Borough Local Plan (2013-2033)

Updated Consultation Statement

January 2018

RBWM Borough Local Plan Consultation Statement January 2018

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Legal Requirements for Consultation Statement

3. Consultations Stages Undertaken

4. Key Themes and Issues from LDF Options Consultation, June 2009

5. Key Themes and Issues for “Planning for the Future”, April 2012

6. Key Themes and Issues from Borough Local Plan: Preferred Options, January 2014

7. Key Themes and Issues from ‘Planning for the Future’, 2015

8. Draft Borough Local Plan (Regulation 18): Summary of Statement of Consultation, December 2016

Appendix A: Who Has Been Involved?

Appendix B: Representations and Issues; Local Development Framework (LDF) Options Consultation (2009)

Appendix C: Representations and Issues; ‘Planning for the Future’ (2012)

Appendix D: Representations and Issues: Borough Local Plan; Preferred Options DPD Consultation 2014

Appendix E: Representations and Issues; Borough Local Plan: ‘Planning for the Future’ Consultation Summer 2015

1. Introduction

1.1 This statement sets out how the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has undertaken community engagement and stakeholder involvement in the preparation of the Borough Local Plan. It provides information on the consultation methods used throughout the preparation process and shows that the Royal Borough has satisfied the requirements of the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), adopted 27 September 2016 and its previous version adopted in June 2006.

1.2 This statement also fulfils the requirements of the Town and County Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012, (as amended) (“The Local Planning Regulations”). In accordance with the Regulations 17(d) and 22, this statement also shows how the representations made pursuant to Regulation 18 have been taken into account and shaped the Borough Local Plan Submission Version (“BLPSV”). Appendix A sets out the consultees involved in the preparation of the Borough Local Plan from 2009 through to 2017.

2. Legal Requirements for Consultation Statement

2.1 The Consultation Statement is a legal requirement to accompany the Submission of the Borough Local Plan to the Secretary of State to fulfil the requirements set out in the Local Planning Regulations, specifically Regulation 22 (1) paragraph (c) which requires the Statement to demonstrate: (i) which bodies and persons the local planning authority invited to make representations under regulation 18, (ii) how those bodies and persons were invited to make representations under regulation18, (iii) a summary of the main issues raised by the representations made pursuant to regulation 18, (iv) how any representations made pursuant to regulation 18 have been taken into account; (v) if representations were made pursuant to regulation 20, the number of representations made and a summary of the main issues raised in those representations; (vi) if no representations were made in regulation 20, that no such representations were made.

2.2 During the course of preparing the Borough Local Plan the relevant Regulations, originally made in 2004, were amended in 2008 and 2009. In April 2012 the Local Planning Regulations (currently in force) replaced the 2004 Regulations (as amended) in their entirety.

2.3 This Consultation Statement forms one of the “submission documents” prescribed by Regulation 22. This statement considers the consultation and public stakeholder involvement processes involved at each stage of the preparation of the Local Plan:

2.4 Five main periods of consultation and engagement during the preparation of the Borough Local Plan (BLP) may be summarised as follows:

i. Local Development Framework (LDF) Options Consultation: 6 March to 22 May 2009

ii. RBWM Borough Local Plan Consultation (‘Planning for the Future’): 10 February to 16 March 2012:  Business Workshop: March 2012  Neighbourhood Planning Groups/Parish Council sites consultation: August and September 2012  Public Sites (housing and employment) Consultation: November 2012 to January 2013  Spencers Farm and Ockwells Manor Consultation: November 2012 to January 2013

iii. Borough Local Plan: Preferred Options DPD Consultation: January to March 2014

iv. Borough Local Plan: ‘Planning for the Future’ Consultation: Summer 2015.

v. Draft Borough Local Plan: Regulation 18 consultation: December 2016 to January 2017

2.5 The Regulation 19 Publication period from June to September 2017 allowed Regulation 20 representations to be made on the BLPSV. Since September 2017, further discussion on Duty to Co-operate matters have taken place with local authority partners and other prescribed bodies. Further information relating to the Duty to Co- operate can be found in the Council’s Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement, January 2018, which is available on the Planning Policy pages of the Council’s website: https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200209/planning_policy

Statement of Community Involvement

2.6 Section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which explains how local communities and other interested parties will be engaged in the production of Local Plans and in the determination of planning applications.

2.7 The Reg 18 BLP consultation was undertaken in the light of the SCI adopted in September 2016. A copy of this document is available on the Council’s website at: https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200209/planning_policy/460/statement_of_community _involvement

2.8 All previous planning policy consultations have been conducted in line with the earlier version of the SCI adopted in 2006.

Sustainability Appraisal requirements

2.7 A Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is required to encourage sustainable development through improved integration of environmental, economic and social considerations throughout the preparation and adoption of land use plans and policies. UK regulations stipulate that Sustainability Appraisal of plans should meet the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive.

2.8 The Council prepared a Sustainability Appraisal for the Borough Local Plan Preferred Options document. This SA was consulted on from January until March 2014 alongside the Borough Local Plan Preferred Options document. Prior to this the Council produced a combined draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report for the

Borough Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans. This was consulted on in September - October 2011 for a five-week period. As authorities with environmental responsibilities, the Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage were all consulted on the content of the document. Comments were incorporated into the Scoping Reports.

2.9 The Council has also undertaken appropriate screenings against the Habitat Regulations using criteria agreed with by Natural England at each stage of consultation. Screening opinions have concluded that the Borough Local Plan is unlikely to have significant effects that would affect an international site.

Duty to Co-operate

2.10 A further legal requirement introduced by the Localism Act 2011 requires local planning authorities and other bodies to cooperate with each other in the preparation of Local Plan documents. The Council has complied with the Duty to Cooperate, by holding ongoing and iterative discussions with the relevant organisations. Compliance with the Duty is also demonstrated by the evidence base comprising documents that, where appropriate, consider matters beyond the borough boundary.

2.11 Where appropriate, consultation on methodologies and draft documents is being undertaken with key stakeholders under the Duty to Cooperate, for example, the Council has held discussions with surrounding authorities particularly in relation to meeting objectively assessed housing and employment needs and the use of population projections.

2.12 The Council has engaged with all statutory consultees on the writing of relevant Borough Local Plan policies, either via email or holding meetings with the necessary bodies. Further details of the cooperation which has taken place between neighbouring local authorities and other stakeholders are presented in a separate Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement, January 2018, available on the Council’s website.

3. Consultation stages undertaken

3.1 RBWM has been working on a new Borough Local Plan since 2008, having previously worked towards a Local Development Framework and produced a number of consultation documents. These consultations included the LDF Options Consultation in 2009, a ‘Planning for the Future’ (‘issues and options’) consultation early in 2012, followed by a series of related other consultations up to January 2013.

3.2 Since then there has been the Borough Local Plan: Preferred Options consultation early in 2014 and a Borough Local Plan Summer 2015 Consultation, which was a more focussed series of consultations designed to deal with certain specific issues and consult on parts of the evidence base.

3.3 Work has continued on the draft BLP and evidence base following the Summer 2015 consultation, together with further meetings with neighbouring authorities, and legal advice was sought on the compliance and soundness of the draft BLP. A revised programme was agreed at the Council Cabinet meeting on 29 September 2016 which decided to re-consult with a full draft BLP under Regulation 18 stage and to ensure the evidence was up to date and agreed with neighbouring local authorities as far as is reasonably possible.

3.4 This statement of consultation has been a ‘living document’ as it has been updated as the revised Plan progressed through the statutory stages to submission. The key themes and issues arising from the five main consultations undertaken are summarised below under the following headings:

 LDF Options consultation 2009  ‘Planning for the Future’ consultation 2012  Preferred Options consultation 2014  ‘Planning for the Future’ consultation 2015  Draft Borough Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation.

4. Key Themes and Issues from LDF Options consultation 2009

4.1 The Green Belt was the principal element in the consultation and residents and interest groups have emphasised the importance of protecting it from development and the overall development strategy reflects this. In the 2009 consultations: 63% of residents rated the Green Belt highly important.

4.2 The overall outcomes at this stage of the Plan preparation also stated:

 a preference for higher density development (47%) (although the result is not clear cut in terms of the other density options proposed and thus indicates that a variety of densities would be appropriate);  an indication of a preference for accommodating development in small sites (56%), if greenfield land is required (but again this result was not wholly conclusive) in terms of employment - any new land required, should be on land next to town centres or other existing employment areas (74%)  general agreement in relation to the overall vision for the LDF and general agreement regarding the objectives and aims as set out in the LDF Options Paper.

4.3 The results also indicated that in general there was agreement in relation to the overall vision for the LDF and general agreement regarding the objectives and aims as set out in the LDF Options Paper. Furthermore, whilst some amendments to the development management policy options will need to be reviewed, in general there was agreement with the policy coverage and direction as set out in Section 6 of the LDF Options Paper.

Recommendations

4.4 Within the results of the consultation, there were variations of opinion when comparing the views of residents to those of statutory consultees, developers and interest groups. The report noted that further consultation would be required with regard to the merits of various spatially specific options which would build on the consultation results and the evidence base prepared to date.

4.5 Full details of the responses to this consultation are presented in Appendix B

5. Key Themes and Issues from the Planning for the Future consultation 2012

5.1 In this consultation, 2,108 completed questionnaires were returned in total; a response rate of 3.3% from households in the Borough. Approximately 90% of respondents supported the Council’s policy of protecting the Green Belt; with the majority of the aspects of Green Belt being strongly supported overall by respondents.

5.2 If needed, 40% of respondents would prefer to see new homes in the existing built area, with 19% suggesting a combination of locations in the built area and outside the built areas. 12% of respondents would prefer to see new housing outside the built area. 35% of respondents suggested specific locations where new homes could go.

5.3 Just over half of respondents indicated that the provision of new housing should meet only the identified needs of local people. However, a significant proportion indicated that provision of housing for local people and others was also important.

5.4 The response rate to the questions asking people for suggestions of employment areas that could be redeveloped for housing, and any existing housing that could be redeveloped, was poor. Of those that responded, 46% suggested sites for the former, and 27% for the latter.

5.5 25% of respondents stated they did not wish to see any new industrial estates or offices in their neighbourhood plan area. 24% of people who answered the question made suggestions of sites where new employment could go.

Green Belt

5.6 As noted above, 89.5% of responses supported the Council’s policy of protecting the Green Belt as opposed to 63% of residents rating the Green Belt as highly important in 2009. . Different aspects and functions of the Green Belt were also equally well supported, these included: ‘Preventing towns and villages from merging’, ‘Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns, villages, buildings and landscapes’, ‘Retaining important wildlife habitats’ and ‘Retaining land in agricultural and forestry use’.

5.7 On the other hand, concerns were raised by developers regarding the lack of Green Belt review which was also raised in the Inspector’s report on the Core Strategy (3 October 2007 see footnote below1)

1 In summary I consider that the Core Strategy is unsound for the following main reasons: * The heavy reliance on an uncertain supply of unidentified windfall opportunities to satisfy the strategic housing requirements and ensure the continuous delivery of housing completions over the plan period in accordance with PPS3 guidance. * The failure to identify broad locations or areas where sustainable housing and employment development might take place and the difficulties this will cause for subsequent DPDs. * Defects in the housing trajectory as a consequence of the above. * Resistance to a local review of Green Belt boundaries as a consequence of the above. * That the affordable housing thresholds are unduly onerous.

Use of brownfield land and development density

5.8 Support was expressed for prioritising the maximisation and reuse of 'previously developed land' (PDL), but many preferred the use of the term 'suitable previously developed land' rather than 'brownfield' land, as these sites can sometimes have significant wildlife value. A key problem is finding the land to accommodate the housing figures.

5.9 Concern raised by developers, regarding the lack of Green Belt review which is also contrary to the Inspector’s advice. There should be mention of the need to encourage the specialist knowledge base of higher education establishments.

5.10 There was an expressed preference in the responses to questions for increased density of new development. Natural England recognised that locating the use of PDL can help to promote the sustainable location of development. However, some PDL can have a higher biodiversity value than some green field land and suitable protection should be afforded to such sites.

5.11 The summary of the report for the 2012 consultation stated that:

 The most popular choices for alternative community uses that could be allowed in employment areas were fitness and leisure, followed by health care.  Respondents indicated that they would most expect to find local shops and health facilities in their local area.  A considerable number of site suggestions, but most of these are already known to the Council’.

5.12 The draft SA Scoping Report was made available on 12 September 2011 for a five- week period of consultation, ending on 17 October 2011. As ‘authorities with environmental responsibilities’, the Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage were consulted on the content of the document.

5.13 Fuller details of the representations made are presented in Appendix C.

6. Key Themes and Issues from the Preferred Options consultation 2014

6.1 The responses made on this consultation were reported in the Consultation Statement June 2015 as summarised in the table below which provides an overview of the responses by policy and a brief analysis of the representations.

Vision, Overall views Recommendation objectives and Support/Observations/ Strategy Objections Policies Quality of Place PLA 1 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the PLA 2 policies are developed for the Proposed PLA 3 Submission Local Plan Green Belt and Countryside Character GBC 1 Support Revisions to the Green Belt boundary will be addressed in the Second Preferred Options consultation GBC 2 Support Minor wording amendments will be addressed through re-drafting and an amended policy will be in the Proposed Submission Local Plan GBC 3 Object The Policy will be re drafted and will be included in the Proposed Submission Local Plan. GBC 4 Overall support The Policy will be re drafted and will be GBC 5 included in the Proposed Submission Local Plan. GBC 6 Overall support Amendments to policy GBC 6 will be included in the Second Preferred Options consultation to address these key issues Housing and Edge of settlement HOU 1 Mixed response These points will be addressed in the Second Preferred Options consultation HOU 2 Mixed response See detailed section 4.31-4.62 for individual sites HOU 3, 4, 5 & 8 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed in the Proposed Submission Local Plan HOU 6 Overall Support The Council has commissioned an updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment to consider the future accommodation needs of the traveller community

Vision, Overall views Recommendation objectives and Support/Observations/ Strategy Objections HOU 7 Overall Support with no These points will be addressed as the objections policies are developed in the Proposed Submission Local Plan HOU 9,10,12 & 13 Overall Support with no These points will be addressed as the objections policies are developed in the Proposed Submission Local Plan HOU 11 Object These points will be addressed as the policies are developed in the Proposed Submission Local Plan Economy and Tourism EC 1,2 & 3 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan Tourism Development TM 1 & 2 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan Town Centre and Retail RET 1, 3 & 4 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan RET 2 Overall Support Greater recognition of the economic, retail and tourism role of Windsor will be addressed in the Second Preferred Options consultation RET 5 Overall Support with no Policy will continue to be included objections Historic Environment HE 1,2,4,5 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan HE 3, 6 & 7 Overall Support with no The point raised will be addressed as the objections policies are developed in the Proposed Submission Local Plan Natural Resources NR 1,2,3,4,5,6,& 7 Overall Support The Council is considering how best to bring forward up-to-date minerals and waste policies NR 8,9 & 10 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan Environment Protection

Vision, Overall views Recommendation objectives and Support/Observations/ Strategy Objections EP 1, 2, 3 & 5 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan EP 4 Overall Support with no These points will be addressed as the objections policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan Natural Environment NE 1,2,3,4,& 5 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan Infrastructure and Transport INF 1 Overall Support These points will be addressed as the policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan INF 2 Overall Support The Windsor Link Railway will be addressed in the Second Preferred Options consultation INF 3 Overall Support The need for infrastructure and options for funding will be addressed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan INF 4 & 5 Overall Support The need for this will be addressed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan Sustainability Mixed Response These points will be addressed as the Appraisal policies are developed for the Proposed Submission Local Plan Habitat Implicit support from A full Appropriate Assessment of the plan Regulations Natural England with was not considered necessary but the Screening some detailed matter will be kept under review Opinion suggestions made

Sustainability Appraisal

6.2 As part of the 2014 Sustainability Appraisal Report (SA) a non-technical summary was made available which informed consultees and the general public about the process of Sustainability Appraisal in plain English, avoiding the use of technical terms.

6.3 The production of a non-technical summary is a requirement of the EU Directive known as the `SEA Directive’. 1.0.2 The non-technical summary related to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report which was prepared to support the Preferred Options 2014 in line with the relevant legislation and guidance and explains the process for moving the Plan forward from the 2009 version.

6.4 In summary, section 4 of the 2014 SA, refers to options (A, B and C) for higher, moderate or lower density growth which were proposed for consultation in the Local Development Framework Options Paper in March 2009. In taking the Plan forward the SA reports that account was had to the preferences expressed during the consultation, to local opportunities and constraints and to the NPPF.

6.5 Both local opinion and national policy support the effective re-use of land which has been previously developed, taking account of the different roles and character of different areas, protecting the Green Belt and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. With regard to development density, the approach taken forward was a hybrid of Option A and Option B, utilising higher densities as part of a more targeted approach balanced with townscape and landscape character.

6.6 The SA goes on to explain after taking account of local opinion, national planning policy, constraints and evidence, a further three strategic options were tested through the SA:

1. To restrict building to the capacity of existing built up areas, avoiding building in the Green Belt; 2. To permit sufficient building to meet the projected population growth and economic needs, recognising that this would require some building in the Green Belt and 3. To permit building to a level that strikes a balance between meeting the projected population growth and economic need and the environmental impacts, including allowing some building in the Green Belt.

6.7 The preferred outcome was Option 3: To permit building to a level that strikes a balance between meeting the projected population growth and economic need and the environmental impacts, including some building in the Green Belt.

6.8 Fuller details of the representations made to this consultation are presented in Appendix D.

7. Key Themes and Issues from the Planning for the Future consultation 2015

7.1 In February 2015 the Council’s Cabinet reviewed the BLP work undertaken to date and agreed to continue the preparation of the Borough Local Plan, including an ongoing programme of engagement and consultation with stakeholders. Starting in summer 2015 and continuing through the year, the Council prepared a package of limited consultation items.

7.2 Four specific topics were publicly consulted through a questionnaire called ‘Planning for the Future, as follows:

 Local green space  Braywick Park and Magnet Leisure Centre  Development capacity in Maidenhead town centre  Windsor Link Railway

7.3 The responses related to the specific issues rather than strategic concerns and are presented in Appendix E. Simultaneously, work took place, individually and jointly with other Berkshire local authorities, on the evidence base for the Borough Local Plan with particular emphasis on the regional and sub-regional needs for housing and employment floor space, and the Council called for sites which may be available for development..

7.4 Further consultative exercises with stakeholders were undertaken in 2015 and studies were commissioned from consultants and published on the Council website as follows:

 Retail and Town Centre Study, Cushman and Wakefield  Edge of Settlement Study methodology published, inhouse  Transport modelling, WSP  Flood risk, WSP  Gypsies and Travellers Accommodation Assessment.

7.5 In late 2015, officers were instructed to prepare a draft Borough Local Plan with the intention of submission to the Secretary of State by autumn 2016. This would include detailed site allocations and be subject to a reduced consultation period, especially with neighbouring authorities.

8. Draft Borough Local Plan Regulation 18 stage: December 2016 – January 2017

8.1 Work continued on the draft BLP and supporting studies throughout 2016 and a significant review was undertaken of the consultation process, particularly with neighbouring local authorities and stakeholders from the beginning of 2016. Following a legal review of the BLP and in the expectation of representations from neighbouring authorities, the Cabinet resolved on 29th September 2016 to endorse a timetable which included consultation on a full draft BLP under Regulation 18, with the intention of submission of the Borough Local Plan Publication in late 2017. This would enable full consultation responses on the content of the Local Plan to be received.

8.2 A series of meetings were convened by RBWM in June and July 2016 with neighbouring local authorities to determine the scope of potentially contentious issues. Further technical sessions were coordinated by the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Economic Partnership (TVBLEP).

8.3 These meetings are described in more detail in the Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (RBWM, 2016) and primarily addressed topics concerned with housing and employment floor space needs, evidence base and methodologies for the allocation and distribution of land uses and activities. Significant progress was made in addressing interests of common interest and RBWM indicated that it is seeking to plan for the full objectively assessed need for housing and employment floor space.

8.4 A full draft BLP document was presented to Cabinet on 24th November 2016 and approved for full public consultation. Additional work strengthened the supporting documentation and evidence base, including a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) and further infrastructure studies and sustainability appraisals and related requirements.

8.5 Public consultation on the draft BLP commenced on 2nd December 2016 and finished on 13th January 2017. Approximately 6,000 individual responses to the draft BLP consultation were received from 1,850 members of the public, land owners, developers, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders, including statutory consultees. Local community and interest groups also made representations regarding specific aspects of the BLP and all responses are collated on the Council’s consultation database.

8.6 A high level of public response to the consultation was received with 1682 members of the public responding. 69% of public respondents made comments on individual proposed site allocations and 47% commented on the other policies in the plan. The main themes are identified and detailed in the Regulation 18 Consultation Statement which is published on the Council website at: http://consult.rbwm.gov.uk/file/4849445

8.7 The significant issues raised by the public consultation have been analysed with regard to their impact on the proposals and policies of the BLP. Whereas a number of

textual and content amendments may be made to the draft BLP as a result of representations, the bulk of the responses relate to challenges to policy positions within the plan which was recommended for consultation. 8.8 Substantial amendments to policy would require further consultation at Regulation 18 and it is felt that the representations made constitute, in the main, the many issues which the Council considered in November 2016 when it approved the Regulation 18 plan for consultation. Accordingly, it is felt that the responses received do not jeopardise the overall objectives and content of the plan and do not necessitate a further Regulation 18 consultation.

8.9 A Table of Changes has been prepared which identifies where amendments have been made as a result of the consultation process. This is attached to the Council report for June 19th 2017 and can be viewed on the Council’s website at: http://consult.rbwm.gov.uk/file/4594379

Appendix A – Who Has Been Involved?

This appendix details consultees by type. At every stage of consultation undertaken, those registered in the database at that time were notified, unless a specific request not to be contacted had been received.

Statutory Consultees and Partner Agencies

British Waterways Forestry Commission

Civil Aviation Authority First Great Western

Countryside Agency (The) HM Prison Service

Culture South East Home Office

Crown Estate Office (The) Ministry of Defence

Department for Culture Media & Sport National Grid

Department for Education and Skills National Probation Services for Thames Valley

Department for Environment, Food and Network Rail Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

Department for Transport Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Services

Department of Constitutional Affairs Reading Learning and Skills Council

Department of Health South East Water

Department of Trade and Industry Southern Electric

Department of Work & Pensions Southern Gas Networks

East Berks Community NHS Hospital Trust Sport England

English Heritage Thames Valley Police

English Nature Thames Water

Environment Agency Windsor, Ascot & Maidenhead Primary Care Trust

Highways Agency

Neighbouring Authorities

Bracknell Forest Borough Council South Bucks District Council

Bucks County Council Spelthorne Borough Council

Chiltern District Council Surry County Council

London Borough of Hillingdon Surrey Heath Borough Council

Reading Borough Council West Berkshire Council

Runnymede Borough Council Wokingham District Council

Slough Borough Council Wycombe District Council

Parish Councils Within and Adjoining the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Binfield Parish Council Marlow Town Council

Bisham Parish Council Old Windsor Parish Council

Bray Parish Council Remenham Parish Council

Britwell Parish Council Ruscombe Parish Council

Chobham Parish Council Shottesbrooke Parish Meeting

Colnbrook & Poyle Parish Council Sunningdale Parish Council

Cookham Parish Council Sunninghill & Ascot Parish Council

Cox Green Parish Council Taplow Parish Council

Datchet Parish Council Waltham St Lawrence Parish Council

Dorney Parish Council Warfield Parish Council

Eton Town Council Wargrave Parish Council

Great Marlow Parish Council Wexham Court Parish Council

Hedsor Parish Meeting White Waltham Parish Council

Horton Parish Council Winkfield Parish Council

Hurley Parish Council Wooburn Parish Council

Hurst Parish Council Wraysbury Parish Council

Little Marlow Parish Council

Local and Other Organisations

A2 Housing Group Maidenhead Riverside Organisation

Access Forum Maidenhead Volunteer Bureau

Ancaster Lodge Residents Association Marlow Society (The)

Beaufort Gardens Residents ' Association MENCAP

Berkshire College of Agriculture National Association of Gypsy & Traveller

Berkshire Learning and Skills Council National Association of Health Workers with Travellers Officers Blythewood Residents' Association National Association of Teachers of Travellers Borough Church of St Andrew & St Mary National Cyclists' Organisation (The) Magdalene (The)

Community Council for Berkshire National Disability Council

Cookham Society Old Windsor Residents' Association

Copas Partnership (The) Paradigm Housing Association

Datchet Village Society People to Places

Dawnay Close Residents' Association Portsmouth Diocesan Curia

Dower Park Residents' Association Ramblers Association, East Berks Group

East Berkshire College – Langley Campus River Thames Society (The)

East Windsor Residents' Association Road Haulage Association

English Partnerships Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

Equal Opportunities Commission St Leonard's Hill Resident's Association

Eton Traders Association Society for the Protection of Ascot and Environs

Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group Thames Valley Housing Association (FWAG) Hanover Housing Association Toynbee Housing Association Ltd

Health & Safety Executive Tourism South East

Heatherwood & Wexham Park Hospitals Theatres Trust (The) NHS Trust

Help the Aged Warden Housing Association

Holyport Preservation Society West Windsor Residents Association

Windsor & District Housing Association Home Builders Federation (The)

Housing Corporation (The) White Waltham Village Association

Huntsman's Meadow Residents' Windsor Allotments and Home Gardens Association Association

Hurley Preservation Society Windsor and Ascot Driving Group for the Disabled Inland Waterways Association (The) Windsor & District Chamber of Commerce

Inner Windsor Residents' Association Windsor and Eton Society

King's Ride Residents' Association Windsor & Maidenhead Voluntary Action

Littlewick Green Society Windsor & Maidenhead Access Forum

Lookahead Housing Association Windsor & Maidenhead Users Network

Maidenhead Advertiser Windsor Chamber of Commerce

Maidenhead & District Housing Association Windsor & Maidenhead Conservation Volunteers

Maidenhead & District Chamber of Windsor & Maidenhead Urban Wildlife Commerce Group

Maidenhead Archaeological & Historical Windsor & Maidenhead Voluntary Action Society

Maidenhead Centre for the Handicapped Windsor Talking Newspaper for the Blind

Maidenhead Civic Society Workers Educational Association

Maidenhead Cyclists Action Group Women's National Commission

Environmental, Community and Interest groups

Age Concern Mobile Operators Association

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Garden History Society

Airport Operators Association General Aviation Awareness Council

Arts Council England, South East Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition (The) Ascot Community Action Group Gypsy Council (The)

Berkshire Association of Local Councils Gypsy Council for Health, Education & Welfare Berkshire Association of Young People Kennel Green Action Group (The)

Berkshire Disability Information Network London Green Belt Council

Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Maidenhead & District Friends of the Earth Wildlife Trust British Chemical Distributors & Traders National Farmers Union Association British Geological Survey National Federation of Bus Users

British Horse Society National Offender Management Services

British Light Aviation Centre National Playing Fields Association

British Trust for Conservation Volunteers National Trails Office (BTCV) Campaign to Protect Rural England National Travellers Action Group

Clewer Manor Area Profile National Trust (The)

Coal Authority (The) Pakistan Cultural Society

Commission for Racial Equality CRE Royal Society for Protection for Birds

Country Land and Business Association St. John's Ambulance

Cycling Touring Club (CTC) Shopmobility

Diocese of Oxford South East Museum Library and Archive Council Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Southern Tourist Board Committee Disability Rights Commission East African Association Showmen's Guild of Great Britain

East Berkshire Ramblers Association Sustrans

Federation of Small Businesses Thames Thames Velo Valley Freight Transport Association West London Aero Club

Woodland Trust (The)

Businesses

Arriva Orange

BAA plc. - Technical Services O2 UK

BG Group Paul Dickinson and Associates

Biffa Waste Services Ltd Post Office Property Holdings

Cable & Wireless Powergen

Centrica Plc. Reading Agricultural Consultants

Cleanaway Ltd. Scottish and Southern Electric PLC

Clewer Group (The) South West Trains

Computer Associates Stage Coach Group

First Bee Line T Mobile

First Group Plc. Three Valleys Water

Hutchison 3G UK Limited Vivendi Water Partnership

National Express Group Plc Vodaphone Limited

White Bus Service

Agents and Developers

Alsop Verrill Laing Homes

Amberleigh Homes Ltd Lambert Smith Hampton

Arena Leisure Plc Legoland Windsor

Arup Economics & Planning Lennon Planning Ltd

Atis Real Wetherals Levvel Consulting Ltd

Banner Homes Group Nathaniel Lichfield Planning

Barton Willmore Planning Partnership LIDL UK GMBH

Beacon Housing Association Linden Homes

Bellway Homes (South East) Lovejoy Family Maidenhead & Windsor

Bewley Homes Plc Lovell Johns

Boyer Planning Maidenhead Industrial Estates Ltd

BRB (Residuary) Ltd Malcolm Judd & Partners

Broadway Malyan Planning Martin Grant Homes Ltd

Bryant Homes McCarthy & Stone (Dev) Ltd

C Castleford Homes H Lovejoy Farms Ltd MDL Developments

Cala Homes (South) Ltd MG Leisure

Cannon Court Farm Ltd Michael Shanly Group (The)

Castlemore Securities Ltd Millgate Homes

Charles Church Developments plc Montagu Evans

Chartered Institute of Marketing (The) Nicholas King Homes

Chiltern Hundreds Housing Association Octagon Developments Cluttons Parkside Housing Group Copas Farms Peacode & Smith

Croft & Co Pendragon Plc

Cushman and Wakefield Planning Bureau Ltd (The)

D J Squires and Co Ltd Planning Perspectives

David Wilson Homes Prince Gate Estates Plc

Development Land & Planning Consultants Queensgate Homes Ltd Development Planning Partnership (The) Rapleys

Dialogue Communicating Planning Rayner Farms

DTZ Pieda Consulting Rectory Homes Ltd

Eton College Redrow Homes (Southern) Ltd

Fairview New Homes plc RPS Planning, Transport & Environment Ltd. Farmglade Ltd SAS International

G L Hearn Planning Savilles

G R Planning Stewart Ross Associates

George Wimpey West London Ltd Thames Properties Ltd.

Good Estates Terrace Hill Developments Ltd

Gregory Gray Associates Tesco Stores Ltd.

GVA Grimley Tetlow King Planning

Haulfryn Group Ltd. Trimount Properties Ltd

Hepher Dixon Trinity Residential Ltd

Heronsbrook Homes Try Homes Ltd

Hives Planning Turley Associates

Housing Solutions Group (The) UK Land Investments Group

Indigo Planning Waitrose Ltd.

J Rayner and Sons Ltd Wardour Lodge Estates Ltd.

J Sainsbury Plc Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd

January Commercial Property Consultants White Young Green Planning

John Lewis Partnership Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd

Jones Day Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc

Jones Lang LaSalle Workspace Group Plc.

King Sturge & Co

Kings Oak Thames Valley

Knight Frank

Consultation Bodies within the Council

Berkshire Archaeology RBWM - Policy Team

Jacobs Babtie RBWM - Transport

RBWM - Access Group RBWM - Tree Unit

RBWM - Community Partnerships RBWM - Windsor Information Centre

RBWM - Conservation Team RBWM Countryside Rangers

RBWM - Corporate Policy Officer RBWM Highways Dept. – Engineering Division

RBWM - Education RBWM Rights of Way

RBWM - Highways DC Reading Museum Archives and Library Service

RBWM - Housing Policy Rural Housing Enabler for Berkshire

RBWM - Leisure

Additional Consultees

The Local Plan consultation database has over 600 consultees, representing national and local organisations and also members of the public and individuals with an interest in planning. These local organisations include; local business groups, charities, canal groups, older person groups, housing associations, resident groups, ethnic minority groups, conservation groups, amenity groups, civic societies and community groups.

Appendix B: Summary of Representations and Issues; Local Development Framework (LDF) Options Consultation (2009)

This consultation was carried out between March 6th 2009 and 20th April 2009, and was subsequently extended to 22nd May 2009 in response to requests. The consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Council's adopted Statement of Community Involvement at that time, having regard to the 2008 Amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

The LDF Options Consultation document was advertised widely through the use of radio, press notices and releases, the Council web site information, posters and emailing those on the consultee database. Also, 63,000 newsletters, each containing a questionnaire, were distributed across the Royal Borough to all residents and businesses.

Responses were invited to be made via the Council's online consultation website (Limehouse) or the questionnaire, and by May 2009, 2065 completed questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of a little over 3%. In addition, feedback was gained through various meetings and forums that officers attended. 92 respondents submitted comments on the Options Consultation via the Limehouse consultation portal.

Analysis of the 2163 returns is summarised below. Questions including name and address and questions about respondents' age, gender, ethnicity and how respondents heard about the consultation were included in the questionnaire form.

Ten questions were asked and the main issues raised by consultees were as follows:

Question 1: Do you agree that the key issues and challenges identified () accurately reflect those facing the Royal Borough?

The following list provides an indication of the comments received on the 'key issues and challenges' section of the Options Paper.

Cycle Touring Club (CTC): It should be noted that in an attempt to tackle one challenge, another may be compromised. The issue of climate change should not be compromised to achieve other goals.

Public: Amount of housing required has been overestimated; downturn will also reduce the need for new housing.

RSPB: Figure 2.7 shows the locations of International and National Sites of Nature Importance. This should be revised to provide more clarity on the location and nature of individual designations.

NHS: Support paragraph 2.23 which references healthcare reorganisation.

Thames Water: Welcomes the reference to ‘infrastructure’ as a key issue. Thames Valley Police: No mention of Secured by Design standard as required with all affordable housing. The 24-hour economy that is referenced should be managed to ensure no increase in crime linked to alcohol. Concerned that the key issues only identifies waste, water and transport infrastructure – police should be included.

Church /religious groups: Support the challenges and issues noted, however, reference to local church groups and other faith groups under should be included under the 'social

26 context'. Section 3.1 should contain mention of community facilities. There should be specific protection of ancient and mature trees in the Borough.

Environmental Groups: Pleased with the mention of biodiversity as a key issue to be considered. However, there should be mention of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority sites and networks of natural habitats. Would also welcome the enhancement of these sites of biodiversity importance. Also provision of green infrastructure and Conservation Target Areas for sites for the restoration or creation of improved habitats should be a key issue.

Legoland and other leisure providers: Agree with the key issues and challenges, but should increase the emphasis on the importance that tourism plays in the Borough. The plan refers to the Olympics and the Council making the best of the opportunity, This should include good quality guest accommodation. Tourist and leisure development should be supported at current facilities.

South East England Partnership Board: The Core Strategy would be strengthened by a reference to the Borough’s situation within the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub- region as identified in the South East Plan.

Environment Agency: Welcome mention of the Thames as an amenity, and appropriate account is taken of fluvial flooding. There is no mention of surface water flooding or its management which are key issues in the area. There should be a separate heading of flooding which can cover issues relating to climate change and inappropriate development in the flood plain etc. The habitat within and surrounding the Thames and Jubilee rivers have been missed out in the biodiversity section. Water quality should also be addressed in the Environmental Context section.

Natural England: The lack of mention of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA in this section would be expected as a key issue for the Borough. Commends the inclusion of landscape considerations and protection of biodiversity, but would like to see the inclusion of the protection and enhancement of existing open spaces and green infrastructure.

Parish Councils: Generally agree, but insufficient attention paid to upgrading Maidenhead town centre's retail facilities. Don’t agree with the statement that the number of overall households will increase quicker than the general population growth. Need to include something regarding maintaining a high employment rate. Why do we want a 24-hour economy? This is disruptive and expensive. Agree all infrastructure must be in place before development is allowed. Nothing about children and the challenges surrounding them such as education. Nothing about the protection of the Green Belt. No mention of wanting to reduce crime. Nothing to make the Borough stand out and be “world class”. Inappropriate development within the Green Belt should be mentioned.

Developers: One of the key problems is finding the land to accommodate the housing figures. Concern raised regarding the lack of Green Belt review which is also contrary to the Inspector’s advice. There should be mention of the need to encourage the specialist knowledge base of higher education establishments.

Question 2: Do you agree with the overarching vision outlined above and the statements relating to the different parts of the Royal Borough? “By 2026 the Royal Borough will be a place guided by the principles of sustainable communities where everyone can thrive in a safe and healthy environment, take active part in decisions and continue to learn throughout their lives.

It will be a place where the unique character, history and setting is respected in providing a strong economy and meeting the needs and expectations of residents, visitors and those who work in the borough. Development will be carefully planned, maximising the re-use of suitable land within towns and villages”.

The key issues raised may be summarised, as follows:

Environment Groups: Support prioritising the maximisation and reuse of 'previously developed land' (PDL), but would prefer the use of the term 'suitable previously developed land' rather than 'brownfield' land, as these sites can sometimes have significant wildlife value.

Archaeology: Welcomes the emphasis of the unique built and historic environment. The hundreds of archaeological sites need to be accounted for in the planning process.

Highways Agency: It is recommended that consideration is given to providing the right type of jobs for local residents, and the right type of housing that will be attractive and affordable for the majority of the workers in the area, to help reduce commuting. Under the vision for Windsor, there is a need to indicate that development will be directed towards locations with good access to public transport. For Maidenhead reference should be made to any major development being located near to major public transport hubs.

Environment Agency: Generally, support the statements on localities. Better mention could be made of reducing flood risk in the long term, particularly in the small settlements. The mention of a green link to the River Thames is taken to mean a buffer and would like to see Windsor, Old Windsor and Datchet added to this so that the emphasis of the Thames can be maintained.

Natural England: Generally supportive, but the vision should include reference to protecting and enhancing the Borough’s natural environment in paragraph 4.4. Paragraphs 4.5-4.28 should make more reference to enhancing the natural environment and the need to provide green infrastructure within the borough.

English Heritage: Requires the inclusion of the term “historic” and recognition that the issue is not just about character, but also about protection and enhancement of the assets based on their survival, or in some cases, the risk to their survival.

Thames Valley Police: Agree with overarching vision for the LDF in particular with reference to providing a safe and healthy environment. However, the supporting text does not refer to the Police as a key infrastructure provider. The additional growth proposed within the Royal Borough will also require an increase in Police presence. This should be reflected in a similar way to paragraph 4.9. Would recommend early consultation with the Thames Valley Police Counter Terrorism Security Adviser when considering a Maidenhead Transport hub.

Church / religious groups: Agree with the overarching vision but note the lack of mention of local churches or faith groups.

Legoland: Would like to see greater reference to the economic benefits brought to the Borough by tourism. The Core Strategy should place a greater emphasis on the retention, enhancement and expansion of existing tourist facilities.

Parishes: Not enough attention paid to the outlying villages. Vision statement a bit vague and could be improved by only focusing on locations where change will occur, e.g. Maidenhead. The vision should include reference to the maintenance of the areas of Green

Belt that separate the built areas of Ascot and Sunninghill etc. The Cookham vision statement in paragraph 4.16 needs to make reference to the flooding issues and the conservation area.

Developers: Broadly acceptable, but note that the Vision is slanted to Option A and takes a presumption against Greenfield development. The overarching vision needs to refer to a need to perform a review of the Green Belt boundaries. General agreement with the vision to rejuvenate Maidenhead town centre and provide a transport interchange. Vision goes into too much detail in places. there appears to be no coherent economic strategy for the Borough and no links between the economic vision and other aspects of policy. The approach in paragraph 4.6 of building smaller units at higher density does not seem to be based on any evidence base.\ HI

Question 3: Do you agree with the aims and objectives outlined above? Would they address the stated issues and challenges, and deliver the vision? I

The Aims and Objectives in outline were:

Aim1: To promote sustainable design and construction

Aim 2: To deliver an appropriate level of housing to meet housing needs

Aim 3: To regenerate the Local Economy

Aim 4: To develop socially cohesive, diverse and healthy and safe communities

Aim 5: To care for the natural environment

Aim 6: To improve transport and connectivity

The key issues raised may be summarised as follows:

Berkshire East Primary Care Trust / Heatherwood & Wexham Park Hospitals: Support the aim to ensure that the improvement of existing facilities and the location of any new facilities respond to the changing needs of the community. Support the reference to the Council responding positively to changing demographics and impacts on healthcare.

National Grid Property Holdings: Support the promotion of sustainable design and construction by maximising the use of brownfield land, however it is important that the Core Strategy recognises that PDL will invariably be more costly to redevelop.

Crime Prevention Design Officer: In promoting sustainable design and construction frequently the carbon cost of crime is ignored. This includes things such as police vehicle movements, boarding up crime scenes, replacement glass / doors / windows etc. It is important to design out crime to reduce these carbon costs. Eton College: Support Aim3(6) but feel that RBWM should not safeguard sites which are clearly obsolete for their purpose. If they were allowed to be redeveloped for housing this would help to meet housing requirements. Do not agree with Aim 4 and suggest that it is not possible to locate all new development in the lowest flood zones, in many cases mitigation measures can be used to reduce flood risk and flood damage.

SEEDA: Whilst we welcome Aim 3 we are concerned with the reference to “carefully controlling job growth in employment generating development”. This appears to be seeking to constrain economic growth and contradicts smart growth which now forms the basis of the South East Plan.

Highways Agency: The Agency is supportive of Aim 6(7). In addition it is recommended that the plan should seek to allocate major development sites close to major public transport hubs and should seek to improve access to such hubs by all modes.

Environment Agency: Adding a reference to 'the promotion of sustainable urban drainage systems' would greatly improve Aim 1(8) in terms of water quality and flood risk. Adding a reference to the “natural floodplain” would improve Aim 5(9)

Natural England: Recognise that locating the use of PDL can help to promote the sustainable location of development. However some PDL can have a higher biodiversity value than some greenfield land and suitable protection should be afforded to such sites. Aim 4 should refer to the need to create, protect and enhance green infrastructure that can contribute towards improving the health of the Borough. Aim 5 recognises the importance of the Green Belt however this can increase pressure on more environmentally sensitive PDL within urban areas. This consideration should feature in any review of Green Belt Boundaries in the Borough.

Sport England: Supportive of Aim 4(10) but some concern regarding the reference to the “informal enjoyment of the countryside and open space” . Whilst supporting the principle of this wording it should not be taken as discouraging the legitimate use of the countryside for appropriate formal sporting activities.

Developers: A flexible approach to Green Belt may be needed if this provides the most sustainable solutions for development. Aim 6 should encourage walking, cycling and especially bus transport.

Question 4: Do you agree with the general approach outlined under Common Features to All Options? [The Common Features to All are: Overview Economic Features Housing Features Environmental Features]

The key issues raised may be summarised as follows:

South East England Partnership Board: The Core Strategy should refer to Smart Growth as set out in the South East Plan and set out what achieving it in the Borough would require. The Core Strategy should also include targets on renewable energy and CO2 reduction and policies on building design.

Environment Agency: The Agency agrees with the stated common to all features, however need to include 'the prudent and efficient use of natural resources to mitigate the impacts of climate change' This has been noted in earlier sections and needs to be carried through. A water quality element could also be considered.

Parish Councils: Particularly agree with the exceptions for rural housing where there is a proven need but consider that building and activities within the Green Belt should be tightly controlled. Query why there no mention of the Waterways connection to Maidenhead town centre under the Common Features.

Amenity groups: Given the proximity of settlements within the Borough, there seems little justification to continuing with a rural exceptions housing policy. The first bullet point under

'Environmental Features' relating to development in the Green Belt is wholly insufficient as this would allow development to take place in the Green Belt which is not “inappropriate” as defined by PPG2.

Thames Valley Police Authority: Agree with the approach of concentrating development at the existing settlements within the Borough. This would best enable existing police stations to best serve the Borough residents. A proportionate increase in police infrastructure will need to be delivered to meet the needs of the new population regardless of the location of the new development.

Crime Prevention Design Officer: High densities and sustainable locations means that it will be important to get parking provision right so that it does not spoil and dominate the street scene.

National Grid Properties: Supportive of the main centres being the focus of housing delivery.

Thames Water: A key sustainability objective of the LDF will be for development to be coordinated with the infrastructure it demands. Sewage and water treatment works are frequently located on the periphery of urban areas or in rural locations identified as Green Belt. It is inevitable that some of the new sewage / water treatment infrastructure will need to be located in the Green Belt and it is essential that this is recognised in the Core Strategy.

The Theatres Trust: It is important to retain vitality and a mix of uses that promote daytime and evening economy for the town centres. This is a fundamental part of urban renaissance as it ensures the vitality of an area beyond normal working hours.

Developers: The Green Belt can only be protected once it has been established that the requisite amount of development can be accommodated in the urban areas and the Green Belt boundaries have been reviewed. There is agreement with the general approach in terms of Windsor continuing to be one of the top tourist destinations and in that respect reflects the South East Plan.

Eton College: Disagree with obsolete employment sites being safeguarded. Instead there should be flexibility to allow these sites to come forward for alternative development to meet other development needs such as housing. Disagree that the majority of housing is indicated as being delivered in Maidenhead and Windsor. It is considered that Eton could also be added as a location for the delivery of housing.

Question 5: Given the need for new homes and employment, how important do you consider protecting the Green Belt to be compared with more building in urban areas?

Responses to this question are tabulated as follows:

RU Question 6: Which of the Options do you prefer? i. Option A: Higher Density Growth ii. Option B: Moderate Density Growth iii. Option C: Lower Density Growth iv. Other What are the reasons for your chosen option and are there any implications you wish to highlight?

Responses to these questions are tabulated as follows:

Question 7: If the need for new homes and employment requires building on land outside the edge of an existing settlement, how should this be handled? i. New development in one or two large sites. ii. New development in a larger number of smaller sites.

Responses to this question are tabulated as follows:

Question 8: Looking at planning for new employment, where should this be? (Please choose one only.) i. On land next to town centres or other existing employment areas ii. By building new employment areas on land outside the edge of existing settlements iii. Other (please specify)

Responses to these questions are tabulated as follows:

Question 9: Are you aware of any services, facilities or other infrastructure that would be needed or require improvement to support new homes and employment?

The key issues raised may be summarised as follows:

Public: Roads are already clogged in many areas including Cookham, Maidenhead Bridge, and many others. Problems highlighted with sewerage infrastructure in Windsor, and with broadband availability in Fifield. Improvement to public transport with regards to routes, frequency and cost across the Borough, and a transport interchange at Maidenhead station, also parking at the station. More schools and doctors surgeries. Recycling facilities in Windsor and not in Chalvey.

Cycling Touring Club: Important that any development is accompanied by the infrastructure that encourages the use of cycling and walking.

Church / religious groups: Community facilities are integral to this and places of worship should be mentioned in the list in paragraph 5.54. Growing population will lead to a greater demand for places of worship and suitable facilities for associated faith activities.

Environment Groups: Green infrastructure should be planned for by the LPA as required in the South East Plan. Open spaces within development should be linked to biodiversity. Green infrastructure can also provide ecosystem services such as flood protection.

South East England Partnership Board: Would welcome reference to the definition of infrastructure as set out in the South East Plan. The implementation strategy will need to identify what infrastructure is required and how it will be delivered.

SEEDA: The Core Strategy should identify ICT as a form of infrastructure required to support new homes and employment.

Highways Agency: The Core Strategy should be underpinned by what infrastructure is needed and should set out the costs, phasing and funding. It is essential that infrastructure planning identifies mitigation to reduce the impact on the Strategic Road Network.

Environment Agency: Infrastructure should be in place to ensure both water supply and water treatment demands can be met. We would like to see water quality taken forward as a priority to ensure that water quality requirements in the Water Framework Directive are met.

Thames Water: Following policy in PPS12, RPG9 and the South East Plan, and previous consultation responses, surprised that the document only makes minimal reference to water and wastewater/sewerage infrastructure. The Core Strategy must make specific reference to the provision of water and sewerage infrastructure to service development.

Natural England: Commend the inclusion of open space on the list of facilities that could be provided. Recommends that open space standards are integrated into development and infrastructure requirement decisions. Advocates the adoption of ANGST standards, as defined and recommended in PPG17.

Centrica plc: Extra car parking to support the needs of businesses.

Sport England: Welcome the Council’s commitment to ensure that new development contributes towards infrastructure and facilities.

Thames Valley Police: A proportionate increase in police infrastructure will be needed with population growth. TVP is seeking to ensure financial contributions towards the capital costs of new staff, accommodation and vehicles required. Will offer more advice when the Council decides on a strategic option. It is important to plan infrastructure for the older youths in new development to ensure they do not get involved in anti-social behaviour.

Parish Councils and Councillors: Improved road layout, better affordable public transport links, cycle routes, more schools, youth services, medical services, improved public transport from the village areas into the work/entertainment areas.

Developers: Many can provide the necessary infrastructure within a sustainable urban extension.

Question 10: Do you agree with the basic coverage and direction of the development management policies outlined above?

Do you feel there are any other potential topic areas that should be included?

The key issues raised may be summarised as follows:

South East England Partnership Board: Welcome the development management options which should be developed having regard to the South East Plan.

Environment Agency: The outline of the policy titles seems sufficient. In respect of the policy on “Flood risk and water infrastructure” the EA comment that the policy should take full account of surface water management. Also that any development permitted in the floodplain should have Permitted Development Rights removed. Request that a policy on water quality is also developed.

Natural England: Recommend that a policy on green infrastructure is included and covers issues such as the provision of green corridors, open space networks and other linking features in urban and rural areas. The policy should also be linked to natural environment policies.

English Heritage: Welcome the envisaged management policies but would wish to see an appropriate policy on the historic environment in both the Core Strategy and the Delivery & Development Principles DPDs.

Friends, families and Travellers and Traveller Law Reform Project: Support the inclusion of a policy to meet the needs of Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities. Provision for these communities should where possible be made part of the mainstream residential development.

Sport England: Welcome the proposed policies relating to open space and community facilities but would highlight the need for these to be founded on a robust and credible evidence base. Suggestions of how this could be achieved are set out.

Thames Valley Police Authority / Crime Prevention officer: Support the inclusion of policies on both Safe and Accessible Environments and Infrastructure and Community. Suggestions are made as to how the coverage of both may be expanded to improve them, such as by the inclusion of references to Secured by Design Principles.

Berkshire East Primary Care Trust & Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: Support the reference in the proposed Development Management policies to Community facilities with particular regard to protecting and securing new or improved health facilities. The PCT also welcome the reference to a policy covering Infrastructure and Community issues.

National Grid Property Holdings: Support the coverage and direction of the proposed Development Management policies but reserve the right to comment further on the policies as they are developed.

Thames Water: Under the policy for' Sustainable Design and Layout', comment that all new dwellings should meet water usage targets set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes. Issues are also raised in respect of flood risk and infrastructure provision advising that flood risk should also include flooding from sewers. Caution is needed so as not to underestimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure.

Theatres Trust: Comment that only a balanced combination of retail, commercial and leisure development can provide vitality and viability to a town centre and that evening and night time activities are a fundamental part of urban renaissance.

Developer: The policy direction for the Green Belt is considered to be counter to the recommendation of the previous Core Strategy Inspector who found that document unsound partly on the basis that no review of Green Belt boundaries had been undertaken. The requirements for new development to fund infrastructure and affordable housing should recognise the issue of economic viability in determining the level of provision.

Feedback from Meetings and Forums

Officers attended the following external meetings(11) during the consultation period in order to promote awareness of the consultation, to gain initial feedback and to answer any questions:

Meetings and Forums Meeting Date Windsor Town Forum 05/02/09 Parish Conference 25/02/09 Stakeholder Meeting 04/03/09 Windsor and Eton Society 09/03/09 Maidenhead Town Centre Partnership 10/03/09 Windsor Town Centre Partnership Board 17/03/09 Gypsy Roma and Traveller Network Meeting 26/03/09 Bray Parish Meeting 06/04/09 Sunninghill & Ascot Parish Meeting 05/05/09

Comments on the Options Paper via these meetings and forums are summarised below:

 Questions regarding the evidence base including SHLAA (questions regarding the status of the sites and which Green Belt sites were included in the document)

 Query regarding the Maidenhead Waterways project and mineral extraction and transportation from Summerleaze

 Vision for Maidenhead and concern regarding further intensive development in the town

 General questions about the consultation process and the LDF.

Feedback from Drop in Sessions

Four public drop-in sessions were held during the LDF Options Paper consultation period:

Sunningdale Village Hall on 23/03/09 Maidenhead Town Hall on 24/0309 Windsor Guild Hall on 25/03/09 Wraysbury Village Hall on 08/04/09

Despite advertisement of the drop-in sessions via various means, the number of visitors to these sessions was disappointing (23 in total). However, officers were on duty to provide help and advice to respondents and those attending raised various issues, as follows:

 Difficult to comment on development characteristics in a non site-specific consultation.

 Need an overall vision / strategy for development before can answer questions about its form and location.

 Character, design, heritage, open space, public art and affordable housing are important.

 Questions about the LDF process and site allocations.

 Green belt boundary issues - inconsistencies and potential infill sites.

 Some site-specific issues unrelated to this consultation - passed to enforcement to action.

Other Responses

Responses from Young People

A range of consultees was contacted as part of the LDF Options Paper consultation including faith groups and local amenity and interest groups. Whilst the overall response of five youth groups have been included in the questionnaire analysis in the previous section, it is worth putting into context the views of the next generation on the future of the Royal Borough. As such, one of the Council's youth workers contacted 48 young people aged 12- 19 from Maidenhead and Windsor. Three key questions were posed, as set out below:

 Do you think there should be more shops and houses built within your local town?

19 young people from Maidenhead indicated that there should not be any more shops and houses built within the local town with 12 indicating that there should be.

For the young people surveyed in Windsor, the vast majority (15 as opposed to 2) indicated that there should not be any more shops and houses built within the local town.

 Do you think there should be more shops and houses built outside your local town?

The majority (25 out of 31), young respondents from Maidenhead indicated that there should be more shops and houses built outside the local town as opposed to only 7 out of 17 in Windsor.

 If there were was going to be new developments, where would you want them built?

The majority of Maidenhead young people (21) indicated that 25-50% should be built in towns, and 50-75% should be built in the Green Belt. The equivalent result for Windsor young people was less clear with 11 respondents indicating that between 50-75% of new development should be in the towns with 25-50% in the Green Belt.

Detailed Responses

All responses received in connection with the above consultation have been combined into a separate document: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead LDF Options Paper: Report of Consultation (Detailed Reponses) June 2009.

This is a public document and is available to view and download from the council's website http://rbwm.gov.uk. This document contains the responses received via Limehouse and submitted by email or letter.

Key Outcomes of the Consultation

Key issues from the consultation include:

 the importance of the Green Belt (63% of residents rated the Green Belt highly important);

 an indication of a preference for accommodating development in small sites (56%), if greenfield land is required (but again this result was not wholly conclusive)

 in terms of employment - any new land required, should be on land next to town centres or other existing employment areas (74%)

 general agreement in relation to the overall vision for the LDF and general agreement regarding the objectives and aims as set out in the LDF Options Paper.

The results also indicate that in general there was agreement in relation to the overall vision for the LDF and general agreement regarding the objectives and aims as set out in the LDF Options Paper. Furthermore, whilst some amendments to the development management policy options will need to be reviewed, in general there was agreement with the policy coverage and direction as set out in Section 6 of the LDF Options Paper.

Recommendations

Within the results of the consultation, quite naturally, there are variations of opinion when comparing the views of residents to those of statutory consultees, developers, and interest groups.

Furthermore, the results of the consultation will need to be viewed within the context of earlier work on the evidence base. Ultimately, further consultation is required with regard to the merits of various spatially specific options which will build on the consultation results and the evidence base prepared to date.

Appendix C: Representations and Issues; ‘Planning for the Future’ (2012)

Consultation methods

Extensive consultation took place through a variety of means on issues and options for the Borough Local Plan presented as “Planning for the Future” including the following events:  Business Workshop (March 2012)  Neighbourhood Planning groups/Parish Council sites consultation (August and September 2012)  Public Sites Consultation (November 2012 to January 2013)  Spencers Farm and Ockwells Manor Consultation (November 2012 to January 2013)

The initial public consultation carried out as part of the preparation of the Borough Local Plan began on February 10th 2012 and ended on the 16th March 2012 although consultation responses received after this date were also taken into account in the results.

The consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Council's adopted Statement of Community Involvement, having regard to the 2008 Amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. Advertising for the consultation was as follows:

Advertisement Type Date Comment Press Notice Wk beginning 6th February 2012 Press Release Wk beginning 6th February 2012 Website Updated 9th February 2012 Document downloads, Survey Monkey, web pages Emails and letter to Wk beginning 6th February - consultees 2012 Email reminder to Wk beginning 12th March - consultees 2012 Internal consultation Wk beginning 5th March 2012 Presentation and Q&A session to Service Heads

Responses were invited in the following ways:

 Consultees were invited to respond to the 'Planning for the Future' via the Council's website (via Survey Monkey) – a direct link to the survey was put on the Council’s homepage.  Responses to ‘Planning for the Future’ were invited directly from all households in the Royal Borough via the completion of a questionnaire attached to the consultation paper.

Responses to the document were also invited via email and letter. In addition, feedback was also been gained through the various meetings and forums that officers attended. Any news coverage and ideas on the consultation in the local press were also collated.

Summary of All Responses

Green Belt

Question 1: Do you support the Council’s policy of protecting the Green Belt?

Yes No Don’t know/Prefer not to answer

‘Planning for the Future’ indicated that ‘the Council is committed to protecting the Green Belt’. It indicated that a review of the Green Belt boundaries has shown the potential to improve the calibre of the Green Belt by moving highly valued and strategic land into the Green Belt to allow the council more flexibility in managing land supply. This links in with a former resolution of Cabinet that the principle of designating new Green Belt to compensate for any loss of existing Green Belt be endorsed.

The results of Question 1 show overall support for the Council’s policy to protect the Green Belt as seen in Figure 1 below.

1.8% 4.2% 4.6% No Response

Don't know/ prefer not to answer No

Yes

89.5%

Figure 1: Overall support of the Council’s Green Belt policy

Question 2: How important are the following aspects of the Green Belt to you? (Please circle the number which most accurately reflects your view on each matter – 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important)

Preventing towns and villages from 5 4 3 2 1 merging

Preserving the setting and special 5 4 3 2 1 character of historic towns, villages, buildings and landscapes

Providing opportunities for sport and 5 4 3 2 1 recreation

Providing access to the countryside 5 4 3 2 1 including walking, cycling and horse riding

Retaining land in agricultural and 5 4 3 2 1 forestry use

Retaining important wildlife habitats 5 4 3 2 1

This question mirrors earlier consultation undertaken by the Council, and responses indicated that the majority of the aspects of Green Belt were strongly supported overall. Figure 2 illustrates how important respondents considered aspects of Green Belt to them.

1600 Preventing towns and villages from merging 1400 Preserving the setting and special character of 1200 historic towns, villages, buildings and landscapes 1000 Providing opportunities for sport and recreation 800 600 Providing access to the countryside including walking, cycling and horse riding 400 Retaining land in agricultural and forestry use 200

0 Retaining important wildlife habitats 5 4 3 2 1

Figure 2: Aspects of Green Belt: All Respondents (Borough level)

Potential locations for new housing

Question 3: If needed, where would you put new homes in your neighbourhood area?

Please describe where you would put the homes with reference to the town or villages, direction such as north or south, or road names. To assist, detailed maps of each neighbourhood area were available at the local library or by calling 01628 796115. a) in the built up areas (shaded brown on the main map) b) outside the built up areas (in areas shaded pale green on the main map)

The purpose of Question 3 was to give respondents the opportunity to identify potential land for housing in either the built up areas or outside the built up areas. The response to this question was disappointing; only 35% of respondents suggested any potential sites, with 23% making no location suggestions at all. 16% of consultation respondents did not answer this question.

The analysis was undertaken in two parts; firstly categorising the answers by built up areas/ outside build up areas etc, to gain an understanding of where respondents consider more appropriate, and then secondly, more detailed analysis taking account of site specific locations or comments e.g. on brownfield sites, not in floodplain etc.

Of those that provided an answer to this question, at a borough level, if needed, 40% would put new homes in the built up areas only; 12% outside built up areas and 19% suggested a combination of these would be best. 8% stated they did not want to see any development at all, 19% either did not reply, provided an unclear response or were unsure. 1% of responses did not fit into any of the categories above. This can be viewed by neighbourhood plan area in Table 3.

Neighbourhood Built Outside Combination No Unsure Other Unclear (blank) Total Plan area area built up of built area developm e.g. no only area and outside ent at all response built area Ascot and the Sunnings 39.0% 8.1% 19.4% 11.8% 1.4% 2.6% 3.2% 14.5% 100.0% Bisham and Cookham 50.5% 7.6% 17.9% 9.8% 0.0% 2.7% 0.5% 10.9% 100.0% Bray 41.1% 13.2% 21.2% 8.6% 1.3% 0.7% 0.0% 13.9% 100.0% Datchet, Horton 39.8% 15.2% 7.6% 12.9% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 21.1% 100.0% & Wraysbury Hurley & the Walthams 38.5% 11.9% 24.8% 2.8% 0.0% 3.7% 2.8% 15.6% 100.0% Maidenhead 40.6% 12.1% 22.2% 6.8% 0.7% 0.6% 1.8% 15.2% 100.0% and Cox Green Windsor and 39.7% 13.8% 18.9% 7.8% 2.7% 0.3% 1.9% 14.9% 100.0% Eton N/A 10.8% 20.0% 13.8% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 52.3% 100.0% Grand Total 40.0% 11.9% 19.4% 8.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.8% 16.2% 100.0%

Table 3: Responses for where new homes could go by Neighbourhood Plan Area

The second part of the analysis was undertaken to separate generic responses e.g. development should be on brownfield sites, from detailed responses suggesting sites or locations.

Excluding people who did provide any response to the question, at a borough level the following generic suggestions of how new homes could be accommodated included: 5% suggested brownfield sites; 2% infilling; 6% making better use of existing stock e.g. converting offices/ vacant homes; 1% not in the floodplain; 2% suggested in town centres; 11% suggested areas not in their neighbourhood plan area. 36% suggested site specific locations, whilst 23% offered no location suggestion at all. 5% of responses were unclear or fitted the ‘other’ category. These results can be viewed by neighbourhood plan area in Table 4.

(generic) (generic) Location

Maidenhead Maidenhead

Bisham and and Bisham

W and Hurley at Windsor

Ascot and and Ascot

Walthams

Sunnings Cookham

atchet

and Cox Cox and

raysbury

Green

Total

Bray Eton

N/A

the the the

ort

Brownfield sites 5.1% 3.0% 6.2% 2.2% 7.6% 6.0% 6.0% 6.5% 5.4% Infilling 1.4% 3.0% 1.5% 2.2% 5.4% 1.2% 1.3% 0.0% 1.7% Make better use of 3.4% 4.3% 6.9% 3.0% 2.2% 8.4% 8.3% 0.0% 6.1% current stock No 16.1 24.1% 20.1% 26.9% 34.3% 19.6% 17.2% 27.9% 22.7% suggestion % Not in floodplain 0.3% 1.2% 0.8% 4.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.6% 3.2% 1.1% Outside of NP area 10.5% 15.9% 13.8% 6.0% 22.8% 10.7% 9.8% 0.0% 11.3% No developme 13.3% 10.4% 7.7% 14.2% 3.3% 7.5% 9.2% 0.0% 9.2% nt at all See 71.0 detailed 32.0% 36.6% 36.2% 32.1% 30.4% 42.5% 28.3% 36.2% % response Unclear 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 3.3% 1.2% 1.6% 0.0% 1.5% Other 5.4% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 2.0% 4.1% 3.2% 3.1% Centres 1.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 1.9% 0.0% 1.5% Grand Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % % % Table 4: Detailed analysis of location suggestions by Neighbourhood Plan Area

Housing in rural areas

Question 4: How should the provision of new housing help support village life? Please tick one box only a) Meet only the identified needs of local people b) Provide housing for local people and others c) Other - please state

The aim of Question 4 was to gauge whether there was any difference in attitude towards the provision of small scale extra housing on the edges of some villages. The supporting text of ‘Planning for the Future’ indicated that such small scale development may not necessary harm the rural character or the environment of some of the villages, but instead could help support village life by providing affordable homes for local people and bring about environmental improvements. Of course, small scale rural housing schemes are supported in principle through existing Local Plan Policy H4 (Affordable Housing within Rural Areas).

In terms of the consultation results, just over half of respondents indicated that the provision of new housing should meet only the identified needs of local people. (Table 5). However, a significant proportion indicated that provision of housing for local people and others was also important. Respondents from rural areas tended to support meeting only the identified needs of local people. Table 5 below shows the variation of responses to this question across the

45 neighbourhood plan areas. (Please note that the tables only include those who answered the question.)

Total no of % of total responses responses Meet only the identified needs of local people 997 51.7 Provide housing for local people and others 766 39.7 Other - please state 166 8.6 Total No of Responses 1929 100.0% Table 5: Provision of New Housing to Support Village Life: All Respondents

A range of other comments in response to question 4 included: allow the market to dictate; local people should have priority over others; no more housing (will not ‘support’ village life); new housing needs to be affordable, preferably family sized homes (not mansions or flats); new housing must be accompanied by new infrastructure; allow people to build their own houses; new housing development should consider Crossrail; and that new housing must not alter the character of an area.

Potential areas for redevelopment

Question 5: In your neighbourhood area, are there any offices, industrial estates or other employment areas that we should consider redeveloping for housing? Please provide detail, including location.

Question 5 attempted to establish the community appetite for the redevelopment of local offices, industrial estates or other employment areas that should be considered for housing. The majority of respondents provided general comments or did not know of any sites. 60% were either unsure, did not know of any employment areas that could be redeveloped or preferred not to answer this question..

Aside from the list of sites suggested, some specific responses were received including: 3% stated they would prefer to see employment maintained; 1% stated that housing was not needed; 4% suggested employment areas outside of their neighbourhood plan area; 0.2% stated that floodplain was an issue and 1% provided ‘other’ comments. 44% made no suggestions.

Question 6: In your neighbourhood area, are there any areas of existing housing that we should consider redeveloping? Please provide detail, including location.

Again, the responses to Question 6 were of low frequency (36% did not answer the question; and 64% of those who did respond could not suggest any sites), with respondents indicating in a general sense the typology of existing housing sites that could be considered for redevelopment.

Specific non-site related responses included: 0.6% suggested infilling; 1.3% suggested sites outside their neighbourhood plan area; 0.6% suggested town centres; 2% stated that housing was not needed and 4% fitted the ‘other’ category. This breakdown can be viewed by neighbourhood plan area in Table 6.

Neighbour Infill No Out of See Centr Other Housing Total hood Plan ing suggestion NP area detailed es not area response needed Ascot and 100.0 the 1.4% 71.7% 0.0% 22.4% 0.0% 4.1% 0.5% % Sunnings Bisham and 100.0 0.0% 76.2% 0.8% 15.6% 0.0% 3.3% 4.1% Cookham % Bray 100.0 0.0% 72.2% 9.3% 13.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% % DHOWW 100.0 0.9% 80.9% 0.9% 14.5% 0.0% 0.9% 1.8% % Hurley and 100.0 the 0.0% 74.0% 2.7% 17.8% 0.0% 2.7% 2.7% % Walthams Maid’head 100.0 0.7% 53.1% 0.4% 35.5% 1.8% 5.5% 3.1% &CoxGreen % Windsor 100.0 0.4% 57.5% 0.4% 36.4% 0.0% 3.6% 1.6% and Eton % N/A 100.0 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% % Grand Total 100.0 0.6% 64.0% 1.3% 27.3% 0.6% 4.2% 2.1% % Table 6: Suggestions for existing housing that could be considered for redevelopment by Neighbourhood Plan Area

Potential locations for new business development

Question 7: If needed, where would you put new industrial estates or offices in your neighbourhood area?

Please describe possible locations with reference to the town or villages, direction such as north or south, or road names. To assist, detailed maps of each neighbourhood area are available at your local library or call 01628 796115 a) in the built up areas (shaded brown on the main map) b) outside the built up areas (in areas shaded pale green on the main map)

In the last Local Plan consultation, respondents were asked where new employment should be indicated. In 2009, respondents indicated that any new land required, should be on land next to town centres or other existing employment areas (74% of respondents). As a result Cabinet considered a possible approach to employment growth based upon utilising existing employment areas and possible extensions, whether in town centres or edge of settlement; plus a flexible approach to use of employment land for housing in suitable locations provided sufficient alternative land can be provided elsewhere.

In a general sense, the responses to Question 7 of the ‘Planning for the Future’ consultation, echoes this approach, as 24% of consultation respondents that did answer this question, and of those that did only 24% suggested sites – many of which are already in existing employment use. Very few respondents suggested potential employment sites outside the built up areas – the exception being Maidenhead Business Park.

The results also show that 26% of respondents do not consider that we need new industrial estates or offices, with many stating that there vacant offices available. 38% of respondents to this question could not provide a suggestion of sites, whilst 8% suggested areas that were outside of their neighbourhood plan area. This breakdown is provided by neighbourhood plan area in Table 7.

Table 7: Potential locations for new business development

Neighbourhood No No Not in Out See detailed Brownfield Other Total Plan area develop suggestion flood of response Sites ment at plain NP all area

Ascot and the 6.0 27.2% 40.7% 0.0% 21.3% 0.4% 4.5% 100.0% Sunnings % Bisham and 11.9 26.6% 43.4% 0.7% 13.3% 1.4% 2.8% 100.0% Cookham % Bray 8.6 25.0% 39.7% 0.9% 19.8% 0.9% 5.2% 100.0% % DHOWW 6.2 26.9% 46.2% 3.8% 15.4% 0.8% 0.8% 100.0% % Hurley and the 13.1 23.8% 34.5% 0.0% 23.8% 1.2% 3.6% 100.0% Walthams % Maidenhead and 5.1 25.3% 30.3% 0.2% 34.5% 0.6% 4.0% 100.0% Cox Green % Windsor and Eton 11.9 21.8% 43.5% 0.0% 19.3% 0.0% 3.5% 100.0% % N/A 0.0 16.7% 75.0% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% % Grand Total 7.8 25.1% 38.2% 0.5% 24.2% 0.6% 3.7% 100.0% %

Relaxation of uses in industrial estates and other employment areas

Question 8: Which of the following community uses do you think should be allowed on industrial estates and other employment areas? Please tick all those you support a) Fitness and leisure b) Health care c) Childcare d) Meeting rooms e) Places of worship f) Schools g) Other (please specify)

Question 8 tests the views of the community on the flexibility that should be placed on allowing other uses within industrial estates and other employment areas. Chart 6 indicates the preferences for certain uses on such sites. The most popular choice of community use was for fitness and leisure, followed by health care. Apart from the ‘other’ category, the use which gained least support was places of worship.

In terms of ‘other uses’ a variety of suggestions were put forward including: post offices, parking areas, recreation areas, community centres, small shops (including banks), elderly care homes, police stations and hospitals were all mentioned by respondents. Several respondents also stated that they thought employment areas should remain as such and not

48 be used for other purposes; with others stating that they already have the alternative uses available in their area and therefore did not see the need to allow community uses on employment areas. Figure 8 indicates preferences by neighbourhood plan area.

3.9% 10.6% 22.3% Fitness and leisure Health care 8.4% Child care Meeting rooms Places of worship 14.9% Schools 21.7% Other

18.2%

Table 8: Community use preferences on existing industrial estates and other employment areas at borough level

Improving local facilities and services

Question 9: Thinking about where you live, what facilities and/or services would you expect to find near you? Please tick all those that apply. a) Local shops b) Local offices c) Restaurants/ take-aways d) Health facilities (doctor, dentist) e) Community facilities f) Public houses g) Other (please specify)

This question, about improving local facilities and services, has been analysed at a borough level (Table 9) which indicates that people most expect to find local shops coupled with health facilities near to where they live; only 5% of respondents would expect to find local offices

In terms of ‘other uses’, a variety of responses were received including: public transport including foot and cycle paths, green space/ parks/ children’s playground, petrol station, banks/ cash points, sporting facilities, post office, library, places of worship, schools/ further education, child care, allotments, hospital/ emergency services, cinema, vets, police station, and good broadband service were all mentioned by respondents. Several respondents also stated that they already have all the local facilities they would expect to find available in their area.

5.3% Local shops 22.7% 14.8% Local offices

Restaurants / take- aways Health facilities 5.3% (doctor, dentist) 16.2% Community facilities

Public houses 13.6% Other

22.1%

Table 9: Local facilities people expect to find near where they live

Other Issues

Question 10: Are there any other issues on which you wish to comment? Please provide details.

The Consultation document provided an opportunity for respondents to comment on other issues, not necessarily connected with the Borough Local Plan. Approximately 50% of respondents provided additional comments in question 10 covering a variety of issues broadly relating to transport, redevelopment and the community. Specific comments made ranged from street lighting, to flooding, cycling, parking charges, to concerns about the location and type of future development and associated infrastructure requirements. Many comments will not influence the strategic policy direction in the Borough Local Plan; however to ensure they are not lost they will be shared with relevant Council Service areas and with the Neighbourhood Planning groups

Another programme of stakeholder involvement took place for the ‘Planning for the Future’ engagement phase, these were a workshop for the business community, discussions with neighbourhood planning groups and parish councils about sites as well as a consultation on certain specific sites.

Business community workshop

A workshop for the business community was held on the 8th March 2012. The purpose of this workshop was to elicit discussion around how the council can deliver a business-friendly planning policy approach, to gain ideas from local businesses about how current planning policies are working, which policy approaches should be carried forward into the new Borough Local Plan and whether there are areas where fresh ideas are required.

Business workshop. Some key feedback in relation to policies was as follows:  some employment is needed in the Green Belt to prevent it becoming ‘stale’. Small developments are needed if existing (urban) employment areas are redeveloped for housing

 businesses will go where planning policies are receptive. Council needs to change its attitude to commercial use in the green belt or investment will go elsewhere  the principle of designating employment areas is popular but more flexibility in planning policies for these areas is desired. Planning process has seriously hampered some changes of use – long winded, very difficult, expensive, costs over and above S106. Businesses can go bust in the 1-2 years it takes to gain permission  current planning policies for town centres are far too detailed – should simplify change of use policies.

Neighbourhood Plan Groups and Parish Councils

Between August and September 2012 the Council held discussions with each of the Neighbourhood Planning groups and Parish Councils across the borough on the suitability of sites promoted to the Council in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Discussions were held regarding all large urban sites in the SHLAA and sites with significant potential. Discussions were also held on sites outside of the urban area, which included sites suggested by the public in the Planning for the Future consultation. Questions were also asked in relation to employment sites and whether changes were needed to existing allocations. A summary of the results of the consultation were as follows:

Focus for development:

 Urban focus is generally preferred  Some support for focusing development mainly around Maidenhead given Crossrail, and in particular to be the focus overall for development (at one of the Maidenhead meetings)  Flexibility sought for using Green Belt (see Green Belt section below)  Some suggested that capacity of some sites in SHLAA was too great, others suggested that it is sufficient.

Employment sites:

 Support for retaining employment sites in use, but also support for flexibility on changing employment use to housing, but only where vacant or not appropriate for employment  Some concern on specific sites particularly with access and traffic implications of change of use  A number of sites that are currently designated as employment can potentially be used for housing numbers if the council wishes.

Green Belt:

 Many felt that a flexible approach should be taken with Green Belt to protect urban areas that are inappropriate for housing, e.g. some gardens and Conservation Areas  Previously developed sites in the Green Belt tended to be most popular  Certain locations are very important to retain in openness as a strategic gap, or to retain the setting of a settlement.

Public consultation on sites

Between November 2012 and January 2013, a public consultation on sites was undertaken. This consultation sought to clarify views on whether the allocation of housing and employment sites was supported. Specifically, for residential land, views were sought on appropriate densities for sites and the types of homes favoured. For employment the consultation sought what type of employment uses were favoured in key locations. For all sites, reasons for any objections were also sought.

Specific consultations were undertaken at this stage on Spencers Farm (a Green Belt site promoted for residential use with a commitment from the Council to consult on it) and land to the north of Ockwells Manor (following a commitment from the Council to consult on its incorporation into the Green Belt).

The consultation on sites followed from key outputs from the Options Paper consultation held in early 2012. Whilst not statutory requirements, this consultation was advertised via a press notice, press releases, a flyer notifying residents of the consultation delivered to every household, email and letter notifications from the council’s database, and online via ‘survey monkey’. The consultation was open to residents, statutory consultees, landowners and all other interested parties to respond.

The results of this consultation can be found in the ‘Borough Local Plan Sites Consultation: Report of Consultation’ 2013 which summarises opinion on the sites for different options and the reasons provided. The key findings are set out below:

The Council consulted on 49 housing sites, 24 employment sites, and 4 ‘other’ sites (77 sites overall). A summary of the results of the consultation were as follows:

 Overall most respondents objected to the development of Spencers Farm for housing

 The designation of the land to the north of Ockwells Manor as Green Belt was generally supported  Urban housing sites were generally supported for redevelopment, although there was a trend of preferring lower density options if possible  Car parks in urban areas received the most opposition to allocation for development in the excluded settlement  Garden centres in the Green Belt received more opposition to designation than support  Respondents tended to support other regeneration projects, namely Stafferton Way, Little Farm and Ascot High Street  Respondents supported retaining the existing employment designations and the proposed new designations.

Overall, whilst many potential sites have been suggested through the consultation, very few new sites came to light that have not been previously identified as part of the council’s Borough Local Plan evidence base such as in the SHLAA or ELR.

A number of key trends from the ‘Planning for the Future’ consultation informed the next stage of consultation, as follows:

 Continued support for the council’s policy of protecting the Green Belt (90%).

 Importance of specific aspects of Green Belt reaffirmed (preventing towns and villages from merging and preserving the setting and character of towns, villages, buildings and landscapes – receiving the strongest support, with retaining important wildlife habitats receiving least support overall).  If needed, 40% of respondents would prefer to see new homes in the existing built area, with 19% suggesting a combination of locations in the built area and outside built areas. 12% of respondents would prefer to see new housing outside the built area. 35% of respondents suggested specific locations where new homes could go. Key sites identified, are already included in the councils Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). A number of respondents felt that there is a need to make better use of existing stock, particularly converting vacant office space.  The results of the question on rural housing was inconclusive with 52% of respondents indicating that the provision of housing to support village life should meet only the identified needs of local people. A significant proportion of respondents indicated that housing should be provided for local people and others or suggested an alternative approach.  Key sites already included in the Council’s Employment Land Review (ELR) were put forward for redevelopment for housing. A number of sites for new employment use were also suggested. 26% of respondents did not want to see new employment development; many stating keep existing as is, or that there is already vacant office space.  The majority of respondents answered the question of what community uses should be allowed on industrial/employment areas, with fitness and leisure uses and health care (approximately 45% of all responses).  Finally, the facilities and services that the majority of respondents expect to have access to locally are local shops and health facilities, in favour of offices, restaurants, public houses and community facilities. Local offices were mentioned least frequently (5%).

Appendix D: Representations and Issues: Borough Local Plan; Preferred Options DPD Consultation 2014

In developing the Borough Local Plan: Preferred Options consultation documents, outputs from the previous stages were assessed further. Initial policy drafting was undertaken throughout 2013, and involved consultation with development control colleagues, other professionals in the council e.g. environmental protection, education, highways, the Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage, key specialist consultees such as Thames Water, and elected Members.

This part of the consultation statement relates to the Borough Local Plan: Preferred Options Development Plan Document. It was produced to be read in conjunction with the Draft Borough Local Plan: Preferred Options document which was published for consultation in January 2014 (hereafter referred to as the Borough Local Plan). The Borough Local Plan: Preferred Options document and other consultation documents were published on 10 January 2014. The consultation ran for 10 weeks and finished on 21 March 2014. The accompanying evidence base documents were available on the Council’s website for this whole period.

Who has been consulted

The Council has consulted with everyone on its consultee database by email and/or letter, which includes the specific consultation bodies and general consultation bodies identified in the Statement of Community Involvement Figure 10, as well as individual members of the public who requested to be notified of Borough Local Plan progress.

The Council has also contacted other organisations under the Duty to Cooperate and held further discussions, which included some bodies mentioned in Table 10 and some additional organisations.

Specific consultation bodies General consultation bodies

Statutory bodies such as Natural England, Groups representing voluntary, Environment Agency, English Heritage and racial/ethnic, Highways Agency religious, disability and business interests. Town and Parish Councils and Specific groups representing certain neighbouring local planning authorities. interests (locally and/or nationally) e.g. covering economic development, community need issues. Councillors / MPs. Members of the public, including residents within the Royal Borough. Persons or groups who requested to be notified of the subsequent revisions to the Borough Local Plan in previous consultations. Table 10: Consultation bodies listed in Statement of Community Involvement

How have we consulted?

The Council has invited representations in accordance with Regulation 18(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012. The Council has publicised the Borough Local Plan Preferred Options document through a variety of media including:

 ‘Around the Royal Borough’ (a quarterly newspaper delivered to every household in the Borough)  Hard copies of documents made available in the libraries and Council offices in Windsor and  Maidenhead

 Information on the Council’s website (link to consultation provided on the Council's homepage)

 Social media – links on Facebook and Twitter

 Press releases

 Press notices to local newspapers announcing consultation

 Press conference

 Through elected Members / Parish Councils

A series of elected Member briefing sessions were held in October/November 2013 to discuss the implications of the Borough Local Plan, and to offer the Members an opportunity to discuss and comment on the preferred options for the Borough Local Plan

A Briefing, with question and answers, was held for Parish Councils, Neighbourhood Planning Groups and planning officers in other teams prior to the consultation commencing in November and December 2013

A further series of briefings for Parish Councils was held by the Lead Cabinet member and the Planning Policy Manager in February and March 2014. Residents associations, neighbourhood planning groups, action groups and ward councillors were invited to these briefings.

The consultation sought responses to questions set out in the Preferred Options document. The BLP Preferred Options document and supporting documents were available online through Objective, the Council’s online consultation system, with a separate representation form available for those who did not wish to comment through Objective or had more general comments. The questions allowed respondents to ‘Support’, ‘Object’ or make an ‘Observation’ on policies within the preferred options document.

Views were specifically sought on the suitability of the 23 Edge of Settlement areas for development. The consultation documents were published on the Council’s website (www.rbwm.gov.uk). An email and postal address was given together with a contact telephone number.

The Council received over 6000 responses from around 1000 respondents. The document set out the preferred approaches to each section of the plan beginning with an overall vision,

55 then moving on to objectives and then later policies, also Green Belt Boundary Amendments, marketing and viability evidence, open space standards. employment, housing and other site allocations, areas in the Green Belt for future analysis and inviting comments and observations on all these sections. The policy approach set out in the document was not specific detailed policy wording, but the preferred approach to policies with a clear indication of how the new policy would be worded.

Question 1: Do you support the draft Borough Local Plan Overall Vision? Do you have any comments?

The Vision received 41 representations of support, 34 observations and 18 objections. The main issues raised are noted below:

 Concerns about traffic  Concerns about flooding  The protection or requirement for green and open spaces  Wildlife and building on the Green Belt  The distribution of housing  The need to ensure the attractiveness of Maidenhead for economic development and Windsor and Eton as a tourist destination  The quality of the design of developments  Opposition to building and development in certain settlements  Concerns about the capacity of existing infrastructure (schools, road, hospitals etc.) to cope with the increased population  The function and use of the countryside

Question 2: Do you support the objectives? Do you have any comments?

The Objectives received 40 representations of support, 33 observations and 12 objections. The main issues raised are noted below:

 The need for more housing especially affordable housing  Greater cooperation with other Berkshire authorities  The need to protect trees and the Green Belt  Improve town centres and connectivity throughout the Borough  The need to address parking and highways issues and the impact of Cross Rail  Biodiversity and landscape character needs to be taken into account  Encourage employment and tourism uses  A reduction of crime and fear of crime should be an objective  Encourage housing development to meet needs  Greater emphasis on tree protection and planting to assist with climate change

Question 3: Do you support the preferred strategy of providing a sustainable balance between housing and social needs and economic needs, whilst protecting the quality of the environment and the Green Belt?

This question sets out the main element of the plan's strategy and asked whether people agreed. There were 31 representations of support for the strategy, 31 observations and 72 representations of no support for the strategy. The main issues are noted below:

 Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN) would be higher than 700 homes per year should more recent demographic data be used or significantly higher if based on economic forecast data (1,389 homes)

 The assessment of the OAN should be unconstrained and the Green Belt must be positively considered in terms of meeting housing needs  Need to consider market signals  Greater engagement with other local authorities should have occurred in the preparation of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment with some advocating a joint exercise between local authorities in the area  OAN was not being met either within the borough or the wider housing market area  There is a contradiction between Objective 2 which seeks to meet housing needs and the spatial strategy which does not  The release of land from the Green Belt is contrary to national planning policy which seeks to protect the Green Belt  A more comprehensive review of land in the Green Belt should be undertaken than the approach taken in the Green Belt Purpose Analysis and Edge of Settlement Analysis  Important considerations should have already been applied to show some areas which remained under consideration as unsuitable  The plan relied too much on sites in areas of high flood risk  Ensure the effective use of town centre sites through high density developments, including tall buildings and the potential contribution that land in the Green Belt makes to Green Infrastructure  The spatial strategy should refer to "conserve and enhance" the special qualities of the borough and should include a reference to historic character or historic significance.

Question 4: Do you support the three components of:

1. Maintaining an environment that conserves the special qualities of the borough’s environment and places; 2. Optimising the efficient use of land, particularly land within and in proximity to town centres and other land which has previously been developed; and 3. Promoting a strong network of town, district and local centres which are at the heart of the community, providing shopping, services, employment and leisure.

Do you have any comments?

This question set out three main elements of the plan's strategy, asked whether people agreed with the elements and sought comments on them.

There were 33 representations of support, 11 observations and 11 objections to Question 4. The main issues are noted below:

 The need for good design and maintaining the identity of settlements  Support the principle of promoting development in town centres  The need to provide sufficient infrastructure to support development including adequate parking and better public transport  The need for open and green space and the contribution that these can make to well- being  Future strategy should be drawn up for Windsor Town Centre  Maidenhead Town Centre regeneration programme are welcomed

Summary of responses to policies and policy areas:

Quality of Place

PLA1 Design PLA2 Townscape and Landscape

PLA3 Thames Riverside Corridor

All the above policies received overall support

Green Belt and Countryside Character

GBC1 Green Belt GBC2 Countryside Character GBC4 The Reuse and/or Replacement of Non-Residential Buildings in the Green Belt GBC5 Equestrian Development in the Green Belt GBC6 Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt

All the above policies received overall support

GBC3 New Residential Development in the Green Belt

Overall there was objection to the policy and the policy would be redrafted.

Housing and Edge of settlement

HOU1 Amount and Distribution of Housing

The policy received 127 representations. The main issues raised are noted below:  The housing numbers are too low/high  The housing figures are unclear  Housing needs were not consulted on  The mix and type of housing to be provided are not clearly outlined  Concerns about the potential development of some sites/locations

HOU2 Allocated Housing Development Sites

Under this policy were three questions (Questions, 19, 20 and 21) and three tables as well as a list of sites promoted by developers and site owners.

Under Question 19, Table 4 showed ‘Sites in urban areas, outside the Green Belt’; Table 5 ‘Existing developed sites within the Green Belt’ and a list of ‘New sites promoted through the Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation’

Question 20, with Table 6, listed ‘Areas in the Green Belt where analysis of development suitability will be undertaken’, and the question asked: ‘How important do you consider the following factors to be in considering suitability of areas in the Green Belt for housing?’

People were asked to rate from 1 to 5 the importance of the following: Avoiding areas which are more distant from services and facilities Avoiding areas with higher quality agricultural land Avoiding areas which are more important for wildlife Avoiding areas which are visually more prominent within the Green Belt Avoiding areas which are at higher risk of flooding Avoiding areas which are visually more prominent from within historic areas Avoiding areas where gravel or sand could be extracted in the future Avoiding areas with lower environmental quality such those affected by noise

In summary, factors considered most important by respondents were:  Flooding

 Prominence from within the Green Belt, and  Wildlife

The least important factors were:  Minerals extraction  Environmental quality

Question 21 ‘Triangle enclosed by M4, A308 and Ascot Road, Maidenhead. Do you have any views on the use of the area for residential development and/or hospital-led development?’ Summarised responses were:

 This site should be developed as a park and ride facility to support Cross Rail  This site was generally supported for housing and or a Hospital  The development of this site should be mixed use to include small commercial and conference facilities  The site should not be developed due to the risk of flooding  Development would exacerbate existing traffic issues

As these two policies were controversial but important for the plan, they received a mixed response and the responses have been considered in development and final production of, the plan.

Housing

HOU3 Meeting a Range of Housing Needs HOU4 Affordable Housing HOU5 Affordable Housing Rural Exception Sites HOU6 Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople HOU7 Protection of Residential Land and the Housing Stock HOU8 Housing Layout and Design HOU9 Housing Density HOU10Conversion of Dwellings

All the policies in this group received overall support and some had no objections.

HOU11Development involving Residential Gardens

For this policy the balance of representations was objecting to it and the intention has been to take these objections into account in policy development

HOU12Extensions and Outbuildings within a Residential Curtilage HOU13Residential Amenity

These policies were supported with no objection.

Economy and Tourism

EC1 Economic Development EC2 Defined Employment Sites EC3 Other Sites and Loss of Employment Uses

All the above policies received overall support

Tourism Development

TM1 Tourism Development TM2 Visitor Accommodation

All the above policies received overall support

Town Centre and Retail

RET1 Hierarchy of Centres RET2 Maidenhead and Windsor Town Centres RET3 District and Local Centres RET4 Shops Outside of Centres RET5 Markets

All the above policies received overall support and RET5 had no objections.

Historic Environment

HE1 Historic Environment HE2 Listed Buildings HE3 Scheduled Ancient Monuments HE4 Archaeology HE5 Registered Parks and Gardens HE6 Conservation Areas HE7 Non-Designated Heritage Assets

All the policies in this group received overall support and some had no objections.

Natural Resources

NR1 Minerals Strategy NR2 Minerals – Preferred Areas of Future Working NR3 Minerals – Environmental Impacts and Restoration NR4 Waste Strategy NR5 Preferred Areas for New Facilities NR6 Environmental Impacts and Restoration NR7 Providing for Waste in New Development NR8 Sustainable Design and Construction NR9 Renewable Energy Generation NR10 Managing Flood Risk and Waterways

All the above policies received overall support; however, it is now proposed to have a separate Berkshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, so policies NR1 to NR7 inclusive are not being taken forward in the Borough Local Plan.

Environment Protection

EP1 Environmental Protection EP2 Air Pollution EP3 Artificial Light EP4 Noise EP5 Contaminated Land and / or Water

All the above policies received overall support

Natural Environment

NE1 Nature Conservation NE2 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area NE3 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows NE4 Open Spaces NE5 Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside

All the above policies received overall support

Infrastructure and Transport

INF1 Community Facilities INF2 Sustainable Transport INF3 Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions INF4 Telecommunications INF5 Water Supply and Sewerage Infrastructure

All the above policies received overall support

During this consultation approximately 95% of the policies received overall support for the approach outlined in the Preferred Options Consultation (Jan 2014).

Appendix E: Representations and Issues; Borough Local Plan: ‘Planning for the Future’ Consultation Summer 2015

During 2015 a series of consultations were undertaken. These sought views on a number of pieces of new research and some questions about specific areas of policy direction which were used to develop the policies and approach in the Borough Local Plan. These consultations were not part of a formal stage in the consultation on the new Borough Local Plan. The topic areas were:

Retail and Town Centres

The Retail and Town Centre Study, December 2015 was prepared by Cushman & Wakefield and it replaced the 2009 Retail Capacity update by DTZ. The study was made available in draft form to selected Duty to Cooperate and town centre stakeholders for comment. The process was also opened up to allow for comments from residents, businesses and any other interested parties.

Town Centre Improvement Workshops were also facilitated in Windsor (24 March 2015) and Maidenhead (20 March 2015). The purpose of these Workshops was to provide local businesses, stakeholders and community organisations with an opportunity to develop ideas and identify priorities for improving their respective town centres.

Full details, and the results, are provided in annexes to the retail study - Annex A for Windsor and Annex B for Maidenhead. The draft study was circulated to key stakeholders, including Council Officers and Members, on 23 June 2015 in order to report on and discuss the emerging findings and conclusions.

RBWM placed the ‘draft’ study on public consultation between 30 June 2015 and 31 July 2015. Comments received were reviewed and taken into account for the purpose of finalising this study.

Call for Sites

The call for sites took place during the summer of 2015 with an initial cut off date of July 2015 and a later date of October 2015 if people wanted the site considered as part of the Local Plan. The suggested types of land use were wide ranging and included the following possible uses:  Housing  Specialist housing such as communal accommodation without significant care  Gypsy, travellers and travelling showpeople’s accommodation  Employment  Retail  Tourism  Leisure  Waste management  Minerals extraction and/or processing or a mix of these uses.

The sites put forward were fed into a database and considered for their suitability for development and to inform the production of planning policies. The Call for Sites was used to build on earlier work to create a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment.

Edge of Settlement and Green Belt

During June 2015 stakeholders were consulted on the methodology to be used for assessing the edges of settlements in relation to the Green Belt in the RBWM Edge of Settlement Study. Part 1 of the study considered how land performed against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Part 2 continued to consider how those areas of land which perform least well against the purposes of the Green Belt performed against further indicators of suitability.

Following consultation responses, the methodology was reviewed and confirmed, and the output from the studies was used alongside other evidence to inform whether exceptional circumstances exist that would justify a revision to the boundary of the Green Belt.

Employment and Economy

Evidence on the demand for new employment development (offices, industry and warehousing) was commissioned jointly with Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the other local authorities within Berkshire. Research was undertaken during 2016 to produce this evidence.

Because the economy is not restricted solely to the borough boundaries, it was necessary to look wider to assess demand. The extent of the “functional economic market areas” FEMAs) within which the borough sits have been defined in the Berkshire Functional Economic Market Area Study Final Report. Work was also undertaken on assessing the scale of development likely to be needed within the FEMA in the future. The results fed into the policies and site allocations in the BLP.

Consultation was undertaken at the beginning of the study to gain feedback on the proposed methodology for both Part One (FEMA analysis) and Part Two (Economic Development Needs Assessment) of the study. The summary below incorporates responses received with regard to the Part One FEMA analysis only.

Responses to the methodology consultation were received from the following consultees. Not all respondents provided written responses or comments on the study methodology; ID reference numbers are provided below to illustrate where comments were received.

 University of Reading (ID: M1)  TFB Cinnamon Café (ID: M2)  Peasemore Parish Council (ID: M3)  Federation of Small Businesses (ID: M4)  Wraysbury Parish Council (ID: M5)  Newbury Town Council (ID: M6)  Bracknell Forest Council (Business Team) (ID: M7)  Telefonica UK (ID: M8)  Rushmoor Borough Council (ID: M9)  Enborne Parish Council (ID: M10)  Hungerford Town Council (ID: M11)  Guildford Borough Council (ID: M12)  Runnymede Borough Council (ID: M13)  Windsor and Eton town Partnership (ID: M14)

Responses to the emerging findings consultation were received from the following consultees. Not all respondents provided written responses or comments on the emerging

63 study findings; ID reference numbers are provided below to illustrate where comments were received.

 Finchampstead Parish Council (ID: EF2)  Bracknell & Wokingham College (ID: EF3)  JLA Associates Ltd (ID: EF4)  Oxford Properties (ID: EF5)  Wokingham Without Parish Council (ID: EF6)  Enborne Parish Council (ID: EF7)  Telefonica UK (ID: EF8)  Rushmoor Borough Council (ID: EF9)  Bracknell Forest Councillor (Phillip King) (ID: EF10)  Spelthorne Borough Council (ID: EF11)  South Bucks and Chiltern District Councils (ID: EF12)  Swindon Borough Council (ID: EF13)  Wiltshire Council (ID: EF14)  Bracknell Forest Council (Business Team) (ID: EF15)  Mayor of Hungerford (Cllr Martin Crane) (ID: EF16)  Surrey Heath Borough Council (ID: EF17)  Hart District Council (ID: EF18)  Woodley Town Council (ID: EF19)

Survey

Feedback was also sought through a Survey Monkey online questionnaire on some specific questions that fed into the development of policies in the BLP. This survey covered the following topics:

 Local green space  Braywick Park and the Magnet Leisure Centre  Development capacity of Maidenhead town centre  Windsor Link Railway

The responses are set out below:

Local Greenspace

Question: Are you aware of any areas that could be suitable for designation as local green space? If yes, please say which area you consider is suitable and explain why it would meet the three criteria shown above.

263 spaces were put forward by 226 respondents as being suitable for designation as local green space, as follows:

Analysis of Local Green Spaces put forward:

Poundfield 88 Raymill Road East/Deerswood Meadow 55 Braywick Park 11 Maidenhead Golf Course 8 Alexandra Gardens, Windsor 5 Around Ockwells Park 5 Town Moor 4

Datchet Green 3 Sutherland Grange, Windsor 3 Broomhall Farm 2 Cannon Lane 2 Datchet Common 2 Grenfell Park, Maidenhead 2 High Street Ascot 2 Non-specific area 2 Willows Park, Oakley Green, Windsor 2 Cookham 2 Other single-nomination sites 65 Total 263

Braywick Park and Magnet Leisure Centre

Question: Thinking about the facilities in the current Magnet Leisure Centre, do you think the current layout is sufficient?

420 individual respondents answered the questions about Braywick Park and the Magnet Leisure Centre. No Yes No Not sure answer Sports hall 180 35 188 239 Swimming pool 214 59 131 238 Leisure pool area 189 53 159 241 Dance studios 102 21 273 246 Fitness suite 150 34 211 247 Spinning studio 105 16 276 245 Squash courts 130 25 240 247 Health suite 107 28 258 249 Car park 180 102 122 238 Cycle parking 113 56 222 251 Soft play area 110 31 250 251 Café 170 51 178 243 Martial arts dojo 61 16 314 251 Conference facilities 53 34 306 249 If a new leisure centre was provided at Braywick Park, which facilities would you be likely to use there? No Yes No Not sure answer Sports hall 99 166 87 290 Swimming pool 211 123 61 247 Leisure pool area 149 146 67 280 Dance studios 53 214 79 296 Fitness suite 118 169 76 279 Spinning studio 52 212 86 292

Squash courts 57 216 70 299 Health suite 92 182 83 285 Car park 197 128 61 256 Cycle parking 115 178 71 278 Soft play area 65 207 70 300 Café 152 135 80 275 Martial arts dojo 20 243 73 306 Conference facilities 32 231 72 307

Development Capacity of Maidenhead Town Centre

Where do you think there is greatest potential for tall buildings in and around Maidenhead Town Centre? Please select all that apply.

381 individual respondents answered this question, some nominating more than one location resulting in 825 nominations as analysed below.

Bridge Street area

High Street area

King Street / Queen Street / Broadway triangle

Nowhere

Railway station area

Stafferton Way (south of the railway)

West Street area

158 135 121 108 91 71 58 47 36

The analysis of comments where people selected ‘Nowhere’ included the following reasons:

Would affect the character/ambience of the town 57 Do not like tall buildings - dark, wind tunnels, claustrophobic, isolating 24 Not needed 11

Do not live near/know/go to Maidenhead 10 Need for a whole plan for regeneration 3 Other 2 It would set a precedent for tall buildings 1 108

Windsor Link Railway

Question: What do you think about the proposal to link the two railway lines in Windsor?

458 respondents responded to this question. The majority of respondents support the WLR but some concerns were expressed as analysed below.

% Strongly Support 137 Support 80 Support but have concerns 76 Total Support 293 64 Neutral 54 12 Object 35 Strongly Object 76 Total Object 111 24 Total 458 100

17% Strongly Support 30% Support 8% Support but have concerns Neutral 12% Object Strongly Object 17% 16%

The reasons for support of linking the two railway lines included:

 Improvement for businesses and tourism  Reduction in car usage, relieve congestion on roads  Improved connectivity saving cost and time  It would take pressure off the Paddington line  Makes sense to make a more efficient public transport system a priority

The reasons for concerns and objection against linking the two railway lines included:

 Too expensive  There would be big disruption during the work  No business case, would be a waste of money and resources  Adverse effect on the historic character of Windsor and the environment  The affect on surrounding villages such as Datchet of more trains at the level crossing  Not enough facts and evidence given to support the case.