictions on such that the villages to TM1. Council traffic movements when new Developments are being proposed; and as a are used as a ‘cut major point regarding Heathrow expansion. We could include pictures of the through’ from the big build-up of traffic we get when the M25 is blocked. M25 to the M4 in particular by HGVs. PC001 Horton TM3 Inclusion of retention of Wraysbury and Sunnymeads Railway Services as a Agreed - the two TM3 and reasoned Parish major point under transport. stations in justification updated. Council Wraysbury are considered vital to the villages. PC001 Horton Other Support for allowing Development (within all the required criteria relating to Not within the remit None Parish design, character etc.) in Green Belt Areas where there has already been some of a neighbourhood plan to propose Council development anyway. E.g. Wraysbury Station. This should also embrace the releasing Green Belt commercial aspect. Wraysbury Station, for example, could benefit from part- land and would commercial/ part housing development if submitted, like Datchet has. conflict with national, Similarly (Wraysbury) Concorde Garage could be dwellings over Local Plan and commercial/office (not industrial/transport) units. neighbourhood plan policy related to sites. Existing Green Belt policy allows for the redevelopment of previously developed sites where the development did not Page 59 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan have a greater effect on the “openness of the Green Belt.”
Is there anything else in the Plan that you would like to comment on? Please give details of section page and paragraph, if pertinent.
Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM001 Resident KF2 HEALTH: Added to this policy must be a vision of better working practice KF2 is not a policy but None required for community care providers like district nurses, countenance care nurses an aspiration and that cross commissioning groups which make a surgery in the village vital. thus outside the scope of the plan SM005 PJSA Other In the Neighbourhood Plan the Council need to better accommodate the Noted. The ability to None required Chartered need for more housing in Horton and Wraysbury. Similarly, the area for provide additional Surveyors the proposed development at 37 and 119 Coppermill Road will not be able housing is limited by C/O Rayner to support the amount of houses that is required. the extent of the Plan Family Trust area in Flood Zone 3 and also to the extent of the Green Belt SM007 Resident Other This is a thoughtful and well-conceived neighbourhood plan which I Noted None required support wholeheartedly
Page 60 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan SM010 Colne Valley KF3 Page 39, KF3: Add another bullet point “Liaison with the Colne Valley Park Going to change first KF3 updated to include Park CIC” sentence … change reference to working Community walking routes alongside NT, Natural Interest England and CVRP Company Other Section 3, page 15, challenges, bullet point 3: Add the following to the end Noted. Reference to the two of the first sentence “.as part of the Colne Valley Regional Park, the first parishes being in the taste of countryside to the west of London” Colne Valley Regional The draft plan is a good locally focused neighbourhood plan. However it Park has been fails to recognise the 2 parishes location within the Colne Valley Regional introduced into the Park and the current and potential benefits this brings for residents. Plan in a number of relevant sections. RC005 Resident KF2 Important to retain the pharmacy. Also road and pavement maintenance. Noted in community Reference is made to health the retention of Community Pharmacy in Community Issue KF2 SB001 Natural In accordance with Schedule 2 of The Neighbourhood Planning (General) The Royal Borough of None required but England Regulations 2012, a neighbourhood plan cannot be made if the likelihood Windsor and reference has been of significant effects on any European Site, either alone (or in combination Maidenhead has made in the Basic with other plans and projects) cannot be ruled out. Therefore, measures been requested to Conditions may need to be incorporated into the neighbourhood plan to ensure that issue a screening Statement. any likely significant effects are avoided in order to secure compliance with opinion under both the Regulations. A screening exercise should be undertaken if there is any the SEA and the doubt about the possible effects of the plan on European protected sites. Habitat Regulations. This will be particularly important if a neighbourhood plan is to progress before a local plan has been adopted and/or the neighbourhood plan
Page 61 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan proposes development which has not be assessed and/or included in the Habitats Regulations Assessment for the local plan.
SB002 Environment Other Flood risk Noted but the Policy None required Agency We welcome objective a) second bullet point and that your SUSDEV 02 already neighbourhood plan will have consideration to flood alleviation measures. presumes against all However, residential for your neighbourhood plan to be in conformity with the National development in Flood Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and associated National Planning Policy Zones 2 and 3 except Guidance (NPPG), your plan should also ensure that any new development one for one proposals are located where there is the lower risk of flooding (flood zone replacements for 1), existing houses. avoiding therefore areas at higher fluvial flood risk. SB003 Thames Other New policy – drainage issues – infrastructure. Agreed. The Policy NP / HOU6 Water With regard to surface water drainage, Thames Water request that the Submission version added to cover water following paragraph should be included in the Neighbourhood Plan: “It is has inserted a new supply, waste water the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for surface policy HOU6 dealing drainage and surface water drainage to ground, water courses or surface water sewer. It must with this aspect water infrastructure not be allowed to drain to the foul sewer, as this is the major contributor (Utility Infrastructure) to sewer flooding.” RC014 Resident Other Something in the Local Plan, about Gypsies and Travellers but nothing in Noted but the Text has been Neighbourhood Plan Neighbourhood Plan introduced which has chosen not to states that Horton and include specific Wraysbury is a Page 62 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan planning policies to culturally diverse deal with this section community. of the community as this is a matter than is better addressed at the Local plan level based on a full understanding and assessment of gypsy and traveller needs. RC015 Resident Other Nothing about Character Assessment Character Assessment The Character is mentioned within Assessment is part of reasoned justification the Neighbourhood for policy NP/DG1 Plan and included in (now HOU1) and in the Appendix. policy HOU2 and the Character Assessment will be included in the NP as an appendix. RC016 Resident Other 1) The NP offers unquestioning and unconditional support for the River 1) The Plan cannot None required Thames Scheme. At a current cost of £478m the RTS is the largest and offer support or most expensive fluvial flood alleviation scheme ever planned in this opposition to the country. In my opinion the Environment Agency and their contractors River Thames Scheme have failed to learn from the Jubilee River mistakes and we are on the as this scheme will verge of history repeating itself. I believe that every element of the RTS constitute “excluded proposal should be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny at the earliest development” which opportunity and in particular that the NP should at least record the specific legislation states
Page 63 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan nature and probability of the possible unintended consequences resulting cannot be covered by from this proposed development. a neighbourhood 2) Within the NP area I get the impression that the response to plan. The plan does unauthorised development (and in particular on green belt and flood plain) state that if the River is not handled in a consistent manner. I believe this important issue Thames Scheme were should be formally addressed within the NP. to proceed then the opportunity would be taken to negotiate new rights of way.
2) The Neighbourhood Plan is a document dealing with the use and development of land. It is not an appropriate document to address issues such as the level of enforcement action taken by the Royal Borough which is the LPA. PC003 Wraysbury Other The map of the Green Belt area seems to show Wraysbury Village Green as Wraysbury Village Note added to Parish part of the excluded settlement. It should be in the Green Belt. Green Is not bottom of Green Belt Council currently classified map that Wraysbury as Green Belt but is Village Green is not Page 64 of 65
Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 April 2017 Ref Org Policy Comments or Concerns Response Changes to Neighbourhood Plan covered by the currently classified as George III Enclosure Green Belt but is Act of 1799. covered by the George III Enclosure Act of 1799.
Page 65 of 65