(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Executive, 28/01/2020 17:00

Notice of Meeting

Executive Councillor Bettison OBE (Chairman), Councillor Dr Barnard (Vice-Chairman), Councillors D Birch, Brunel-Walker, Harrison, Mrs Hayes MBE, Heydon and Turrell Tuesday 28 January 2020, 5.00 - 6.30 pm Council Chamber - Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell, RG12

1JD

Agenda

Item Description Page

1. Apologies

2. Minutes 3 - 16

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 17 December 2019.

3. Declarations of Interest

Members are asked to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary or Affected Interests in respect of any matter to be considered at this meeting.

Any Member with a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter should withdraw from the meeting when the matter is under consideration and should notify the Democratic Services Officer in attendance that they are withdrawing as they have such an interest. If the Disclosable Pecuniary Interest is not entered on the register of Members interests the Monitoring Officer must be notified of the interest within 28 days.

Any Member with an Affected Interest in a matter must disclose the interest to the meeting. There is no requirement to withdraw from the meeting when the interest is only an affected interest, but the Monitoring Officer should be notified of the interest, if not previously notified of it, within 28 days of the meeting.

4. Urgent Items of Business

Any other items which, pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman decides are urgent.

Executive Key Decisions

The items listed below all relate to Key Executive decisions, unless stated otherwise below. 5. School Places Plan and Capacity Strategy 2020-24 17 - 50

To approve the School Places Plan and Capacity Strategy 2020-24

6. Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Minerals and Waste Plan - 51 - 140

EMERGENCY EVACUATION INSTRUCTIONS If you hear the alarm, leave the building immediately. Follow the green signs. Use the stairs not the lifts. Do not re-enter the building until told to do so. proposed submission version

To seek a recommendation from Executive to Council that the Submission Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan, the Policies Map and all supporting documents be formally submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.That, subject to Council accepting the recommendation, the Executive approves the Submission Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan, the Policies Map and all supporting documents for publication for a statutory period of six weeks.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

Agenda item 7 is supported by an annex containing exempt information as defined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. If the Committee wishes to discuss the content of this annex in detail, it may choose to move the following resolution:

That pursuant to Regulation 4 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) Regulations 2012 and having regard to the public interest, members of the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the consideration of item 7 which involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under the following category of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972:

(3) Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). 7. Greening Waste Collection Arrangements 141 - 174

To outline how the Council could make changes to its waste collection arrangements to address climate change – reduce, reuse and recycle.

Sound recording, photographing, filming and use of social media is permitted. Please contact Hannah Stevenson, 01344 352308, [email protected], so that any special arrangements can be made. Published: 21 January 2020

EXECUTIVE 17 DECEMBER 2019 5.00 - 5.30 PM

Present: Councillors Bettison OBE (Chairman), D Birch, Brunel-Walker, Harrison, Mrs Hayes MBE, Heydon and Turrell

29. Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest.

30. Minutes RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Executive on 22 October 2019 together with the accompanying decision records be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Leader.

31. Urgent Items of Business There were no urgent items of business.

Executive Decisions and Decision Records The Executive considered the following items. The decisions are recorded in the decision sheets attached to these minutes and summarised below:

32. Capital Programme 2019/2020 RESOLVED that

i. a Council funded capital programme of £4.79m for 2020/21 as set out in paragraph 5.11 of the Director:Finance’s report and summarised in Annex A, including the new schemes listed in Annexes B – C is approved for consultation.

ii. the inclusion of £13.91m of expenditure to be externally funded (including £3.97m of S106 funding) as outlined in paragraph 5.12 of the Director:Finance’s report Is approved for consultation.

iii. the inclusion of an additional budget of £1m for Invest-to-Save schemes is approved for consultation.

33. Revenue Budget 2020/21 RESOLVED that:

i. the draft budget proposals for 2020/21 as the basis for consultation with the Overview & Scrutiny Commission and other interested parties or individuals are agreed.

ii. Directors are authorised to implement inflationary increases to fees and charges as soon as practicable in the current financial year.

iii. the Treasury Management Strategy and associated documents at Annexe E for the Director:Finance’s report is agreed and requests that the Governance and Audit Committee review each of the key elements.

iv. the Capital Strategy published in 2019 remains relevant and does not require updating at this time.

v. the 2020/21 Schools Budget be set at the eventual level of the Dedicated School Grant income plus any accumulated DSG balances and additional Council funding of £0.308m (paragraph 8.23 of the Director:Finance’s report).

vi. the Executive Member for Children, Young People and Learning be authorised to agree the allocation of the sums available for schools funding as set out in recommendation 2.5 having regard to the decisions and recommendations of the Schools Forum and to agree detailed budgets for services centrally managed by the Council.

vii. the virements relating to the 2019/20 budget as set out in Annexes G and H of the Director:Finance’s report are approved and recommend those that are over £0.100m for approval by Council.

34. Direct Cremations RESOLVED that:

i. Direct cremations are offered as an additional service at Easthampstead Park Cemetery and Crematorium at an individual price of £285.00.

ii. the Council Constitution allows the Director to fix charges for any new service, provided that such charges are reported to the next meeting of the Council’s Executive Committee. It is therefore recommended that this service is introduced within the current financial year.

iii. the new service will be included in the 2020/21 fees and charges for approval at full Council in February 2020.

35. Council Plan Overview Report RESOLVED that the performance of the council over the period from July – September 2019 highlighted in the Overview Report in Annex A of the Chief Executive’s report was noted.

36. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Annual Review Letter 2018-19 RESOLVED that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsmen Annual Review Letter 2018 at Annex A and corresponding data tables at Appendix B are noted.

Exclusion of the Press and Public RESOLVED that pursuant to Regulation 4 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) Regulations 2012 and having regard to the public interest, members of the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the

consideration of item 10 which involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under the following category of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972:

(3) Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

37. Blue Mountain Community and Health Care Hub - Procurement Plan RESOLVED that:

i. The progress to date on the community centre and health & wellbeing hub in partnership with the Care Commissioning Group (CCG) is noted and the timetable in paragraph 5.23 of the Director: Place, Planning & Regeneration’s report is agreed.

ii. the community centre budget of up to £2.4m is agreed as per paragraph 5.10 of the Director: Place, Planning & Regeneration’s report; the development cost of the health centre to be met by the CCG/NHS as noted in paragraph 5.1 of the Director: Place, Planning & Regeneration’s report.

iii. to forward fund up to £4.6m (including ancillary costs as per paragraph 5.10 of the Director: Place, Planning & Regeneration’s report),the capital costs of the Health part of the building, on the basis that the consequent capital financing costs will be matched by long term rental income from Health.

iv. the Procurement Plan (paragraph 5.25 of the Director: Place, Planning & Regeneration’s report) for the community centre and health care hub in Appendix C (Restricted), is approved.

CHAIRMAN

5 This page is intentionally left blank

6 Minute Annex

Bracknell Forest Council Record of Decision

Work Programme Reference I087919

1. TITLE: Capital Programme 2019/2020

2. SERVICE AREA: Finance

3. PURPOSE OF DECISION

To approve the Council’s budget proposals for budget consultation

4 IS KEY DECISION Yes

5. DECISION MADE BY: Executive

6. DECISION:

ii. the inclusion of £13.91m of expenditure to be externally funded (including £3.97m of S106 funding) as outlined in paragraph 5.12 of the Director:Finance’s report Is approved for consultation.

iii. the inclusion of an additional budget of £1m for Invest-to-Save schemes is approved for consultation.

7. REASON FOR DECISION

The reasons for the recommendations are set out in the report.

8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The alternative options are considered in the report.

9. PRINCIPAL GROUPS CONSULTED: Business rate payers, the Over 50's Forum, the Schools Forum, Parish Councils and voluntary organisations.

10. DOCUMENT CONSIDERED: Report of the Director: Finance

11. DECLARED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None

Date Decision Made Final Day of Call-in Period

17 December 2019 25 December 2019

SIGNED: ...... DATE: ......

Bracknell Forest Council Record of Decision

Work Programme Reference I084649

1. TITLE: Revenue Budget 2020/21

2. SERVICE AREA: Finance

3. PURPOSE OF DECISION

To approve the Council's budget proposals for consultation.

4 IS KEY DECISION Yes

5. DECISION MADE BY: Executive

6. DECISION:

i. the draft budget proposals for 2020/21 as the basis for consultation with the Overview & Scrutiny Commission and other interested parties or individuals are agreed.

ii. Directors are authorised to implement inflationary increases to fees and charges as soon as practicable in the current financial year.

iv. the Capital Strategy published in 2019 remains relevant and does not require updating at this time.

vii. the virements relating to the 2019/20 budget as set out in Annexes G and H of the Director:Finance’s report are approved and recommend those that are over £0.100m for approval by Council.

7. REASON FOR DECISION

The recommendations are designed to allow the Executive to consult on its draft budget proposals for 2020/21 as required by the Local Government Act 2003.

8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The range of options being considered is included in the report and its Annexes.

9. PRINCIPAL GROUPS CONSULTED: Targeted consultation exercises will be undertaken with business rate payers, the Schools Forum, Parish Councils and voluntary organisations. In addition, this report and all the supporting information will be publicly available to any individual or group who wish to comment on any proposal included within it. Internal consultation is via officers, members and more specifically the Overview & Scrutiny Commission and its panels.

10. DOCUMENT CONSIDERED: Report of the Director: Finance

11. DECLARED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None

Date Decision Made Final Day of Call-in Period

17 December 2019 25 December 2019

SIGNED: ...... DATE: ......

Bracknell Forest Council Record of Decision

Work Programme Reference I088150

1. TITLE: Direct Cremations

2. SERVICE AREA: Delivery

3. PURPOSE OF DECISION

To introduce a new service offer (Direct Cremations) which could provide additional revenue income by optimising un-met demand in the second chapel.

4 IS KEY DECISION Yes

5. DECISION MADE BY: Executive

6. DECISION:

i. Direct cremations are offered as an additional service at Easthampstead Park Cemetery and Crematorium at an individual price of £285.00.

iii. the new service will be included in the 2020/21 fees and charges for approval at full Council in February 2020.

7. REASON FOR DECISION

The number of additional funeral services that were expected to take place following the opening of the second chapel at EPC&C in 2018/19 has not been realised. The service is therefore underperforming against its 2019/20 income target and at the end of September the income pressure totalled £180k. Direct cremations offer an opportunity to supplement existing services and generate additional income that may help to bridge some of this gap.

8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

1. The current offer at EPC&C could remain as it is, without direct cremations. This option is not recommended given the current budget circumstances of the service and the council.

2. In response to the income pressure, plans have been put in place to further promote EPC&C and attract additional custom - these include creating a vanity URL, contacting Funeral Directors that are in the local area but not currently using the site, exploring joint marketing options with Registrars and updating both printed and electronic marketing materials to better promote the service as a whole. Given these

efforts, the current offer at EPC&C could remain the same, without direct cremations. However, it is uncertain that marketing, alone, could account for an additional £180k (or more) of custom.

9. PRINCIPAL GROUPS CONSULTED: None.

10. DOCUMENT CONSIDERED: Report of the Executive Director: Delivery

11. DECLARED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None

Date Decision Made Final Day of Call-in Period

17 December 2019 25 December 2019

SIGNED: ...... DATE: ......

Bracknell Forest Council Record of Decision

Work Programme Reference I085572

1. TITLE: Council Plan Overview Report

2. SERVICE AREA: Chief Executive's Office

3. PURPOSE OF DECISION

To inform the Executive of the performance of the council over the second quarter of the 2019/20 financial year.

4 IS KEY DECISION No

5. DECISION MADE BY: Executive

6. DECISION:

The performance of the council over the period from July – September 2019 highlighted in the Overview Report in Annex A of the Chief Executive’s report was noted.

7. REASON FOR DECISION

To brief the Executive on the council’s performance, highlighting key areas, so that appropriate action can be taken if needed.

8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

N/A

9. PRINCIPAL GROUPS CONSULTED: None

10. DOCUMENT CONSIDERED: Report of the Chief Executive

11. DECLARED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None

Date Decision Made Final Day of Call-in Period

17 December 2019 25 December 2019

SIGNED: ...... DATE: ......

Bracknell Forest Council Record of Decision

Work Programme Reference I087863

1. TITLE: Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Annual Review Letter 2018-19

2. SERVICE AREA: Organisational Development, Transformation & HR

3. PURPOSE OF DECISION

To provide a summary of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Annual Review Letter 2019.

4 IS KEY DECISION Yes

5. DECISION MADE BY: Executive

6. DECISION:

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsmen Annual Review Letter 2018 at Annex A and corresponding data tables at Appendix B are noted.

7. REASON FOR DECISION

The Annual review letter provides CMT with the information to help assess the council’s performance in handling complaints.

8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

None considered.

9. PRINCIPAL GROUPS CONSULTED: N/A

10. DOCUMENT CONSIDERED: Report of the Director: Organisational Development, Transformation and HR

11. DECLARED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None

Date Decision Made Final Day of Call-in Period

17 December 2019 25 December 2019

SIGNED: ...... DATE: ......

Bracknell Forest Council Record of Decision

Work Programme Reference I085911

1. TITLE: Blue Mountain Community and Health Care Hub - Procurement Plan

2. SERVICE AREA: Place, Planning & Regeneration

3. PURPOSE OF DECISION

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the progress of the Blue Mountain Community and Health Care Hub scheme and the supporting financial summary. The project is in partnership with the East Berkshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). A decision is required to proceed to the next stage of the project, which includes completion of the heads of terms, appointment of a design team for completion of RIBA Stage 3 design and applying for planning permission. The CCG submitted an outline business case to the NHS in July 2019 to secure funding for the health provision. A procurement plan tailored to the specific requirements of this project requires approval.

4 IS KEY DECISION Yes

5. DECISION MADE BY: Executive

6. DECISION:

iv. the Procurement Plan (paragraph 5.25 of the Director: Place, Planning & Regeneration’s report) for the community centre and health care hub in Appendix C (Restricted), is approved.

7. REASON FOR DECISION

1. The Blue Mountain programme consists of Binfield Learning Village all-through school for 1851 pupils (operated as King’s Academy Binfield) and community centre required alongside 400 new homes at the Blue Mountain site. In the first phase, the Council has delivered the new school which opened in September 2018. The next phase requires the Council to deliver the community hub in line with the ongoing building of the new housing development being undertaken by a Bloor and Linden Homes partnership.

2. The development of the Blue Mountain site in accordance with the Site Allocation Local Plan has been previously approved through the Executive process, which included a full Council consultation. Planning Permission for the new all-through school and outline planning permission for the standalone community centre was granted in June 2016. Subsequently, the Council received the land from the former site owner on the basis that an all-through school and community centre will be delivered by the Council. The residential parcel of land was part of the same outline planning permission, which was subsequently bought by Bloor Homes who are now building new homes in partnership with Linden Homes.

3. The forecast increase in the population of Binfield and the surrounding areas would require additional healthcare facilities for the local community. The Council is working in partnership with the East Berkshire Clinical Commissioning Group to develop a joint community and health & wellbeing centre. A joint centre will provide enhanced benefits to the local community. The scheme will also deliver a “one public estate objective” with BFC, CCG and primary care practices all sharing a facility which will be owned by BFC.

8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The proposed health and wellbeing centre is subject to NHS funding. If adequate funding is not provided, the health facility will not be affordable. In this event, the Council will revert to building a standalone community centre to meet the Council’s legal obligation, and meet the needs of the new community. At that stage, some redesigning of the scheme will be needed.

9. PRINCIPAL GROUPS CONSULTED: East Berkshire CCG (and health service providers via the CCG), Binfield Parish Council.

10. DOCUMENT CONSIDERED: Report of the Director: Place, Planning & Regeneration

11. DECLARED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None

Date Decision Made Final Day of Call-in Period

17 December 2019 25 December 2019

SIGNED: ...... DATE: ......

16 Agenda Item 5

TO: EXECUTIVE DATE: 28 JANUARY 2020

SCHOOL PLACES PLAN AND CAPACITY STRATEGY Executive Director, People

1 PURPOSE OF DECISION

1.1 To approve the School Places Plan and Capacity Strategy 2020-24. These were last approved by the Executive in January 2017 and have now been updated to cover the five-year period from 2020 to 2024.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 To approve the School Places Plan and School Capacity Strategy 2020-24.

3. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 The Council has the statutory duty to provide sufficient school places.

3.2 The School Places Plan and Capacity Strategy are the essential tools employed by the Council to meet this duty.

4. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

4.1 None, it is business critical to undertake pupil forecasting to ensure the Council meets its statutory duty to provide sufficient school places.

5. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Background

5.1 Bracknell Forest is moving from a time of scarcity of school places to a time of surplus school places. Whilst secondary school numbers on roll are still rising, the birth rate and corresponding primary school intake numbers are decreasing across the Borough.

Forecasting School Places

5.2 A new forecasting system has been developed and adopted in 2019 following concerns that the previous forecasts were too high. This has been developed with input from Council officers in Education & Learning, Business Continuity, Public Health, Finance and the Borough Planners.

5.3 A new forum for managing and overseeing this work, the School Sufficiency Board, has been set up which meets quarterly with representatives from all the above Council teams.

17 Unrestricted

5.4 The Council has also employed the services of an external consultant to help create the new forecasting system and has exchanged information with relevant officer colleagues in neighbouring authorities, including the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Slough to share insights and good working practice.

School Places Plan and Capacity Strategy

5.5 The School Places Plan and Capacity Strategy is attached as Appendix A, which forecasts demand for school places for;  Early Years  Primary  Secondary  Post 16  SEN

Sufficient School Places

5.6 Forecasts indicate that there will be sufficient school places across all mainstream sectors and in all planning areas to meet the forecast demand.

Costs and Funding – Capital

5.7 The Council is unlikely to receive DfE capital Basic Need grant (BNG) in future years because of the current surpluses of school places. DfE calculate BNG on data submitted by local authorities in the annual Surplus Capacity and Places return (SCAP).

5.8 If proposed new primary school at Bucklers Park (formerly TRL) is built, then the Council will incur capital costs associated with overseeing the developer construct process estimated at £700k. Pupil yields from the new housing at Bucklers Park have been much lower than previously anticipated and unless pupil yields rise, there is no forecast need for this school to be built during the 2020-24 forecast period.

5.9 The proposed new primary schools at Amen Corner South and Warfield East have been put on hold, however agreements have been proposed as part of the S106 negotiations with the developers to keep the options to build the schools open up until 10 years after the commencement of each development allowing for these new schools to be built in future years if required. The land and construction costs would be expected to be provided as part of the future S106 agreements yet to be agreed.

5.10 The previously committed growth of Kings Academy Binfield will entail the Council paying the capital cost for furniture and equipment for the future classrooms as these come on stream between 2020 and 2024.

5.11 There are bids on the 2020/21 BFC Capital Programme to re-order school accommodation totalling £657k to facilitate future reductions in PANs and to support school improvement.

5.12 The cost of creating additional SEN facilities required as part of this SPP will be brought to the Executive as bids on the capital programme in future years.

18 Unrestricted

Costs and Funding - Revenue

5.13 Schools are supported by providing a five-year income budget forecast based on the pupil forecasts in the SPP. The financial model to schools is adapted to present the most recent October census to align to the DfE budget setting requirements.

5.14 If the proposed new primary schools at Bucklers Park (formerly TRL), Amen Corner South and Warfield East are not built then there may be abortive capital costs equivalent to the expenditure so far incurred in the design of these new schools amounting to £126k. This would be financed from the balance held in the earmarked reserve created for this purpose.

5.15 Where pupils are offered a school place involving travel distances to school exceeding 2 miles for primary aged pupils or 3 miles for secondary aged pupils, Home to School Transport costs are paid by the Council. Parents are not however eligible for Home to School Transport if they have been offered a school place within the distance, but instead choose to take up a place at a school beyond the distance. Having surplus places reduces the likelihood that Home to School Transport will be incurred.

6. ADVICE RECEIVED FROM STATUTORY AND OTHER OFFICERS

Borough Solicitor

6.1 The relevant legal issues are contained within the report.

Director of Finance

6.2 The revised pupil forecasting model is expected to increase the accuracy of the data which in turn will improve decision making in respect of capital investments in schools. The current forecasts indicate a sufficiency of places, however, if new schemes are required, they will be presented for a decision through the council’s normal budget setting process.

Director of Place, Planning & Regeneration

6.3 The School Places Plan recognises the need to review the addition of Primary Schools at Bucklers Park, Warfield East and Amen Corner South. These were all identified as part of the Site allocations Local Plan. It will be important that the opportunity to secure these schools at a later date is not lost if pupil forecasts see a rise in numbers above current forecast levels.

6.4 The Draft Local Plan identifies the potential need for additional primary provision at the Jealott’s Hill site, this will be important to serve this new community and reduce the need to travel for primary age children. At this time, it is considered that there is unlikely to be the need for new secondary provision as part of the draft plan. However, this matter will be kept under review.

Equalities Impact Assessment

6.5 SEN forecasts are included in the SPP. Compliance with needs for disabled access to new build school accommodation is achieved through Part M of Building Regulations. The requirement for disabled access to existing school buildings is set out in the Equality Act and the Council makes accessibility works a priority in it Planned Works programme for schools, details of which are set out in the Asset Management Plan for Schools.

19 Unrestricted

Strategic Risk Management Issues

6.6 The main factors affecting the planning and delivery of school places are:

ISSUE RISK COMMENT

A new forecasting system has 1 Accuracy of forecasts MEDIUM been introduced in 2019 to mitigate this risk. A new School Sufficiency Co-ordination Board has been established between Council 2 MEDIUM including representatives from teams and all teams to oversee planning departments. for school places.

Forecasts suggest there will be Sufficient school 3 LOW sufficient school places for the places forecast period 2020-24. Forecasts suggest primary surpluses will increase, but secondary surpluses will 4 Surplus school places MEDIUM decrease. Measures to reduce the surplus of primary places will mitigate this risk. Academies may choose to depart from catchment area Council’s ability to admissions policies and/or 4 manage the supply of MEDIUM admit over their PANs. school places Maintenance of an effective dialogue with academy providers is essential. Forecasts suggest there will be

5 Capital Cost Risk sufficient school places for the LOW forecast period 2020-24. Surplus places reduce the Revenue Cost Risk to 6 LOW likelihood that Home to School the Council Transport will be incurred. Surplus places increase the likelihood that some schools Revenue Cost Risk to 7 MEDIUM will have relatively low pupil Schools numbers which can result in budget difficulties. The Council could stand to be criticised if there are too many 8 Reputation Risk MEDIUM surplus school places, emphasising the importance of strategic planning.

20 Unrestricted

7. CONSULTATION

Principal Groups Consulted

7.1 The School Sufficiency Board (SSB)

7.2 Capital Programme Steering Group (PSG)

7.3 Schools Forum

7.4 Oxford CE Diocese

7.5 Portsmouth RC Diocese

Method of Consultation

7.6 SSB were consulted at their meeting on 29/11/19.

7.7 PSG were consulted at their meeting on 16/12/19.

7.8 Schools Forum were consulted at their meeting on 16/12/19.

7.9 The two Diocesan Authorities were consulted by email on 10/12/19.

Representations Received

7.10 SSB approved the draft SSP for adoption.

7.11 PSG observed that the increasing surplus of primary school places would potentially free up accommodation in schools for other compatible purposes.

7.12 Schools Forum noted the forecast reduction in primary school rolls and highlighted the need for individual schools to be aware of how and when this might affect them. Further consultation with individual schools will take place in the 2020 Spring term arising from this.

7.13 The Oxford CE Diocesan Authority noted that the surplus of places would mean that more parents would secure their preferred places at popular schools outside of typical catchment boundaries.

Background Papers

Appendix A School Places Plan & Capacity Strategy 2020 - 2024

Contacts for Further Information

Rachel Morgan Assistant Director, Education & Learning 01344 354037 [email protected]

Chris Taylor Head of School Property, Places & Admissions

21 Unrestricted

01344 354062 [email protected]

SCHOOL PLACES PLAN and

CAPACITY STRATEGY

2020 - 2024

23 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

Contents

1. Introduction………………………………………………... 3

2. Executive Summary……………………………………… 3

3. Factors Affecting Pupil Numbers and School Places… 4

4. Planning Areas…………………………………………… 10

5. Schools……………………………………………………. 11

6. Designated Area Maps………………………………….. 12

7. Early Years……………………………………………….. 14

8. Primary……………………………………………………. 16

9. Secondary Key Stage 3 & 4…………………………….. 19

10. Post 16…………………………………………………….. 22

11. Special and Additional Educational Needs…………….. 24

12. Forward Look to 2034…………………………………….. 26

Annex 1 Pupil Forecasting Methodology…………………… 27

2 24 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

1. Introduction

1.1 The Council has a statutory duty to provide sufficient school places, and the School Places Plan and Capacity Strategy (SPP) is the essential tool employed by the Council to meet this duty.

1.2 The Bracknell Forest Learning Improvement Strategy contains seven Key Priorities, one of which is to “Access a High-Quality School Place”. This SPP is the tool that ensures there are sufficient accessible school places available across the Borough in the right locations at the right time to meet this need.

1.3 The SPP is produced in accordance with DfE Guide to Forecasting Pupil Numbers in School Place Planning and details of the forecasting methodology are set out in Annex 1.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Bracknell Forest is moving from a time of scarcity of school places to a time of surplus school places.

2.2 The birth rate and primary school numbers are decreasing across the Borough.

2.3 Secondary numbers however are still increasing as the previous rise of primary numbers is now working its way up through secondary schools.

2.4 Pupil numbers are forecast to change between 2020 to 2024:  Early Years - decrease by 10% (299)  Primary - decrease by 7% (756)  Secondary KS 3 & 4 - increase by 9% (596)  Post 16 - increase by 39% (381)  SEN - increase by 12% (378)

2.5 Forecasts indicate that there will be enough mainstream school places across all sectors in all planning areas to meet this forecast demand, and there are no plans to add any additional school capacity during this forecast period. The significant increase in post 16 numbers relates to the future opening of the sixth form at Kings Academy Binfield.

2.6 Where significant surpluses of places put pressure on school budgets, removal of surplus teaching space may be required at some schools, by:  Converting teaching spaces to other uses e.g. learning support  Removing temporary accommodation  Mothballing part of a school  Finding alternative compatible uses for some of the accommodation  Leasing out surplus accommodation to paying tenants

253 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

3. Factors Affecting Pupil Numbers and School Places

3.1 The following factors affect the supply and demand for school places:

Birth Rate

3.2 ONS population estimates suggest that the birth rate in Bracknell Forest is decreasing, and this is confirmed by data from the NHS.

ONS Bracknell Forest Number of Live Births by Year and Intake Year 1,600

1,550

1,500

1,450

1,400

1,350

1,300 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Sep-10 Sep-11 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Sep-16 Sep-17 Sep-18 Sep-19 Sep-20 Sep-21 Sep-22 Sep-23

Immigration

3.3 Immigration and the proportion of pupils in schools from a minority ethnic background is steadily increasing.

January Census Bracknell Forest % of Minority Ethnic Pupils 25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

4 26 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

New Housing

3.4 Up to approximately 8,100 new houses may be built across the Borough during the forecast period, based on the housing sites identified in the 2013-26 Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP), and proposed new housing in receipt of planning permission.

BRACKNELL FOREST HOUSING COMPLETIONS 2007-2026 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

3.5 It should be noted however that in the past new housing numbers have often come on more slowly than anticipated, and that the timescales for the delivery of new housing is in the hands of developers and is outside the Council’s direct control. Various factors may affect the timescale for new house building, including market forces, interest rates on mortgages and employment opportunities in the local area.

3.6 The majority of the proposed new housing is in the North Bracknell planning area.

Pupil Yields Arising from New Housing

3.7 New dwellings of different sizes yield different numbers of pupils e.g. smaller flats yield less children than larger 3-4 bed family homes. Research has revealed that estimated average pupil yields from new housing in Bracknell Forest have decreased by 30% since 2016.

Pupil Mobility

3.8 Internal migration within the Borough for the 2019 intake years is set out on the tables below:

275 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

Primary Internal Migration Sep-19 Intake Year TO FROM Crowthorne & Total North Bracknell South Bracknell Sandhurst

North 481 35.5% 42 3.1% 2 0.1% 525 39% Bracknell

South 86 6.3% 497 36.7% 13 1.0% 596 44% Bracknell

Crowthorne 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 231 17.0% 235 17% & Sandhurst

Total 569 42% 541 40% 246 18% 1,356 100%

Secondary Internal Migration Sep-19 Intake Year

TO FROM Total North Bracknell South Bracknell Crowthorne &

North 304 21.7% 165 11.8% 3 0.2% 472 34% Bracknell

South 60 4.3% 502 35.8% 65 4.6% 627 45% Bracknell

Crowthorne 0 0.0% 15 1.1% 287 20.5% 302 22% & Sandhurst

Total 364 26.0% 682 48.7% 355 25.3% 1,401 100%

3.9 Pupil mobility is also higher where this is associated with staffing changes at the Royal Military Academy (RMA). Schools in the Crowthorne and Sandhurst planning area regularly receive new pupils unexpectedly and therefore typically have pupil mobility in excess of 20%, which is higher than the national average.

3.10 Traveller families are another factor affecting pupil mobility, and this can be difficult to forecast. There is a permanent designated Traveller Site with 13 pitches in the Crowthorne and Sandhurst school planning area.

Boundary Issues with Neighbouring Local Authorities

3.11 Bracknell Forest shares boundaries with Wokingham, the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (RBWM), Hampshire and Surrey, but the majority of cross-border movement occurs with Wokingham and RBWM.

3.12 There are several legacy issues derived from the way that Berkshire County Council organised its school places:

6 28 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

 Two Bracknell Forest primary schools (Ascot Heath and Cranbourne) are in the designated area of Charters Secondary School, located in RBWM.

 The Wokingham primary schools at Hatch Ride and Oaklands are in the designated area of Edgbarrow Secondary School in Bracknell Forest.

 The designated area of the RBWM South Ascot primary school extends into the eastern part of Bracknell Forest.

3.13 The impact of this cross-border legacy on the September 2019 intake is set out on the table below and this reveals that Bracknell Forest is a net exporter of 54 pupils, which is 1.9% of the total numbers on roll:

September 2019 Intake Year Secondary Y7 Primary YR Totals Cross Border Migration

Inward Migration: Offers made to non BF 120 71% 48 29% 168 residents for BF schools

Outward Migration: Offers made to BF 147 66% 75 34% 222 residents for non BF schools

Totals: 267 68% 123 32% 390

New Schools

3.14 New schools may cause some turbulence in demand for school places through parental preference for new facilities and the time taken for new schools to fill up in all year groups. The new schools in Bracknell Forest are the Kings Academy Binfield and Kings Academy Oakwood North Bracknell which opened in September 2018 and September 2019 respectively.

Denominational Education

3.15 There are ten Church of England and Catholic primary schools within Bracknell Forest and one Church of England secondary Academy, which together meet the demand for denominational education in the Borough;

 Binfield CE primary voluntary aided  Crowthorne CE primary voluntary controlled  Jennett’s Park CE primary academy  Ranelagh Academy CE secondary academy  St Joseph’s RC primary voluntary aided  St Margaret Clitherow RC primary academy  St Michael’s Easthampstead CE primary voluntary aided  St Michael’s Sandhurst CE primary voluntary aided  Warfield CE primary voluntary controlled  Winkfield St Marys CE primary voluntary controlled

3.16 Voluntary Aided schools are their own admissions authorities and the Governing Bodies set their own admissions arrangements. For Voluntary Controlled Schools the Council is the admissions authority and they follow the Council’s co-ordinated scheme of admissions. 297 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

3.17 There is no Catholic secondary school in the Borough so parents preferring a Catholic education for their children must apply to schools outside the Borough.

3.18 Ranelagh CE academy, St Michael’s Easthampstead CE primary and St Joseph’s RC primary schools do not have Bracknell Forest designated areas. They accept pupils drawn from wider geographical areas.

3.19 All the above denominational schools have been included in the SPP forecasts.

Free Schools and Academies

3.20 Are state-funded schools but are independent of the Local Authority and are established through the DfE academies programme as either sponsored or converter academies.

3.21 There are currently nine academy schools in Bracknell Forest;

 Ranelagh Academy CE secondary  St Margaret Clitherow RC Primary  Edgbarrow Seondary  The Brakenhale Secondary  Crown Wood Primary  Jennett’s Park CE Primary  Great Hollands Primary  Kings Academy Binfield Primary and Secondary  Kings Academy Oakwood Primary

3.22 Academies and Free Schools are their own Admission Authorities, and their admissions arrangements are determined by their governing bodies in agreement with the Education Funding Agency. The Council would reasonably expect to be consulted on changes to academies’ admissions arrangements, but cannot determine them, and this may impact on the Authority's ability to manage the supply of school places.

Admission Over the PAN

3.23 Under the revised 2014 School Admissions Code, individual schools can admit over their Published Admission Numbers (PAN). Schools may also admit over the PAN where parents win admissions appeals.

3.24 This can impact on the Council’s ability to manage the supply of school places if schools take pupils that might otherwise have taken places at other schools.

School Sep-14 Sep-15 Sep-16 Sep-17 Sep-18 Sep-19 Total Brakenhale academy 1 8 9 Crown Wood academy 1 1 Edgbarrow academy 3 31 2 1 30 67 Garth Hill College 5 4 9 Ranelagh academy 9 9 18 Sandhurst 1 1 St Margaret Clitherow academy 1 1 Totals: 3 6 35 4 11 47 106 8 30 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

Selective Education

3.25 All secondary schools in the Borough are co-educational comprehensive (11-19). Parents seeking single gender or selective secondary education for their children may seek school places in other local authority areas.

Independent schools

3.26 Some parents send their children to independent schools, and there are five such schools in Bracknell Forest;

 Licensed Victuallers’ School Co-educational primary and secondary  Heathfield Secondary girls’ school  Wellington College Co-educational for pupils aged 13 to 18  Eagle House Co-educational preparatory school  Lambrook-Haileybury Co-educational preparatory school

319 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

4. Planning Areas

4.1 Bracknell Forest is divided into three Planning Areas for school places:  North Bracknell  South Bracknell  Crowthorne & Sandhurst

10 32 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

5. Schools

5.1 There are 37 schools in this SPP which are set out on the table below:

Planning Designated School Type Status Area Area

North Bracknell Binfield CE Primary Primary Voluntary Aided Yes Kings Academy Oakwood Primary Academy Yes Meadow Vale Primary Primary Maintained Yes Warfield CE Primary Primary Voluntary Controlled Yes Kings Academy Binfield (primary) Primary Academy Yes King's Academy Binfield (secondary) Secondary Academy Yes Cranbourne Primary Primary Maintained Yes Holly Spring Primary Primary Maintained Yes Sandy Lane Primary Primary Maintained Yes Ascot Heath Primary Primary Maintained Yes St Josephs RC Primary Primary Voluntary Aided No Whitegrove Primary Primary Maintained Yes Winkfield St Marys CE Primary Primary Voluntary Controlled Yes Garth Hill College Secondary Maintained Yes

South Bracknell Crown Wood Primary Primary Academy Yes Fox Hill Primary Primary Maintained Yes Harmans Water Primary Primary Maintained Yes St Michaels Easthampstead CE Primary Primary Voluntary Aided No Wildridings Primary Primary Maintained Yes The Brakenhale Secondary Academy Yes Birch Hill Primary Primary Maintained Yes Great Hollands Primary Primary Academy Yes Jennetts Park CE Primary Primary Academy Yes St Margaret Clitherow RC Primary Primary Voluntary Aided No The Pines Primary Primary Maintained Yes Wooden Hill Primary Primary Maintained Yes Easthampstead Park Secondary Secondary Maintained Yes Ranelagh CE Secondary Secondary Academy No

Crowthorne & Sandhurst Crowthorne CE Primary Primary Voluntary Controlled Yes New Scotland Hill Primary Primary Maintained Yes Wildmoor Heath Primary Primary Academy Yes Edgbarrow Secondary Secondary Academy Yes College Town Primary Primary Maintained Yes Owlsmoor Primary Primary Maintained Yes St Michaels Sandhurst CE Primary Primary Voluntary Aided Yes Uplands Primary Primary Maintained Yes Sandhurst Secondary Secondary Maintained Yes

Others College Hall PRU Maintained No Kennel Lane SEN Maintained No 3311 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

6. Designated Area Maps

6.1 The map below sets out the primary school designated areas.

12 34 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

6.2 The map below sets out the secondary school designated areas.

3513 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

7. Early Years

Early Years Providers

7.1 It is difficult to calculate the exact number of places available across the authority as providers continually adapt their capacity dependent on demand. Providers are responsible for ensuring that space requirements are met when making decisions on cohort numbers. Space requirements are dependent on the age of the children attending. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2 )

7.2 The table below shows current early years providers in Bracknell Forest registered to deliver the free entitlements. This is a changeable number especially in relation to childminders, although number of childminders is high, they deliver the entitlements to fewer children.

Offering Services to Registered Providers 2-year- 3- & 4-year olds % olds Universal Extended Private Voluntary and 46 38 45 40 65.0% Independent

Childminders 101 70 101 98 5.5%

Maintained Schools 18 0 18 16 29.5% and Academies

Totals: 165 108 164 154 100%

Numbers of Children in Early Years Settings

7.3 The graph below shows the trend of take up for funded two, three- and four-year olds over the last five years accessing private, voluntary and independent early years settings in Bracknell Forest.

Bracknell Forest Childcare Headcount 2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Spring Summer Autumn

7.4 Generally, numbers in the Autumn term are low, with them increasing in the Spring and again in the Summer.

14 36 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

7.5 The graph shows that over the last five years there has been an overall downward trend in numbers of children across all terms, and this does correspond to the known decrease in birth rates indicated by the NHS.

Current Demand for Childcare

7.6 BFC uses the Summer term numbers when predicting demand for childcare. In the 2019 Summer term the number of 2, 3 and 4 year olds accessing free entitlements was 2,384 which is approximately 80% of the eligible population.

Forecast Demand for Childcare

7.7 The forecast eligible population in Summer term 2024 is 2,716, and if 80% of these children access a childcare place the this would equate to 2,173 which is a decrease of 211 places, equivalent to 20%. This forecast decrease in demand is set out on the graph below.

Forecast Demand for Free Entitlement to Childcare by 3 and 4-year-olds

3 & 4 year olds accessing entitlements 2,250 2,200 2,150 2,100 2,050 2,000 1,950 1,900 1,850 1,800 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Universal and Extended Childcare

7.8 Demand for Universal (570 hours p.a.) and Extended (1,170 hours p.a.) Childcare for 3 and 4 year olds is shown in the graph above. In addition, approximately 15% or 200 2-year olds will be eligible for 570 hours per annum.

Early Years Capacity Strategy

7.9 BFC is required by law to ‘report annually to elected council members on how they are meeting their duty to secure sufficient childcare and make this report available and accessible to parents’. The 2019 Child Sufficiency Assessment is available at (https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/strategies-plans-and-policies/strategy-and-policy- documents/children-and-family-services-strategies-and-policies)

7.10 The most recent assessment evidences that there is currently sufficient childcare capacity across the Borough to meet the forecast demand for places until 2022/2023.

3715 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

8. Primary

8.1 The graphs below set out the primary school forecasts in the intake year.

North Bracknell North Bracknell Primaries Intake Year Academic 700 PAN YR NOR YR Surplus % Year 600 2019 660 590 70 11% 500 2020 660 602 58 9% 400

2021 690 526 164 24% 300

200 2022 690 528 162 23% 100 2023 690 560 130 19% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 690 549 141 20% PAN YR NOR YR

South Bracknell South Bracknell Primaries Intake Year Academic 700 PAN YR NOR YR Surplus % Year 600 2019 625 545 80 13% 500

2020 625 516 109 17% 400

2021 595 513 82 14% 300 200 2022 595 507 88 15% 100 2023 595 476 119 20% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 595 463 132 22% PAN YR NOR YR

Crowthorne & Sandhurst Crowthorne & Sandhurst Primaries Intake Year Academic 700 PAN YR NOR YR Surplus % Year 600 2019 330 267 63 19% 500

2020 330 294 36 11% 400

2021 330 283 47 14% 300 200 2022 330 262 68 21% 100 2023 330 241 89 27% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 330 241 89 27% PAN YR NOR YR

Borough Wide Borough Wide Primaries Intake Year 1,800 Academic PAN YR NOR YR Surplus % 1,600 Year 1,400 2019 1,615 1,402 213 13% 1,200 2020 1,615 1,412 203 13% 1,000 800 2021 1,615 1,322 293 18% 600 2022 1,615 1,297 318 20% 400 200 2023 1,615 1,277 338 21% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 1,615 1,253 362 22% PAN YR NOR YR

16 38 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

8.2 The graphs below set out the primary school forecasts for total numbers on roll.

North Bracknell North Bracknell Primaries Total NOR 5,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 4,500 Year 4,000 2019 4,332 4,013 319 7% 3,500 3,000 2020 4,392 4,005 387 9% 2,500 2021 4,512 3,968 544 12% 2,000 1,500 2022 4,632 3,929 703 15% 1,000 500 2023 4,722 3,920 802 17% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 4,782 3,886 896 19% Capacity NOR

South Bracknell South Bracknell Primaries Total NOR 5,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 4,500 Year 4,000 2019 4,376 4,022 354 8% 3,500 3,000 2020 4,346 3,957 389 9% 2,500 2021 4,166 3,878 288 7% 2,000 1,500 2022 4,166 3,821 345 8% 1,000 500 2023 4,166 3,708 458 11% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 4,166 3,583 583 14% Capacity NOR

Crowthorne & Sandhurst Crowthorne & Sandhurst Primaries Total NOR 5,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 4,500 Year 4,000 2019 2,308 2,076 232 10% 3,500 3,000 2020 2,308 2,048 260 11% 2,500 2021 2,308 2,015 293 13% 2,000 1,500 2022 2,308 1,989 319 14% 1,000 500 2023 2,308 1,911 397 17% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 2,308 1,885 423 18% Capacity NOR

Borough Wide Borough Wide Primaries Total NOR 12,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % Year 10,000 2019 11,016 10,111 905 8% 8,000 2020 11,046 10,010 1,036 9% 6,000 2021 10,986 9,861 1,125 10% 4,000 2022 11,106 9,739 1,367 12% 2,000 2023 11,196 9,540 1,656 15% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 11,256 9,355 1,901 17% Capacity NOR

3917 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

Borough Wide Primary

8.3 There are 30 primary schools in the Borough with a total of 11,016 places, and 10,111 pupils on roll in September 2019, leaving a surplus of 905 places or 8%. By September 2024 forecasts indicate an overall decrease of up to 756 pupils in this planning area to 9,355, however previously committed growth in primary capacity will result in the surplus increasing to 1,901 places or 17%.

North Bracknell Primary

8.4 There are 12 primary schools in North Bracknell with a total of 4,332 places, and 4,013 pupils on roll in September 2019, leaving a surplus of 319 places or 7%. By September 2024 forecasts indicate an overall decrease of up to 127 pupils in this planning area to 3,886. Previously committed growth in primary capacity will result in the overall surplus increasing to 896 places or 19%.

South Bracknell Primary

8.5 There are 11 primary schools in South Bracknell with a total of 4,376 places, and 4,032 pupils on roll in September 2019 leaving a surplus of 354 places or 8%. By September 2024 forecasts indicate an overall decrease of up to 169 pupils in this planning area to 3,583. Despite planned decreases in primary capacity the overall surplus is forecast to increase to 583 places or 14%.

Crowthorne & Sandhurst Primary

8.6 There are 7 primary schools in Crowthorne & Sandhurst with a total of 2,308 places, and 2,076 pupils on roll in September 2019 leaving a surplus of 232 places or 10%. By September 2024 forecasts indicate an overall decrease of up to 191 pupils in this planning area to 1,885. The overall surplus is forecast to increase to increase to 423 places or 18%.

Primary School Capacity Strategy

8.7 The approach taken is to meet the forecast demand for places across each planning area, acknowledging that pupils can travel to neighbouring schools if their catchment area school is full.

8.8 Forecasts indicate that there will be enough primary school places in each planning area to meet demand during the forecast period. There are no plans to add any additional primary school capacity in this forecast period.

8.9 Harmans Water is planned to reduce its PAN from 90 to 60 from September 21.

8.10 The proposed new primary school at Bucklers Park (formerly TRL) has been slipped to September 22 at the earliest. This school will only be built if there are enough pupils in Crowthorne to warrant this going forward.

8.11 The proposed new schools at Amen Corner South and Warfield East have been put on hold, and these schools will only be built if there are enough pupils in North Bracknell to warrant this going forward.

8.12 As surplus places put pressure on school budgets, removal of further surplus places may be required during the forecast period.

18 40 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

9. Secondary Key Stage 3 & 4

9.1 The graphs below set out the secondary key stage 3 & 4 intake year forecasts.

North Bracknell North Bracknell Secondaries Intake Year 700 Academic PAN Y7 NOR Y7 Surplus % Year 600

2019 450 367 83 18% 500

2020 480 434 46 10% 400 300 2021 480 428 52 11% 200 2022 480 437 43 9% 100 2023 480 455 25 5% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 480 402 78 16% PAN Y7 NOR Y7

South Bracknell South Bracknell Secondaries Intake Year Academic 700 PAN Y7 NOR Y7 Surplus % Year 600 2019 615 557 58 9% 500

2020 615 540 75 12% 400

2021 585 553 32 6% 300 200 2022 585 542 43 7% 100 2023 585 555 30 5% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 585 543 42 7% PAN Y7 NOR Y7

Crowthorne & Sandhurst Crowthorne & Sandhurst Secondaries Intake Year Academic 700 PAN Y7 NOR Y7 Surplus % Year 600 2019 420 448 -28 -7% 500

2020 420 420 0 0% 400

2021 420 444 -24 -6% 300 200 2022 420 420 0 0% 100 2023 420 420 0 0% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 420 456 -36 -8% PAN Y7 NOR Y7

Borough Wide Borough Wide Secondaries Intake Year 1,800 Academic PAN Y7 NOR Y7 Surplus % 1,600 Year 1,400 2019 1,485 1,372 113 8% 1,200 2020 1,515 1,394 121 8% 1,000 800 2021 1,485 1,425 60 4% 600 2022 1,485 1,399 86 6% 400 200 2023 1,485 1,430 55 4% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 1,485 1,401 84 6% PAN Y7 NOR Y7 4119 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

9.2 The graphs below set out the secondary key stage 3 & 4 total NOR forecasts.

North Bracknell North Bracknell Secondaries KS 3 & 4 Total NOR 4,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % Year 3,500

2019 2,250 1,621 629 28% 3,000 2,500 2020 2,400 1,752 648 27% 2,000 2021 2,400 1,881 519 22% 1,500 1,000 2022 2,400 2,027 373 16% 500 2023 2,400 2,121 279 12% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 2,400 2,156 244 10% Capacity NOR

South Bracknell South Bracknell Secondaries KS 3 & 4 Total NOR 4,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 3,500 Year 3,000 2019 3,069 2,681 388 13% 2,500 2020 3,069 2,703 366 12% 2,000 2021 2,919 2,734 185 6% 1,500 1,000 2022 2,919 2,755 164 6% 500 2023 2,919 2,747 172 6% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 2,919 2,733 186 6% Capacity NOR

Crowthorne & Sandhurst Crowthorne & Sandhurst Secondaries KS 3 & 4 Total NOR 5,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 4,500 Year 4,000 2019 2,100 2,150 -50 -2% 3,500 3,000 2020 2,100 2,149 -49 -2% 2,500 2021 2,100 2,147 -47 -2% 2,000 1,500 2022 2,100 2,154 -54 -3% 1,000 500 2023 2,100 2,152 -52 -2% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 2,100 2,160 -60 -3% Capacity NOR

Borough Wide Borough Wide Secondaries KS 3 & 4 Total NOR 10,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 9,000 Year 8,000 2019 7,419 6,452 967 13% 7,000 6,000 2020 7,569 6,604 965 13% 5,000 2021 7,419 6,762 657 9% 4,000 3,000 2022 7,419 6,936 483 7% 2,000 1,000 2023 7,419 7,019 400 5% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 7,419 7,048 371 5% Capacity NOR 20 42 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

Borough Wide Secondary Key Stage 3 & 4

9.3 There are 7 secondary schools in the Borough with a total of 7,419 places, and 6,452 pupils on roll in September 2019, leaving 967 surplus places or 13%. By September 2024 forecasts indicate an overall increase of up to 596 pupils in this planning area to 7,048. The overall surplus is forecast to decrease to 371 places or 5%. This is broken down into the three planning areas below:

North Bracknell Secondary Key Stage 3 & 4

9.4 There are 2 secondary schools in this planning area with a total of 2,250 places, and 1,621 pupils on roll in September 2019, leaving 629 surplus places or 28%. By September 2024 forecasts indicate an overall increase of up to 527 pupils in this planning area to 2,156. Despite previously committed increases in secondary capacity during the forecast period, the overall surplus is forecast to decrease to 244 places or 10%.

South Bracknell Secondary Key Stage 3 & 4

9.5 There are 3 secondary schools in this planning area with a total of 3,069 places, and 2,681 pupils on roll in September 2019, leaving 388 surplus places or 13%. By September 2024 forecasts indicate an overall increase of up to 52 pupils in this planning area to 2,733. There are planned decreases in capacity during the forecast period and the overall surplus is forecast to decrease to 186 places or 6% by September 2024.

Crowthorne & Sandhurst Secondary Key Stage 3 & 4

9.6 There are 2 secondary schools in this planning area with a total of 2,100 places, and 2,150 pupils on roll in September 2019, leaving a zero surplus of places. Forecasts indicate that until September 2024 the numbers on roll will remain more or less constant.

Secondary School Capacity Strategy

9.7 The approach taken is to meet the forecast demand across the whole Borough, allowing for the fact that some schools will have deficits and some surpluses of places. This acknowledges that secondary aged pupils can travel between planning areas to secure a school place if their catchment area school is full.

9.8 Forecasts indicate that there will be enough secondary school places across the whole Borough to meet demand throughout the forecast period.

9.9 Under a previous commitment Kings Academy Binfield will expand from a PAN of 150 in September 2019 to a PAN of 210 from September 2021.

9.10 Garth Hill College is planned to reduce its PAN from 300 to 270 from September 2021.

9.11 Easthampstead Park is planned to reduce its PAN from 240 to 210 from September 2021.

4321 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

10. Post 16

North Bracknell North Bracknell Post 16 Total NOR 1,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 900 Year 800 2019 396 180 216 55% 700 600 2020 396 208 188 47% 500 2021 356 218 139 39% 400 300 2022 356 211 146 41% 200 100 2023 531 294 237 45% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 671 400 272 40% Capacity NOR

South Bracknell South Bracknell Post 16 Total NOR 1,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 900 Year 800 2019 832 373 459 55% 700 600 2020 832 418 414 50% 500 2021 642 442 200 31% 400 300 2022 642 446 196 30% 200 100 2023 642 466 176 27% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 642 478 164 26% Capacity NOR

Crowthorne & Sandhurst Crowthorne & Sandhurst Post 16 Total NOR 1,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % 900 Year 800 2019 546 408 138 25% 700 600 2020 546 433 113 21% 500 2021 546 463 83 15% 400 300 2022 546 461 85 16% 200 100 2023 546 437 109 20% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 546 464 82 15% Capacity NOR

Borough Wide Borough Wide Post 16 Total NOR 3,000 Academic Capacity NOR Surplus % Year 2,500 2019 1,774 961 813 46% 2,000 2020 1,774 1,059 715 40% 1,500 2021 1,544 1,123 421 27% 1,000 2022 1,544 1,118 427 28% 500 2023 1,719 1,197 523 30% 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 1,859 1,342 518 28% Capacity NOR

22 44 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

Post 16 Commentary

10.1 Kings Academy Binfield which opened to secondary pupils in September 2018 is planned to open to Post 16 in September 2023. All of the remaining 6 secondary schools are currently providing post 16 education.

10.2 Individual schools set their own Post 16 admissions numbers. The capacity of post 16 in secondary schools has been calculated in one of the two following ways:

 For academy schools this is set out in their funding agreements with the EFA.

 For maintained schools post 16 capacity is the total net capacity of the school minus the sum of the PANs in each year group from Y7-11.

10.3 Numbers on roll for Post 16 have been drawn from the January School census.

10.4 There are a total of 1,774 Post 16 places, with 961 pupils on roll in September 2019 leaving a surplus of 813 places or 46%. By September 2024 with the opening of Kings Academy Binfield to post 16, forecasts indicate an overall increase of up to 381 pupils to 1,342. The overall surplus is forecast to decrease to 518 places or 28%.

Post 16 Capacity Strategy

10.5 The approach taken is to meet the forecast demand across the whole Borough, allowing for the fact that some schools will have deficits and some surpluses of places. This acknowledges that Post 16 aged pupils can travel between planning areas to secure a school place if their catchment area school is full.

10.6 It should be noted that Bracknell & Wokingham College and Farnborough Sixth Form College are two non-school Post 16 providers located within easy access and that both these establishments take significant numbers of Bracknell Forest Post 16 pupils ever year.

10.7 The current 46% surplus of Post 16 places is significant; however, this is forecast to reduce as the current growth of secondary numbers on roll moves into Post 16.

10.8 Kings Academy Binfield is expected to open to Post 16 from September 2023, and a high staying on rate is anticipated, which is expected to contribute to the overall decreasing overall surplus of Post 16 places.

10.9 Forecasts indicate that there will be enough Post 16 school places across the whole Borough to meet the forecast demand, and there are no plans to add any additional Post 16 school capacity throughout the forecast period.

10.10 Theme 7 in the Learning Improvement Strategy is to “Develop Skills and Raise Aspirations at Post 16”. As part of this the Council will Develop a Post 16 Strategy for Bracknell Forest during the forecast period, facilitating interactions between schools, providing audits, advice and training to all Post 16 providers and seeking to develop coherent links with businesses.

4523 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

12. Special and Additional Educational Needs

EHCP Population

S EHCP Growth Estimates E1000 N 900 S 800 u p 700 p 600 o 500 r 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 t Current Low Estimate High Estimate P opulation

SEN Support Growth Estimates 2700

2600

2500

2400

2300

2200 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Current Low Estimate High Estimate

12.1 The number of children and young people on the school roll and number of children and young people with SEN Support was based on the school census. The number of EHCPs was informed by the SEN2 return data. Information from the last 5 years informed the projections to calculate the average increase in the proportion of the school population with an EHCP or SEN support. This average was then used to predict the equivalent increase over the projection period.

12.2 The full details of calculations for the potential population growth of the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) population is included in the Needs and Sufficiency Analysis which can be accessed through the Bracknell Forest Local Offer page.1

12.3 The growth in the number of children requiring additional support has been divided into two tiers of need. The rate of growth has been identified as significantly different for children with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and children without an EHCP but requiring support directly from schools.

1 https://search3.openobjects.com/mediamanager/bracknell/services/files/sufficiency_analysis_sept_ 2019.pdf 24 46 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

EHCP Provisions

12.4 The special school in the borough is Kennel Lane school with the capacity for 196 pupils. There are three resource units supporting specific needs with the capacity for 82 pupils. One of these units, The Rise, opened in 2015 with an eight-student yearly intake until capacity is reached. A Pupil Referral Unit provides placements for up to 46 pupils at any one time.

12.5 At January 2019, 775 pupils were recorded as having an EHCP. Due to limited provisions within the borough approximately one third of pupils with an EHCP attended schools outside of Bracknell Forest.

12.6 Bracknell Forest has seen a growth in the number and proportion of pupils with an EHCP over the last five years, in line with the pattern of statistical neighbours and across England. Over the last six years, there was an average increase in the number of EHCPs within the borough of 3.0% per year.

12.7 By 2024, the number of pupils with an EHCP is expected to increase by approximately 188 pupils.

SEN Support

12.8 Although the proportion of pupils with an EHCP is increasing, the percentage requiring SEN Support and without an EHCP has remained relatively stable. This has also been the case amongst the statistical neighbours. The total number of pupils needing SEN Support has been recorded to have increased by 116 between 2014 and 2019. At January 2019, 2,446 pupils were recorded as requiring SEN Support.

12.9 By 2024, the number of pupils with SEN Support is expected to increase by approximately 168 pupils.

SEND Capacity Strategy

12.10 The pressure on education, health and care services to support the needs of pupils with EHCPs is increasing. A new SEND Strategy and SEND Commissioning Plan are being developed to outline how the demand for these places can be met.

12.11 A number of priorities will be identified including developing more provisions within the borough to support increasing areas of need such as Autism Spectrum Disorder and Social, Emotional and Mental Health.

4725 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

13. Forward Look to 2036

13.1 Work to create a new Local Plan is currently underway in the Council and this will include identification of future sites for new housing development across the Borough to 2036. A new Local Plan is not expected to be adopted until 2021. The new Local Plan will be likely to identify significant housing growth, mostly in the North of the Borough, and depending on pupil numbers on roll, there may be a demand for additional school places depending on the numbers on roll at the time and the status of the potential new North Bracknell primary schools referred to in the primary strategy at 8.10 to 8.11 above.

26 48 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

Annex 1: Mainstream Pupil Forecasting Methodology

The Basis of the Forecasting System for Mainstream School Places

The new forecasting system is based on the principle of cohort survival and the guidance from the DfE published in June 2019” School Capacity Survey 2019 Guide to Forecasting Pupil Numbers in School Place Planning”.

Year groups

Primary forecasts include Reception to Year 6. Secondary forecasts include Year 7 to Year 11 (plus Years 12 and 13 where schools have sixth forms).

Planning Areas

Forecasts are provided for each planning area. Bracknell Forest currently has three primary and three secondary planning areas as follows:

Primary North Bracknell (8670001) South Bracknell (8670002) Crowthorne & Sandhurst (8670003)

Secondary North Bracknell (8670004) South Bracknell (8670005) Crowthorne & Sandhurst (8670006)

Information About Existing Schools

Data is collated on the Borough’s latest pattern of school organisation, including details of school types, school designated areas, entry and leaving ages, planning areas, net capacity assessments, and the capacity of academy schools from their Funding Agreements.

Forecasting Reception Pupil Numbers

Population data is drawn from the NHS GP registration of birth data each year by post code. The Borough’s Business Intelligence unit applies school catchment areas to each post code to produce a summary of births within the designated area of each primary school in the Borough. Sub-national population projections from ONS published in 2018 are also considered to validate projected birth data.

NOR for the next intake year are derived from actual admissions numbers which become known by the April preceding the start of the next academic year.

A take up factor for the following four years is calculated by taking the average of the difference between the projected birth rate and the actual NOR over the previous three year, and this produces forecast NOR for the next four years ahead.

For VA schools that do not have a designated area, the forecast NOR are calculated using the take-up factor for the planning area in which the school is located.

4927 School Places Plan 2020-2024 Bracknell Forest Council

Forecasting Year 7 Pupil Numbers

Year 7 numbers are calculated by calculating a cohort survival % from Y6 for each planning area and then apportioning this by school taking into account patterns of take up of places in previous years and the intake PAN of the secondary school.

Forecasting Pupil Numbers for Non-Intake Years

Numbers are calculated by using a cohort progression technique. Actual NOR for the last three years are taken from the January school census and the forecast NOR for future years is calculated as the average of the cohort survival of that year group in that school over the previous three years.

Forecasting Post 16 Pupil Numbers

Year 12 numbers are calculated by individual school by using the % historical staying on rate from Y11. Y13 numbers are calculated the same way based on the % historical staying on rate from Y12.

28 50 Agenda Item 6

TO: EXECUTIVE 28 JANUARY 2020

JOINT CENTRAL AND EASTERN BERKSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN – SAND & GRAVEL PROVISION AND OPERATOR PERFORMANCE REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION

Director of Place Planning and Regeneration

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report seeks agreement to undertake a focussed consultation on the Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan, in particular focussing on Sand and Gravel provision and past performance of Minerals and Waste operators.

1.2 Bracknell Forest Council is preparing the Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan with Reading Borough Council, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and Wokingham Borough Council. The Plan is being prepared by Hampshire Services of Hampshire County Council. The focussed consultation document is attached at appendix 1.

1.3 This focussed consultation is anticipated to take place from Monday 10th February to Friday 20th March.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

That Executive

2.1 Agree the Draft Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – focussed consultation document;

2.2 Agree the approach to consultation as set out in paras 5.10 - 5.13 in this report;

2.3 Agrees that any minor changes to the focussed consultation (relevant to Bracknell Forest) following Executive are agreed by the Director Place Planning and Regeneration in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning and Transport.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 It is important that the Council has an up to date and robust planning framework to guide development which reflects current national policy and guidance. The preparation of Joint Minerals and Waste Plan will ensure that this is in place.

3.2 The joint plan must be prepared in consultation with the local community and other stakeholders. To-date several information gathering consultations have been achieved to inform the Plan, each of these form part of the preparation stage of Plan- making (Regulation 181):

1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012

- In Summer 2017, an ‘Issues and Options’ consultation was undertaken to gather technical information and confirm the evidence base;

- During Summer / Autumn 2018, a ‘Draft Plan’ consultation set out the proposed approach for the Joint Minerals and Waste Plan.

- Due to a limited number of site options, a further ‘Call for Sites’ exercise was carried out. This resulted in an addition site (Bray Quarry Extension) being proposed. This was subject to consultation during the Summer 2019.

3.3 Following the above consultation one of the proposed allocations within Wokingham Borough has been withdrawn following the council refusing an application for mineral extraction, and the landowner withdrawing the site from the plan process. As such a further call for sites was undertaken in the Autumn. This has identified two further sites that could be considered for minerals development. As such these sites need to be consulted upon. These sites are within Wokingham Borough and The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,

3.4 As the plan area does not have sufficient sites to provide enough Sand and Gravel for the area up until 2036, an “Area of Search” approach will also being consulted upon. This identifies where across the plan area sand and gravel deposits exist.

3.5 The final element of this consultation document is a draft policy to enable the past performance of a minerals or waste site operator, to be considered as a material consideration when determining a new minerals or waste proposal.

3.6 The preparation of the Joint Minerals and Waste Plan will support the priorities as set out in the Council Plan 2019 – 2024, in particular; ‘Economic Resilience and Protecting and Enhancing our Environment’.

4 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED 4.1 The Council could have sought to provide plan coverage for Minerals and Waste in its Local Plan, rather than preparing a separate plan, however due to the strategic nature of Minerals and Waste issues and the specialist knowledge required in this area this was ruled out at an early stage. Creating a joint plan creates economies of scale and enables the council to deal with Minerals and Waste issues strategically.

4.2 The issues covered in the focussed consultation could have been included in the submission version of the plan, however this was considered a risk to the soundness of the Plan.

5 SUPPORTING INFORMATION 5.1 The unitary authorities in Berkshire have responsibility to plan for the future production of minerals and for the management of waste disposal within the Berkshire area. Minerals and Waste is an area of planning which is strategic in nature and as such is better planned for on a larger geography than an individual unitary authority. As such Bracknell Forest, Reading, the Royal Borough and Wokingham Councils are pursuing a Joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

5.2 The plan will cover the area of the four Berkshire authorities and it will guide minerals and waste decision-making in the Plan area up to 2036. The Councils currently rely on a Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire (Adopted in 1995 but subject to

Alterations in 1997 and 2001) and the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire (1998). These were prepared and adopted by the former Berkshire County Council and are now out of date. The policies in the existing minerals and waste plans for Berkshire were designed to guide development until 2006. Although the ‘saved’ policies are still used, their effectiveness is now limited.

5.3 The four authorities are working in collaboration with Hampshire Services of Hampshire County Council (HCC) to produce the plan. HCC is the Minerals and Waste Authority for Hampshire and has a dedicated in-house team of specialist planners. The consultation on a draft plan accords with the programme for the preparation of the plan set out in this council’s Local Development Scheme 2019- 2022

Project progress

The Draft Plan

5.4 The draft plan was consulted upon in Autumn 2018. Following this consultation a review of the plan identified a shortfall in sites for minerals namely sand and gravel. As such a call for sites was undertaken and a further site at Bray Quarry (Windsor and Maidenhead) was submitted and a focussed consultation was undertaken on this site. This took place in the summer of this year.

5.5 Since this time one of the allocations in the draft plan at Bridge Farm, Wokingham Borough, was also the subject of a planning application. This was refused by the planning authority. Following this refusal the land owner has withdrawn the option on the land and as such it is no longer available for development. With no certainty that the site can deliver minerals in the plan period, it is likely to be removed from the plan. This further reduces the supply of sand and gravel in the plan area and as such the plan cannot demonstrate that it will meet the needs of the area.

Additional focussed consultation

5.6 In response to the above issue a further call for sites was undertaken, this yielded two additional sites.

 Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood, Wokingham Borough  Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry – Windsor and Maidenhead

These two sites form part of the focussed consultation, details of the sites are contained in Appendix 1.

5.7 Unfortunately these two sites are unlikely to yield enough additional sand and gravel to meet the needs of the plan area, as such an “Area of Search” approach has been adopted. This seeks to identify where sand and gravel reserves exist across the plan area. Certain criteria have been applied to these areas, and search area excludes;

 Sites over 3 ha;  Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites;  Sites of Special Scientific Interest;  Ancient Woodland;  Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas;  Scheduled Ancient Monuments;

 Historic Registered Parks and Gardens; and  Registered Battlefields

In addition to designations, built up areas have been excluded from the Area of Search and a cross-check has been made against the Environment Agency’s historic landfill data. A plan of the area of search is within the consultation document at Appendix 1.

5.8 An area of search does not allocate land for any form of development, it simply acknowledges that there are mineral resources within the plan area, that could be extracted if the resources were viable, and that normal planning considerations contained in the development plan could be met. It is however an important part of the plan approach, which demonstrates that the local authorities have explored all options to meet Mineral requirements.

5.9 The final element of the consultation document is consultation on a draft policy seeking to enable the local planning authority to consider the past performance of a minerals or waste operator in the determination of a new proposal. This policy has been put together following the consultation responses to the draft plan where residents raised concerns about existing operations across the plan area, and how this could be considered in the planning process when assessing new proposals from the same operator.

Next steps and consultation

5.10 As the plan is being prepared across the four authorities each of the authorities will need to agree to consult upon the attached document.

5.11 Consultation will be undertaken jointly by Hampshire Services with the four authorities. The consultation will take place between 10th February and the 20th March. The consultation will be designed to meet the policies and practice set in the Statement of Community Involvement adopted by each of the joint authorities. Consultation will be undertaken with a wide range of parties, including those on the Council’s Local Plan consultation database, statutory bodies, Town and Parish Councils. There will be exhibitions held in close proximity to the two sites identified, these will be in Wokingham Borough and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

5.12 The details of the consultation will be placed on the council’s website, with hard copies of information being provided at locations around the borough (libraries, parish council’s and Time Square).

5.13 The results of the consultation will inform the preparation of the submission plan for which approval is programmed to be sought later this year. The results of the consultation will be reported in a Consultation Summary Report which will be produced following the close of the consultation. This will also include all responses to previous versions of the plan.

6 ADVICE RECEIVED FROM STATUTORY AND OTHER OFFICERS

Borough Solicitor

6.1 Local Plans documents are produced under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The process for producing local plans is set out in the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

Borough Treasurer

6.2 The cost preparing the Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan is being shared equally amongst the 4 commissioning Joint authorities. The budget for this project was agreed at Council and an allocation is identified in the 2019/20 budget.

Equalities Impact Assessment

6.3 No Equality issues arising from this consultation

Strategic Risk Management Issues

6.4 The Strategic Risk Register (2015) includes Risk 10 which identifies the risk of not working effectively with key partners or residents in the development of services. Such a risk could mean that community needs are not met and a negative impact on community cohesion. The production of an up to date Minerals and Waste Plan will involve extensive engagement with stakeholders and residents in order to identify local needs. Risk 11 identifies the risk of being unable to implement legislative changes. The production of the Minerals and Waste Plan allows recent legislative changes to be reflected.

Background Papers None

Contact for further information Andrew Hunter Director Place Planning and Regeneration Tel - 01344 351907 [email protected]

Appendix 1 – Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Sand and Gravel Provision and Operator performance, regulation 18 Consultation

55 This page is intentionally left blank

Central and Eastern Berkshire

Joint Minerals & Waste Plan

Focussed Regulation 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance

February 2020

57 Contents Executive Summary...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Minerals and Waste Plan ...... 4 3. Sand and Gravel - Area of Search ...... 8 4. Proposed Land west of Basingstoke Rd ...... 14 5. Proposed Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry ...... 22 6. Operator Performance Policy ...... 30 7. Next Steps ...... 36 Appendix A: Sustainability Appraisal Extract (Sites) ...... 37 Appendix B: Habitats Regulations Assessment Extract (Sites, Policy DM15 & Area of Search) ...... 52 Appendix C: Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Extract ...... 60 Appendix D: Landscape and Environmental Designations Map ...... 64 Appendix E: Historic Environment Map ...... 66 Appendix F: Water Environment Map ...... 68 Appendix G: Sustainability Appraisal Extract (Policy) ...... 70 Glossary & Acronyms ...... 76

Prepared by Hampshire Services Hampshire County Council © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100018817 www.hants.gov.uk/sharedexpertise Derived from 1:50000 scale BGS Digital Data under Licence 2011/049F, British Geological Survey ©NERC

58 Executive Summary

Local Planning Authorities have a statutory responsibility to prepare and maintain an up-to- date local plan. Bracknell Forest Council, Reading Borough Council, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham Borough Council (collectively referred to as the ‘Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities’) are working in partnership to produce a Joint Minerals & Waste Plan which will guide minerals and waste decision-making in the Plan area for the period up to 2036.

The Joint Minerals & Waste Plan will build upon the formerly adopted minerals and waste plans for the Berkshire area, and improve, update and strengthen the policies and provide details of strategic sites that are proposed to deliver the vision.

To-date several information gathering consultations have been achieved to inform the Plan, each of these form part of the preparation stage of Plan-making (Regulation 181): - In Summer 2017, an ‘Issues and Options’ consultation was undertaken to gather technical information and confirm the evidence base; - During Summer / Autumn, a ‘Draft Plan’ consultation set out the proposed approach for the Joint Minerals and Waste Plan. - Due to a limited number of site options, a further ‘Call for Sites’ exercise was carried out. This resulted in an addition site (Bray Quarry Extension) being proposed. This was subject to consultation during the Summer 2019.

Work is underway to prepare the Proposed Submission version of the Plan. However, one of the proposed allocations was recently refused planning permission. The landowner has ‘shelved’ any plans for extraction and not renewed the option with Cemex. This meant that the plan was making limited provision of sand and gravel. In order to try and help address this, a further call for sites was undertaken and an ‘Area of Search’ approach was explored.

This is a consultation paper on some targeted issues rather than a full draft plan. It sets out the proposed criteria for defining the ‘Area of Search’ for sand and gravel provision as well as two new sites which are being considered for allocation in the Plan: 1) Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood is located within the Borough of Wokingham and has the potential to provide sand and gravel2. 2) Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry is located within the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and has the potential to provide 250,000 tonnes of sand and gravel.

In addition, following the responses received in relation to the ‘Draft Plan’ and the concerns raised by local residents, a new Policy has been drafted which seeks to ensure the past performance of minerals and waste operators forms part of the material considerations taken into account in decision-making.

1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 2 The quantity of resource is yet to be determined. This information is expected to be received shortly and this Consultation Document will be updated accordingly.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision59 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 1 The Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities are required to undertake the same level of consultation on these new sites and policy as the rest of the Plan and background evidence base which will inform the Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19) which is the version of the plan that is intended to be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

The Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities are therefore inviting feedback from statutory consultees, stakeholders, communities, local organisations and businesses on the ‘Areas of Search’ approach, the potential new sites (Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood and Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry) and Policy DM15 (Past Operator Performance).

The responses received from this Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance Regulation 18 consultation will inform the Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19) which is being prepared by Hampshire Services on behalf of Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and60 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 2 1. Introduction

1.1 Local Planning Authorities have a statutory responsibility to prepare and maintain an up-to-date local plan. Bracknell Forest Council, Reading Borough Council, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham Borough Council (collectively referred to as the ‘Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities’) are working in partnership to produce a Joint Minerals & Waste Plan which will guide minerals and waste decision-making in the Plan area for the period up to 2036.

1.2 The Joint Minerals & Waste Plan will build upon the formerly adopted minerals and waste plans for the Berkshire area, and improve, update and strengthen the policies and provide details of strategic sites that are proposed to deliver the vision.

1.3 Preparing the Joint Minerals and Waste Plan has involved engagement and collaboration with communities, local organisations and businesses. Public consultation will be held for each stage of the plan-making process.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision61 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 3 2. Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire Minerals and Waste Plan

Background

2.1 The currently adopted minerals and waste plans for the Berkshire area are the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire, adopted in 1995 and subsequently adopted alterations in 1997 and 2012 and the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire adopted in 1998. The Minerals Local Plan and Waste Local Plan cover the administrative areas of the Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities, as well as Slough Borough Council and West Berkshire Council. While these plans covered the period until 2006, the Secretary of State has directed that a number of policies in them should be saved indefinitely until replaced by national, regional or local minerals and waste policies. For the Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities, these saved policies will be replaced by the Joint Minerals & Waste Plan, when it is adopted.

2.2 Whilst the Joint Minerals & Waste Plan does not cover Slough Borough Council or West Berkshire Council, close coordination of the work between the Berkshire authorities will continue in order to plan for minerals and waste strategically and address any cross-border issues that may arise.

Status of the Joint Minerals and Waste Plan

2.3 The Central and Eastern Berkshire - Joint Minerals and Waste Plan forms the land use planning strategy for minerals and waste development within the administrative area covered by the Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities

2.4 Together with the individually adopted Local Plans for each Authority, it will form the development plan for the area. The Plan guides the level of minerals and waste development needed within Central and Eastern Berkshire and identifies where development should go. Proposals for minerals and waste developments will be considered against the policies contained in the Plan. The Plan is also relevant to the determination of non-minerals and waste applications which may be determined by those Authorities (in terms of other matters such as housing).

2.5 The Central & Eastern Berkshire – Joint Minerals and Waste Plan (JMWP) covers the period to 2036. This aligns the Plan with other Local Plans being developed by the authorities and meets the National Planning Policy Framework requirements.

What have previous consultations covered?

2.6 To-date several information gathering consultations have been achieved to inform the Plan, each of these form part of the preparation stage of Plan-making (Regulation 183):

3 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and62 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 4 - In Summer 2017, an ‘Issues and Options’ consultation was undertaken to gather technical information and confirm the evidence base; - During Summer / Autumn 2018, a ‘Draft Plan’ consultation set out the proposed approach for the Joint Minerals and Waste Plan. - Due to a limited number of site options, a further ‘Call for Sites’ exercise was carried out. This resulted in an additional site (Bray Quarry Extension) being proposed. This was subject to consultation during the Summer 2019.

What is the purpose of this consultation?

2.7 Work is underway to prepare the Proposed Submission version of the Plan. However, one of the proposed allocations (Land at Bridge Farm, Arborfield) was recently refused planning permission. The landowner has since ‘shelved’ any plans for extraction at this site and has not renewed the option with the operator (Cemex). This means that the plan will be making limited provision of future sand and gravel. In order to try and help address this matter, a further call for sites was undertaken and an ‘Area of Search’ approach has been explored.

2.8 This is a consultation paper on some targeted issues rather than a full draft plan. It sets out the options considered for defining an ‘Area of Search’ for sand and gravel provision as well as identifying two new sites which are being considered for allocation in the Plan: 1) Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood is located within the Borough of Wokingham and has the potential to provide sand and gravel4. 2) Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry is located within the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and has the potential to provide 250,000 tonnes of sand and gravel.

2.9 In addition, following the responses received in relation to the ‘Draft Plan’ and the concerns raised by local residents, a new Policy has been drafted which seeks to ensure that the past performance of minerals and waste operators forms part of the material considerations taken into account in decision-making.

2.10 The Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities are required to undertake the same level of consultation on the new sites and policy as the rest of the Plan and background evidence base which will inform the Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19) which is the version of the plan that is intended to be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

2.11 The proposed sites have been assessed by Hampshire Services technical specialists (Ecological; Transport; Landscape and Historic Environment) and subject to a full assessment as part of an updated Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment) and are considered potentially suitable to be reasonable options for inclusion in the Minerals and Waste Plan.

4 The quantity of resource is yet to be determined. This information is expected to be received shortly and this Consultation Document will be updated accordingly.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision63 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 5

2.12 The Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities are therefore inviting feedback from statutory consultees, stakeholders, communities, local organisations and businesses on the proposed Area of Search, the potential new sites (Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood and Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry) and Policy DM15 (Past Operator Performance).

How you can get involved

2.13 We would like to hear from you in respect of your views on the ‘soundness’ (see below) of the ‘Areas of Search’ approach, the two additional proposed sites and associated assessments (see Section 3) as well as the new Operator Past Performance Policy.

2.14 Please note that we are only seeking comments at this stage on the Area of Search approach, the new sites (Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood and Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry) and Policy DM15. Previous comments will be considered in drawing up the Proposed Submission Plan and do not need to be repeated.

2.15 Consultation commences on Monday 10th February 2020 and runs for six weeks until 5.00pm Friday 20th March 2020.

2.16 This document, along with the consultation response form and survey questionnaire, are all available to view and download from the Joint Minerals & Waste Plan consultation website: www.hants.gov.uk/berksconsult.

Soundness

2.17 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains a series of tests, against which local plans are examined to assess whether the plan has been produced in the right way and provides an effective planning framework for the area it covers. These ‘tests of soundness’ are set out as follows in the NPPF5:

a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development; b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;

5 National Planning Policy Framework (Para. 35) - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779764/ NPPF_Feb_2019_web.pdf

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and64 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 6 c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.

2.18 The Plan will be examined against these tests of soundness and stakeholders will be asked to comment on whether the plan meets the test or needs to be changed in some way to meet them.

The stages to come

2.19 The responses received from this Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance Regulation 18 consultation will inform the Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19) which will be prepared by Hampshire Services on behalf of Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities.

2.20 Representations made in response to the Proposed Submission Plan consultation document, SA/SEA report and other relevant documentation will be compiled and submitted with the Secretary of State for independent examination.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision65 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 7 3. Sand and Gravel - Area of Search

Provision

3.1 The provision of mineral supply is set out in National Policy1. This is supported by Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)6 which states that:

‘Mineral planning authorities should plan for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in one or more of the following ways (in order of priority): 1. Designating Specific Sites – where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms. Such sites may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; 2. Designating Preferred Areas, which are areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated. Such areas may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; and/or 3. Designating Areas of Search – areas where knowledge of mineral resources may be less certain but within which planning permission may be granted, particularly if there is a potential shortfall in supply.’ 66 3.2 In preparing the Joint Minerals and Waste Plan, the intended approach is to designate specific sites for minerals development. Where there was a recognised shortfall in provision of sites, a criteria-based approach is to be applied to provide a steer in decision-making on where sites were expected to come forward.

3.3 This approach is recognised as providing the most certainty to developers and local residents, as set out in the PPG7:

‘Designating Specific Sites in minerals plans provides the necessary certainty on when and where development may take place. The better the quality of data available to mineral planning authorities, the better the prospect of a site being designated as a Specific Site.’

3.4 Despite four ‘call for sites’, sufficient minerals sites to meet needs have not been identified.

6 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 27-008-20140306 - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/minerals#planning-for-minerals-extraction 7 Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 27-009-20140306

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 8

3.5 A recent planning decision by Wokingham Borough Council regarding a planning application at Bridge Farm, Arborfield has meant that the ability to support the site as an allocation in the plan is untenable and the landowner has ‘shelved’ any plans for extraction8. This has reduced the provision of sharp sand and gravel in the emerging Joint Plan so that it may not be possible for the Plan to demonstrate it can maintain a steady and adequate supply, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework9.

3.6 A further ‘call for sites’ was recently held during October/November 2019. This resulted in two new proposals for sand and gravel extraction. Land west of Basingstoke Road is considered in more detail in Section 4. Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry is considered in more detail in Section 5. As the sites potentially yield 250,000+ tonnes of sand and gravel, the ability of the Plan to provide certainty over a steady and adequate supply is still challenging.

3.7 A lack of provision in the Joint Plan may result in demand for sand and gravel being met from elsewhere, possibly from neighbouring mineral planning areas which have sand and gravel resources. In order to demonstrate security of supply, ‘Duty to Cooperate’ discussions will need to be held with neighbouring authorities. 67

3.8 As Central and Eastern Berkshire contains sharp sand and gravel resources, it is not unexpected that there is a reluctance by neighbouring authorities that the burden of supply will be placed other mineral planning authorities rather than within the Plan area.

3.9 Therefore, the Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities are seeking to demonstrate the potential for provision within the Plan area by outlining a sand and gravel ‘Area of Search’.

3.10 It is proposed that the Area of Search will be supported by a sub-regional sharp sand and gravel Statement of Common Ground involving neighbouring authorities with suitable resources. This will demonstrate that a burden of supply is not being placed on any single neighbouring mineral planning area.

8 Planning Application Number 170433 9 National Planning Policy Framework (Para. 2017) - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 9 3.11 Currently, the only data source for movements of sand and gravel is the national Aggregate Monitoring survey carried out on behalf of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The survey was last carried out in 2014 and referenced only ‘Berkshire’ not the Unitary Authority areas. However, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government intend to run the survey again in 2020. The survey would cover the period 2015 to 2019 and it is hoped that the data will be to Unitary level. It is unknown at this time, when the data will be available to the relevant planning authorities.

3.12 The 2014 survey suggests that Hampshire, Wiltshire and Oxfordshire were the main sources of sand and gravel used in Berkshire. The Statement would be updated as and when the data was made available to reflect the sources of supply to the Plan area.

3.13 It is important to note that a proposal identified within an Area of Search is not guaranteed planning permission. A planning application will still be required, and development will only be permitted if it is in accordance with all relevant policies within the Plan.

Defining an Area of Search

3.14 There is no formal guidance on defining areas of search and therefore, examples of current practice have been reviewed. Consideration has also been given to current adopted policy in the Minerals Local Plan4 and national policy. 68

3.15 The presence of mineral is the basis for defining any area but the inclusion of other criteria to be applied can vary. The greater the number of criteria applied, the more precisely the area is defined as areas of land are excluded.

3.16 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out a clear policy approach on where development should be avoided in order for it to be sustainable. These criteria include the following designations:  Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites;  Sites of Special Scientific Interest;  Ancient Woodland;  Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas;  Scheduled Monuments;  Historic Registered Parks and Gardens; and  Registered Battlefields.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 10 3.17 Development should also avoid Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks and the Broads, but these designations do not exist within the Plan area.

3.18 In some cases, the setting of a designation, such as a Listed building, should be avoided. However, it is considered that as these are not clearly defined and invariably subjective, it is not suitable to include ‘settings’ within an Area of Search. This issue would be addressed through application of the development management policies.

3.19 Consideration of cumulative impacts is also important, but this is difficult to determine within an Area of Search as there is no certainty on the location or timing of proposals. Therefore, cumulative impacts would need to be considered at the point an application was submitted.

3.20 In addition to designations, built up areas have been excluded from the Area of Search as the resource as generally been sterilised, and a cross-check has been made against the Environment Agency’s historic landfill data. Proposed future development areas have not been excluded, as there may be opportunities for prior extraction of sand and gravel, in line with other policies in the plan.

69 3.21 Lastly, to encourage viable proposals, a threshold of 3ha has been included in the Area of Search. Land less than 3ha was considered unviable for extraction as a standalone site in a supporting Study10. The resulting ‘NPPF compliant’ Area of Search is outlined in Figure 1.

3.22 Options for Areas of Search have been assessed as part of the Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment) and Habitats Regulation Assessment. The outcomes of these assessments are set out in Appendix B and G of this consultation document.

Policy Revision

3.23 The provision of sand and gravel was outlined in Policy M4 (Locations for sand and gravel extraction) in the Draft Plan which was subject to consultation during the Summer/Autumn 2018. The Policy will be amended (see proposed Policy M4 wording below) to include the Area of Search shown in Figure 111.

10 Minerals and Waste Safeguarding Study (June 2018) – www.hants.gov.uk/berksconsult 11 Please note that the names of sites have been excluded as the consultation considers the Area of Search approach rather than the locations for sand and gravel extraction.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 11

Policy M4

Locations for sand and gravel extraction

A steady and adequate supply of locally extracted sand and gravel will be provided by:

1. The extraction of remaining reserves at the following permitted sites: a. XXXX [tbc] 2. Extensions to the following existing sites: a. XXXX [tbc] 3. The following new sand and gravel Preferred Sites: a. XXXX [tbc] 4. Proposals for new sites not outlined in Policy M4 (1, 2 and 3) will be supported, inappropriate locations, where: a. They are situated within the Area of Search (as shown on the Policies Map); and b. They are needed to maintain the landbank; and/or 70 c. Maximise opportunities of existing infrastructure and available mineral resources; or d. At least one of the following: i. The site contains soft sand; ii. The resources would otherwise be sterilised; or iii. The proposal is for a specific local requirement.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 12 Figure 1: NPPF Compliant Area of Search for inclusion within Policy M4 71

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 13 4. Proposed Land west of Basingstoke Rd

4.1 Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood is a new site that has been proposed for the extraction of sand and gravel in Wokingham Borough by a land agent in response to the ‘Call for Sites’ during October/November 2019.

4.2 Extracts regarding the site from the Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment), Habitats Regulation Assessment and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment are set out in Appendices A, B and C.

4.3 Maps showing the designations relevant to the site are shown in Appendix D, E and F.

4.4 A summary of the Land west Basingstoke Road is set out below:

Figure 2: Proposed site boundary for Land west of Basingstoke Road

Site Code: CEB29

Site Name: Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood

Borough: Wokingham

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and72 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 14 Grid References: 471680 165203

Current use: Existing agricultural fields

Proposal: Extraction of sand and gravel from the site.

Restoration: Restoration will comprise a backfill of the site with inert waste material to reinstate the agricultural fields and/or wetland habitat to enhance the ecology of the local area and the adjacent SSSI

Approximate size of site: 25 ha

Proposal nominated by: Land Agent (City & Country)

Additional Information: Ground investigations are currently being undertaken by the site promoter to determine the quantity of resource.

Previous consideration within the plan making process: This site is a new proposal for sand and gravel extraction. The site has previously been proposed for inclusion in the Wokingham Borough Council Local Plan for light industrial uses and a vineyard.

Site Description Criteria Site Considerations Nature Conservation, Geodiversity & European designations: Biodiversity No European designations are within 2km of the site.

National Designations: The site is located outside of the 400m zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA).

Stanford End Mill and River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.

Local designations (SINC and LNR): Swallowfield Meadow LNR is 830m south east

Landscape & Townscape / Visual Impacts Landscape Character Area of existing site: The site is located within the Spencers Wood Settled and Farmed Clay Character Area

The site is located between the settlements of Spencers Wood to the north and Swallowfield to the south.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision73 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 15

Potential impact of development on the landscape: The site slopes gently towards the River Loddon which runs along its southern boundary. There are views from the footpath and the roadside.

Opportunities for enhancement: Extraction should be phased with advanced planted. Hedgerows and tree lines should be restored and enhanced.

Water resources & Flooding Proximity to a Source Protection Zone or Groundwater Vulnerability Zone: The site is not located within a Source Protection Zone.

Flood Zones: The southern edge of the site alongside the river Loddon is identified as being within Flood Zones 2 and 3a, with the remainder of the site identified as being within Flood Zone 1.

Air Quality The site is not located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

Sensitive land and Soil Quality Current use of the site: Existing Arable field

Potential impact on best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land: The site is Grade 3 agricultural land.

Transport (including access) Potential access into the site: Access to the site would potentially be from the B3349 (Basingstoke Road) with a site entrance likely located at the south east corner of the site.

Historic environment and built heritage Archaeological potential: The site is located on the northern flank of the river Loddon and is situated within an Area of High Archaeological Potential.

Historic Parkland / Gardens: Swallowfield Park is located further east of the

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and74 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 16 site. Listed buildings: Three listed buildings are located opposite the site to the east, as well as a Scheduled Monument (Sheepbridge Court Farm)

Conservation Areas: The site is not located within a conservation area. The nearest conservation area is located approximately 700m to the south east of the site.

Communities, Amenity and Health The site lies within the Farnborough Airport Aerodrome Safeguarding Area.

Lambs Lane Primary School is located to the north of the site with the Lambs Farm Business Park in between the site and the school.

Access to countryside and open space / A public right of way (Footpath 19) runs along Public Rights of Way the southern boundary of the site between Kingsbridge Hill and Basingstoke Road.

Green Belt The site is not located within the Green Belt.

Outcome: To be taken forward to Sustainability Appraisal stage for full assessment.

Ecological Assessment Summary

Designations

The site lies within the River Loddon Valley. The nearest European designated site lies 3.23m to the south east (Thames Basin Heaths). The Standford End Mill and River Loddon SSSI runs adjacent to the site (running north east to south west). The site is designated for the interest arising from the very slow flow of high-water quality. The site is notable for the presence of Loddon Pondweed, several records of which lie in very close proximity to the site. The plant species is very sensitive to inputs of ammonium nitrogen. The surrounding ditches and drains in the wider landscape, though not within the designation, are likely to provide a supporting role in the provision of habitat suitable for supporting populations of these habitats. Of the 4km stretch of river designated as SSSI, 1km lies very close, if not directly adjacent to the site.

Habitats

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision75 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 17 The site is predominately arable farmland, and the greatest habitats interest lies within the tree line that splits the site roughly north/south and its proximity to the River Loddon that lie directly to the east of the site. Mature tree lines bound much of the site, especially to the east and south west. Ancient woodland habitat lies 0.7km to the west (this will be very sensitive to air quality impacts). It is difficult to determine the impact the proposal will have.

Protected and notable species

There is a diverse array of protected species that have been recorded within 1km of the site. They are typical of the landscapes presented:

 Open farmland fields within and surrounding the site provide habitat for farmland birds species such as linnet, skylark, redwing, barn owl and red kite.  Drains and ponds provide suitable habitat for common amphibians, and there are several records, scattered to the south west and north east of the site of Great Crested Newt. The nearest record lies within 9km of the boundary. It is likely that the site itself provides both breeding and terrestrial habitat for Great Crested Newt, and the loss of this habitat and impacts to individuals are likely to require extensive mitigation and licensing.  Hedgerows, gardens and rough grassland support common species of reptiles, and suitable habitat for invertebrate species such as white admiral, small heath and stag beetles.  There is a large amount of badger activity recorded, particularly to the south and east of the site. It is likely that clans will extend into the site, particularly for foraging and setts may be present.  Records of bat roosts surround the site, and the farmland and woodland are likely to provide a significant resource for foraging bats. The arable field and tree lines within the site may be important.  Water voles have been recoded within the drains very close to the site. If similar drains are found within the site, it is likely that they are being utilized by this species.

Likely surveys/ studies required

 Run off/water quality assessment to the SSSI  Air quality assessment to the SSSI and Ancient Woodland.  Monthly bat activity (transect and paired static)  Roost assessment of all trees likely to be impacted by the proposal  Reptile, Badger, Breeding bird, Water vole (if drains within the site) and Botanical (of drains within the site) surveys required.

Likely mitigation

Significant buffer of south eastern boundary (SSSI).

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and76 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 18 Transport Assessment Summary12

Change in traffic volumes The change in HGV traffic on the SRN would be less than 1%. The magnitude of change from the existing conditions would be negligible and therefore the significance of impact of the new proposals would be neutral. Maximum distance to SRN Between 1.4 to 1.9m with negligible level of sensitive receptors Requirement for mitigation Possible need to relocate site access across site frontage but no off-site improvements required Opportunities for sustainable Possible use of the River Loddon but unlikely to be a modes of transport suitable and viable alternative to road travel Overall assessment

Landscape Assessment Summary

The site is located within the shallow river valley between the settlements of Spencers Wood and Swallowfield, sloping gently towards the River Loddon which runs along its southern boundary. It is currently agricultural land in arable use. A footpath runs through the site, parallel to the river. There are also views into it through gaps in the roadside hedgerows along Basingstoke Road, Kingsbridge Hill and Lamb’s Lane which follow its east and west boundaries. Longer range views are broken up by tree belts and hedges.

The condition of this landscape is good, with a strong distinctive character which has good hedgerows, woodland and riverside trees; with the River adding to the diversity. This landscape is therefore sensitive to change, particularly the tranquility of the riverside course and woodland.

The sensitivity of the landscape is considered to be High.

Historic Environment Assessment Summary

The site sits within the upper reaches of the Loddon Valley, the flanks of which are associated with a wide range of archaeological sites. Field walking (The Loddon Valley Survey), which involves the collection of artefacts from the surface of a ploughed field, has found prehistoric worked flint within the site, although nothing currently suggestive of a substantive site. However, within the wider landscape around the site an Iron Age settlement has been encountered, a Bronze Age ring ditch (the site of a ploughed down burial mound) and undated enclosures suggestive of Roman or prehistoric settlement. The site has a high archaeological potential, that is the potential to include archaeological sites which are as yet unrecorded. However, such sites are likely to be discrete and of regional importance and as such unlikely to constrain the allocation. Preliminary archaeological survey prior to the determination of any future planning application is recommended.

12 Please note that the Transport Assessment will be updated once the tonnage and likely vehicle movements associated with the site will be.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision77 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 19 The WW2 pillbox recorded on the west edge should be retained and not needlessly or thoughtlessly removed, as it sits within a wider pattern of pillboxes in the landscape describing the GHQ defence line. The anti-tank ditch that stretches between the Loddon river and the Foudry Brook sits in front of this pillbox and coming south it crosses the allocation site. Whilst not a constraint it is an archaeological consideration, and restoration post extraction might also offer some positive opportunity to present this lost landscape feature in some fashion.

To the north east, beyond the B3349, is a Scheduled Monument, a medieval moat, at Sheepbridge Court Farm (12020). This is a nationally important archaeological site. The impact of future extraction on the setting of the moat is limited by the strong hedgerow and the existing buildings between the moat and the allocation site. Any post extraction restoration plan should include both strengthening of the screening between the extraction site and the monument, and consideration of the degree to which the restoration might seek to strengthen the setting of the monument by reference to a landscape setting appropriate to the immediate context of a medieval moat. However, the moat is reported to be seasonally waterfilled meaning that it may have the potential for conditions where organic material might survive in an archaeological context within the moat. Dewatering effects from extraction close by might have an indirect impact on the archaeological significance of this monument. This is an important consideration which might constrain the implementation of the proposal to some degree. This is unlikely to be to a great degree and might have most impact closest to the moat site and lowest in the valley. That the location might be constrained to some degree by de watering effects should be noted and the impact of dewatering on the adjacent scheduled moat must be a material consideration within any future planning application, which should be supported by a suitable hydrological report.

Development Considerations:

Ecology

 Protection and significant buffer of the Standford End Mill and River Loddon SSSI with provision of significant buffer.  Protection of nearby Ancient Woodland.  Landscape-scale impacts on species such as bats, reptiles and badgers.  Consideration of pollution impacts to riverine habitats.

Landscape & Townscape

 Phased extraction and restoration may limit the overall impact of mineral extraction on the character of the landscape.  Visual effects should be reduced by advance planting along the roads and footpaths.  Following extraction, restore low lying areas to wetland pasture rather than ponds and lakes.  Keep a minimum 20m width buffer zones around the sensitive vegetation adjacent to the River Loddon.  Restore / replant hedgerows removed to restore the original field pattern.  Do not locate high temporary mounds close to footpaths, hemming them into narrow corridors. Vary the width and height of these mounds to retain a sense of openness

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and78 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 20 Transport

 A Transport Assessment or Statement will be required.  An HGV Routeing Agreement will be required.

Historic Environment

 A Preliminary archaeological survey is required as part of any planning application.  The WW2 pillbox should be retained.  The setting of the Sheepbridge Court Farm Scheduled Monument should be protected and enhanced as part of the restoration.  Restoration should also seek to enhance the anti-tank ditch.  Consideration should be given to the potential de-watering of the Scheduled Monument.

Flood Risk

• A Flood Risk Assessment is required.

Water Resources

 Consideration of the River Loddon and its river corridor.  A Hydrological/Hydrogeological Assessment is required.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision79 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 21 5. Proposed Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry

5.1 The Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry is a new site that has been proposed by a land agent in response to the ‘Call for Sites’ during October/November 2019.

5.2 Extracts regarding the site from the Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment), Habitats Regulation Assessment and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment are set out in Appendices A, B and C.

5.3 Maps showing the designations relevant to the site are shown in Appendix D, E and F.

5.4 A summary of the Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry is set out below:

Figure 3: Proposed site boundary for Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry

Site Code: CEB30

Site Name: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry, Horton

Borough: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Grid References: 501980 176535

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and80 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 22 Current use: Existing bridle way (Colne Valley Way)

Proposal: Extraction of 250,000 tonnes of sand and gravel from the site. Processing will take place at existing plants at either Horton Brook Quarry to the west or Poyle Quarry to the east.

Restoration: The site will be restored using backfill of inert waste material and the bridleway (Colne Valley Way) will be reinstated.

Approximate size of site: 3.75 ha

Proposal nominated by: Quarry Plan (on behalf of Summerleaze and Jayflex)

Additional Information: The proposed site is a strip of land that lies between the permitted Horton Brook Quarry (planning reference T0355/A/08/2065394) operated by Jayflex Aggregates Limited and the permitted Poyle Quarry (planning reference 17/03426) which is yet to commence operating. It is anticipated that extraction of this site would be relatively straightforward and would commence from the eastern side.

Previous consideration within the plan making process: This site is a new proposal but forms part of Preferred Area 12 (North of Horton) in the adopted Minerals Local Plan.

Site Description Criteria Site Considerations Nature Conservation, Geodiversity & European designations: Biodiversity The site lies 750m South East of the London Waterbodies RAMSAR and SPA.

National Designations: (Overlaying the SPA & RAMSAR) Wraysbury Reservoir SSSI is 750m south east of the site. Staines Moor is 1.6km south east located under 2 km to the south of the site. Wraysbury No1 Gravel Pit SSSI is 1.7km south west. Wraysbury & Hythe End Gravel Pits SSSI is located 2km to the south of the site.

Local designations (LWS and LNR): The Local Nature Reserve (Arthur Jacob LNR) is located 400m to the south east of the site. Colne Brook LWS 600m east Horton and Kingsmead Lakes LWS 650m south Queen Mother Reservoir LWS 700m west. Wraysbury 1 Gravel Pit LWS 1.7km south east

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision81 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 23 Landscape & Townscape / Visual Impacts Landscape Character Area of existing site: Thames Valley

Potential impact of development on the landscape: The public footpath would be temporarily diverted to one side of the extraction area and reinstated along the original route following restoration.

Opportunities for enhancement: It will be essential that adequate space for strong new landscape structure is included in any restoration proposal.

Water resources & Flooding The site is adjacent to the Colne Brook river corridor.

Proximity to a Source Protection Zone or Groundwater Vulnerability Zone: The site is not located within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ). The closest SPZ is located less than 1km away to the west of the site.

The site lies in a Major Aquifer Intermediate Vulnerability Zone.

There are no vulnerable water bodies within or adjacent to the site.

Flood Zones: The site lies within Flood Zone 1.

Air Quality The site is not located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The nearest AQMA’s lie 500m away at Wraysbury and 1.5km away along the M25 motorway.

Sensitive land and Soil Quality Current use of the site: The site consists of the margins of each of the already permitted sites (Horton Brook Quarry to the west and Poyle Quarry to the east) and the route of a public Bridleway (Colne Valley Way).

Potential impact on best and most

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and82 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 24 versatile (BMV) agricultural land: Adjacent sites contain Agricultural Land Classification grade 3b, 3a, and 2.

Transport (including access) Potential access into the site: All sand and gravel would either be transported by dump truck to the existing Poyle Quarry processing plant some 600m to the east along a private access road or would be processed through the existing Horton Brook Quarry processing plant to the west.

Both processing plants have suitable access onto the public highway network.

Historic environment and built heritage Archaeological potential:

Historic Parkland / Gardens: The closest park (Ditton Park) is located to the north west of the site approximately over 2km away. There are a number of listed buildings within 500m of the site boundary.

Listed buildings: The closest Grade II listed building is the Dairy Building at the adjacent Berkyn Manor Farm located to the south east of the site. Ashgood Farmhouse is located to the south west of the site.

Conservation Areas: Colnbrook village conservation area is located to the north of the site.

Communities, Amenity and Health The site lies within the London Heathrow Aerodrome Safeguarding Area.

Access to countryside and open space / A bridleway (Colne Valley Way) forms part of Public Rights of Way this site. The bridleway would be temporarily diverted to one side of the extraction area and reinstated along the original route following restoration of the site. This may opportunities for improved access and align with the objectives of the Colne Valley Regional Park.

Green Belt Site is located within the Green Belt.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision83 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 25

Outcome: To be taken forward to Sustainability Appraisal stage for full assessment

Ecological Assessment Summary

Designations

The site lies in an area of reservoirs and gravel pits. Those to the south are mainly designated as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Protection Area (SPA). Wraysbury Reservoir, which also forms part of the South Western London Waterbodies lies 0.74km to the south east. This is designated for its population of overwintering cormorants, great crested grebe and shovelor. Other waterbodies to the south of the site, Wraysbury and Hythe End Gravel Pits and Wraysbury Reservoir no. 1 (1.65km to south west) are designated as SSSI for overwintering bird populations, including gadwall, tufted duck, goosander and also breeding bird populations such as gadwall. These birds are less likely than other bird species to be using the surrounding fields for grazing, but general ‘bird assemblage’ catch all from the SSSI designations may capture some birds that will exhibit this behavior. They will all be sensitive to disturbance factors such as noise and vibration.

Arthur Jacob Reservoir Local Nature Reserve lies 0.45km to the east. It is designated as a restored sludge lagoon site which includes maturing planted woodland and wet woodland.

Habitats

The site consists of a track running north/south with arable fields to the east and Horton Brook Quarry to the west. The trees, scrub habitats and hedgerows lining the footpath are mature, and provide good connectivity from the north to the designated waterbodies to the south. The loss of the footpath is likely to give rise to recreational impacts to the European site unless the alternative path is designed to ensure that footfall is not increased or moved to a more sensitive, or less desensitized area of the SPA.

Protected and notable species

The habitats on site are likely to support common and widespread species. However, the role the habitats play in the wider landscape is likely to make it more important for protected species than its constituent parts. It provides a refuge habitat between the quarry habitats and the arable fields, and an important north/south habitat for more mobile species.

No protected species records are held for this area, though this is likely to be a result of the data gathered by the local authority rather than a lack of animals in the landscape. The line of scrub/trees/hedgerow is likely to be important for bats roosting in the residential areas of Colnbrook as a foraging and commuting route to the SSI/SPA waterbodies. Similarly reptiles and badger populations are likely to be using this site as an important resource.

Likely surveys/studies required

 Run off/water quality to SSSI and SPA  Air Quality assessment to SSSI and SPA

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and84 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 26  Monthly bat activity (transect and paired static)  Roost assessment of all trees likely to be impacted by the proposal.  Reptile, badger and breeding bird survey.  Hedgerow assessment

Likely mitigation

Significant buffer boundary to maintain habitats suitable for protected species and north/south connectivity.

Additional land required to offset loss, to ensure minimum no net less, if not gain of biodiversity.

Transport Assessment Summary Change in traffic volumes The change in HGV traffic on the SRN will be less than 1%. This excludes any existing traffic from the site as no information is available. The magnitude of change from the existing conditions would be negligible and therefore the significance of impact of the new proposals would be neutral. Maximum distance to SRN 1.4 miles to M4, J.5, majority with medium level of sensitive receptors. Requirement for mitigation? No requirement. Opportunities for sustainable None, as in current situation modes of transport Overall assessment

Landscape Assessment Summary

This is a low lying open flat landscape between Colnbrook village to the north and Horton village to the south. The site is a footpath that currently follows a route between Horton Brook Quarry and recently permitted, but not yet operational, Poyle Quarry. There is an active recycling facility at the southern end of the proposed site. The site is currently part of the Colne Valley Way public right of way. This section of the path is a long stretch sandwiched between an active and recently permitted mineral sites. The path is not particularly attractive whilst passing along this stretch as it is hemmed in by scruffy screen mounds on one side and a flat open landscape on the other. The overall condition is moderate/poor.

The path does not have any particularly redeeming landscape characteristics, there is little vegetation other than self-sown scrub on the soil bunds around Horton Brook Quarry. The site has low sensitivity.

This site is part of the long-distance footpath route known as the Colne Valley Way, a 14 mile path from Rickmansworth in the north to Colnebrook village in the south. This section of path is not particularly attractive, and the user is hemmed in between two fences with an active gravel pit to the west and a recently permitted gravel pit to the east. Its status as a public right of way should make the site visually Highly sensitive, however, for the reasons

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision85 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 27 set out above it is medium to low. The footpath will need to be diverted and the diversion route needs to be carefully routed to a more attractive alignment.

Historic Environment Assessment Summary

CEB 30 lies between the Horton and Poyle Quarries which have been subject to extensive archaeological survey, as well as archaeological excavation ahead of extraction and this gives us a sound insight into the archaeology of the landscape. This indicates that the landscape has a high archaeological potential, that is the potential to encountered as yet unrecorded archaeological remains. Archaeological evidence immediately adjacent to the bridleway includes evidence of Roman and prehistoric occupation sites which might reasonably be anticipated to run under the bridleway. In addition, the wider investigated landscape includes archaeological evidence of utilisation of this landscape in all periods, including early prehistoric camps, a Neolithic site, Bronze Age burials, field systems and settlement, Iron Age settlement and a Roman and medieval landscape. There is nothing currently to suggest an overriding archaeological constraint to allocation, however provisions will most certainly need to be made within any future planning application for archaeological survey and excavation ahead of development.

Development Considerations:

Ecology

• Protection of South West London Waterbodies Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar*.

• Impacts on all roosting and foraging areas used by qualifying bird species of South West London Waterbodies SPA and Ramsar, in particular open grasslands adjacent to the site*.

• Impacts on Arthur Jacob Nature Reserve Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), Queen Mother Reservoir LWS, Colne Brook LWS and Horton and Kingsmead Lakes LWS.

• Consideration of indirect impacts such as air and noise pollution.

 Restoration proposals should have reference to the Colne Valley Gravel Pits and Reservoirs Biodiversity Opportunity Area.

Landscape & Townscape  The Colne valley way trail will need to be diverted. This could be an improvement to the existing footpath through this area if the route is carefully selected and taken via the Eric Mortimer memorial lakes to the east of the site.

 Restoration proposals should have reference to the Colne and Crane Valleys Green Infrastructure Strategy 2019.

Transport

• A Transport Assessment or Statement is required

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and86 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 28 • An HGV Routeing Agreement will be required

Historic Environment

 The archaeological potential is high but can be addressed during the determination of the planning application.

Flood Risk & Water Resources

• A Flood Risk Assessment and Hydrological/Hydrogeological Assessment is required.

* denotes that development cannot be permitted if it may negatively affect the integrity of European protected sites and the development requirements for maintaining this integrity must be addressed.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision87 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 29 6. Operator Performance Policy

6.1 Following the ‘Draft Plan’ consultation, a number of responses from local residents raised concerns regarding the operation of existing sites13. A variety of operational, environmental and amenity issues were raised and the suitability of safeguarding or allocating sites with ongoing or extensive historic issues was questioned.

6.2 Monitoring of sites and taking appropriate enforcement action are part of the planning system. This means that sites will be monitored and enforced, where necessary in an effective way, ensuring that developments are not only determined based on national and local planning policy, but that they are also implemented in accordance with these policies and any obligations placed on the development through legal agreements or planning conditions.

6.3 Similarly, there is an expectation that any matters covered by other agencies and regimes, such as environmental permitting issued by the Environment Agency or statutory nuisance issues dealt with by Environmental Health Officers, will be managed appropriately.

6.4 However, there is a gap in decision making when it comes to assessing the suitability of a development, if past operator performance is not taken into account.

6.5 Much of a planning application describes what will happen in the future and represents commitments that the planning authority expects the operator will fulfil. While planning conditions and obligations cover some of the requirements the planning authority wishes to impose on the development, they will not list every detail that is contained in the development proposal. Without consideration of the past performance of operators, it may be more difficult to determine which issues may be of particular concern and should be explored in greater detail and which planning conditions are most relevant.

6.6 Additionally, monitoring and enforcement action are time and resource intensive activities that can be costly for both the planning authority and the operator, while exposing communities and the environment to unwanted and potentially unacceptable impacts in the meantime. Every effort should be made to avoid monitoring issues arising in the first place. Without consideration of the past performance of operators, the likelihood of future issues may be increased.

6.7 Therefore, the question raised in the ‘Draft Plan’ consultation as to whether the planning authorities should accept commitments set out in development proposals will be adhered to, where there is a history of issues, is a valid one and one that is not currently addressed through national policy. There have been some recent national policy developments in this area. In 2015 it was established that an intentional

13 JCEB Draft Plan Consultation Summary Report - http://documents.hants.gov.uk/environment/JCEBDraftPlanConsultationSummaryReport.pdf

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and88 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 30 unauthorised development is a particular material consideration14 in a planning decision, as it could potentially have a variety of significant adverse effects, being much less likely to have implemented avoidance or mitigation measures. In 2019, Planning Practice Guidance15 was amended to state that the planning history of a site may be a relevant consideration in the determination of an application.

6.8 Additionally, the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (2013)16 contains a policy provision that “Proposals to extend existing sites will only be supported where past performance of the existing operations has been adequately demonstrated.” This plan was compliant with the NPPF at the time and found sound by a planning inspector.

6.9 Building on recent guidance and to address the issues raised, a new development management policy is proposed allowing the planning authority to take past operator performance into account as part of determining an application.

6.10 The policy was subject to a legal assessment, sustainability appraisal and an informal engagement in the summer of 2019 with minerals and waste planning authorities and operators.

6.11 The policy was also shaped from discussions with minerals and waste development management and monitoring officers. Their experience was that there are considerable differences in how operators approach issues that are raised on site, with some being significantly more effective than others, with this approach often replicated across other sites that an operator dealt with. Liaison panels were cited as a particularly effective way of working through issues, particularly those that affect the amenity of nearby communities.

6.12 Table 1 summarises the key issues raised and how the amended policy addresses them.

Table 1: Issues raised to the operator past performance policy and policy response

Issues raised Policy response The policy needs to be justified. The discussion in this document sets out the reasons for including the policy and how various issues have been addressed. What alternatives to the policy Not having a policy is an option and the other policies in have been considered the Plan should afford the necessary protection form unacceptable negative impacts from the proposed development in most cases. However, an opportunity would be missed to reduce the likelihood of future issues and to help inform planning conditions that could help control those issues more effectively.

14 As per the 31 August 2015 letter to Chief Planning Officers by the Department of Communities and Local Government Chief Planner 15 Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 21b-010-20190315, 15/03/2019 revision) - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/determining-a-planning-application#how-decisions-on-applications 16 http://documents.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/HampshireMineralsWastePlanADOPTED.pdf

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision89 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 31

A less detailed policy could have been included, but that would have failed to respond to the variety of issues raised from the informal engagement.

A more detailed specification of the information required could have been provided, however the great variability of individual developments and the issues that may arise are considered to be better handled by a more flexible policy that allows both the operator and the planning authorities a wider choice of how issues should be resolved. All sites may experience The policy focuses not only on issues, but very much on unexpected problems, there how issues have been addressed. This should distinguish may be genuine mistakes and between a good performance operator that deals with any there may be unjustified unexpected issues and a poor performance operator that complaints fails to address issues that have arisen and may reasonable be expected to continue that pattern of behaviour. Changed operators should not The policy focuses on the operator or applicant, as it is be penalised for a site’s applied at the decision-making stage, and not just on the previous record site. New operators should not be No presumption of poor operator performance is made penalised for a lack of track unless this can be evidenced, hence the requirement for record an assessment and the text “where there is sufficient evidence”. Granting permissions to The purpose of the policy is not to prevent development, operators who have been found but to enable development to happen in a way that avoids guilty of extremely serious any unacceptable impacts. The policy should assist in offences may undermine cases of previous serious offences by highlighting them, decisions to give weight to the looking at how they arose and were dealt with, requiring policy when considering further information at the planning application stage to developers with lesser number help fully consider these issues and assisting in justifying of cautions/convictions planning conditions that should help manage such issues in the future. You may wish to specify what The policy is considered flexible enough to include such additional measures you may outcomes, without being overly prescriptive. impose in any planning permission or legal agreement if there’s a history of poor performance, such as financial bonds or restoration guarantees Collecting the necessary Robust monitoring processes are required in order to information may be onerous for make the policy effective. the local authority Collecting the necessary The policy encourages operators and applicants to information may be onerous for prevent issues from occurring, and address issues the applicant quickly and efficiently when they do occur. Collecting relevant information is likely to be necessary as part of the effective management of potential negative impacts of operations.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and90 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 32

Operator past performance – proposed policy text

6.13 The planning regime has, as a principle, the expectation that effective planning authority monitoring, and enforcement will take place and that other regulatory regimes will function to help control the potential negative impacts of development. Each planning application is considered on its own merits, within the overall strategic direction of relevant plans. At the same time, when making planning decisions it is necessary to take all relevant information into account and Planning Practice Guidance17 states that the planning history of a site may be a relevant consideration in the determination of an application.

6.14 An operator’s record of running established minerals or waste sites within their control can provide information on how appropriately the impacts of development have been managed by that operator. In some circumstances, where there is sufficient evidence, this information can be a useful indicator of how proposed future minerals or waste sites might be managed by that operator.

6.15 This Plan seeks to protect communities near minerals and waste development from any significant adverse effects.

Policy DM15

Past operator performance

1. Where an applicant or operator has been responsible for an existing or previous minerals or waste development site, an assessment of their operational performance at that existing or previous site will be made.

2. Where issues have been raised about the operation of an existing or previous development site, how the operator or applicant has responded, particularly where there is evidence of any significant adverse effects, will be taken into consideration in decision-making on minerals or waste applications submitted by the same applicant or operator.

Implementation

6.16 Any site can experience issues, and these will vary in complexity. It is important that operators listen to the concerns of the monitoring officers or the community and take active steps to rectify issues, especially substantiated complaints and breaches, quickly, effectively and proportionately.

17 Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 21b-010-20190315, 15/03/2019 revision) - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/determining-a-planning-application#how-decisions-on-applications

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision91 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 33 6.17 Liaison panels can be an effective way of bringing together various interested parties, keeping relevant stakeholder informed, opening communication channels and resolving issues. Liaison panels, where appropriate, should be established and managed by the relevant operator of the site.

6.18 A minerals or waste development may be authorised or unauthorised. An intentional unauthorised development can be a material consideration18, as it could potentially have a variety of significant adverse effects, being much less likely to have implemented avoidance or mitigation measures.

6.19 The (re)occurrence of any significant adverse effects and how they have been addressed will be an indicator of whether an operator or applicant can deliver future development effectively. The applicant will need to provide information and relevant records on existing development site performance as part of the planning application, as well as submitting information on how any previous performance issues will be avoided and/or addressed in the future for the proposed development.

6.20 A Monitoring Assessment will be required, particularly where developments have a long or complex history of issues. Where there is no history of an operator within the Plan areas, it may be possible to obtain the relevant information through liaison with monitoring officers in locations where they have previously had active sites. It would be expected that the planning authority prepares the Monitoring Assessment with relevant input (e.g. monitoring officer, environmental health officer or Environment Agency).

6.21 The record of performance of an operator or applicant, as assessed, will form a material consideration in the decision-making and may be used:

 As a basis to request additional information to support an application in relation to any issues raised through the Assessment and how these may be mitigated as part of the proposal;

 To apply an appropriate condition to a permission to address an issue which has been raised through the Assessment where this has not been rectified by the applicant to an acceptable level; or

 To tip the balance in determining an application where all matters are equal in relation to impacts.

18 As per the 31 August 2015 letter to Chief Planning Officers by the Department of Communities and Local Government Chief Planner

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and92 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 34 Monitoring

6.22 Proposed Monitoring Indicators:

Monitoring Issue Monitoring Indicator (Threshold)

for Policy Review

Taking past performance Permissions for proposals Number of into account by existing operators permissions where accompanied by Monitoring issues outlined in Assessments. Monitoring Assessments are not addressed through additional information requests and/or conditions > 0.

6.23 The relevant extracts from the Habitats Regulation Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment are set out in Appendix B and G of this Consultation Document.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision93 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 35 7. Next Steps

7.1 Hampshire Services on behalf of the Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities will carefully consider all of the comments received. These comments will inform a summary report on the issues raised, which will be available on the website as soon as possible once the consultation has closed and the responses have been processed.

How will my comments be used?

7.2 The responses received from this consultation will inform the Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19) which is being be prepared by Hampshire Services on behalf of Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities.

7.3 The Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19) is the version of the plan that is intended to be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and94 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 36 Appendix A: Sustainability Appraisal Extract (Sites) The following SA/SEA information refers to Land west of Basingstoke Road (CEB29) and Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry (CEB30). The information should be read in conjunction with the SA/SEA Interim Report19 (June 2018).

Table 3.7 Summary of Site Appraisal Site Mineral/Waste Constraints Considerations CEB29 Minerals: sand  Adjacent to SSSI  The River Loddon (designated Land west of and gravel and Ancient SSSI) directly adjacent and within Basingstoke extraction Woodland the site will require consideration. Road  Located in The river will be extremely sensitive (Wokingham) drinking water to hydrological changes, and safeguard zone. pollution directly from siltation, or  60m from a indirectly through airborne Scheduled pollutants. Monument.  Consultations with Natural England  Listed buildings will be required as the site is within adjacent and a SSSI Impact Zone. within 300m.  The proximity to ancient woodland  Footpath onsite. will require a significant level of  Adjacent assessment and residential avoidance/buffering of habitat properties. would be required.  3.2 km to M4  Consideration will need to be given junction. to protection of water quality and  Within FRZ 2 and supply. 3a.  Works would need to consider the visual impacts on the Scheduled Monument, listed buildings and PROW.  There are residential properties adjacent. Consideration will need to be given to impact of development on factors such as noise, dust, and air quality.  The site is at risk of fluvial flooding from the River Loddon and as such parts of the site fall in Flood Zones 2 and 3a. Mineral deposits have to be worked where they are (and sand and gravel extraction is defined as ‘water-compatible development), however, mineral working should not increase flood risk elsewhere and need to be designed, worked and restored accordingly, sequential working and restoration can be designed to reduce flood risk by providing flood

19 SA/SEA Interim Report (June 2018): www.hants.gov.uk/berksconult

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision95 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 37 Site Mineral/Waste Constraints Considerations storage and attenuation.  The site is 3.2km from a significant junction meaning vehicle routeing and frequency would need to be addressed. CEB30 Minerals: sand  Within 1km of  Close to international designated Area and gravel SPA/Ramsar and site and a LNR. Mineral/waste between extraction SSSI. land-use within this area could Horton Brook  0.40km from have potentially significant. A and Poyle nearest LNR. Phase 1 habitat survey is Quarry,  0.90km from SPZ recommended. Horton 3 and within  SPZ 3 is nearby and confirmation drinking water is required as to whether the zone. proposal will impact public water  Area of high supply. archaeological  Archaeological deposit modelling potential. recommended.  0.20km of List  Works would need to consider the buildings and visual impacts on the listed Registered Parks buildings, registered park and and Gardens. gardens and Bridleway.  Grade 2 and 3  The land is grade 2 & 3 soils and BMV land. therefore an assessment of  Adjacent impacts would be required at residential. application to ensure soil quality is protected.  There are residential properties adjacent. Consideration will need to be given to impact of development on factors such as noise, dust, and air quality.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and96 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 38 Table 3.8: At a glance total effects of sites (without mitigation)

SA/SEA Objectives

Floodrisk

2 Water qualityWater 2 Landscape 3 and heritage Ground 4 conditions Quality 5 of life quality Air 6 Emissions 7 climate / change Sustainable 8 materials Economic 9 Growth Sustainable 10 waste and minerals 11 Sites Biodiversity 1 CEB29 West of Basingstoke Road, - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + - Spencer Wood (Wokingham) CEB30 Area between Horton Brook and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 Poyle Quarry, Horton

1.1 Table 3.8 shows the total combined synergistic effects of site CEB29 and CEB30 on the SA/SEA Objectives (without mitigation).

1.2 Site CEB29 scored negatively for SA/SEA Objective 1 (biodiversity), Objective 6 (air quality) and Objective 11 (flood risk). However, Policies DM3 (Habitats and species), DM9 (Public Health, Safety and Amenity) and DM10 (Water Environment and Flood Risk) would minimise flood risk.

1.3 The sites scored ‘amber’ for most of the SA/SEA Objectives including:

 SA/SEA Objective 1 which reflects the proximity of European, National and Local designations to the sites. Potential impacts can be mitigated through the correct application of DM 3 (Protection of Habitats and Species).  SA/SEA Objective 2 (water quality) which reflects the proximity of the sites to rivers and source protection zones.  SA/SEA Objective 3 (landscape) which reflects the fact the site is within the Green Belt. Policy DM6 (Green Belt) seek to ensure that impacts on the openness are mitigation. It is also noted that minerals development is not considered ‘inappropriate’ in the Green Belt due to its temporary nature.  SA/SEA Objective 4 (ground conditions) are the sites are Grade 3 (and in part Grade 2) Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.  SA/SEA Objective 5 (Quality of Life) given their proximity to residential dwellings. Policies DM1 (Sustainable Development and DM9 (Public Health, Safety and Amenity) would consider the impacts to human health from factors such as noise, dust, traffic.  SA/SEA Objective 7 (Emissions / climate change) which reflects available information at this stage.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision97 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 39  SA/SEA Objective 9 (Economic growth). Whilst it is unknown currently to what level the job creation would be, it is recognised that they would all provide for some form of employment (permanent or temporary) during their construction and or operation.

1.4 The sites score positively for SA/SEA Objective 8 and 10 as the site proposals would contribute towards the provision of minerals.

Intra Plan Effects (synergistic) 1.5 With respect to the cumulative effect of the site with the others proposed. There is the potential for a cumulative impact with CEB30 and the proposals at Horton Brook (CEB19) and Poyle Quarry Extensions (CEB18 a and b). However, it is proposed that CEB30 would be worked as part of the current Poyle Quarry permission. It is expected that the extension sites would then be worked following completion of the Poyle Quarry site and as such, there would not be an accumulation of impacts in the area. This would also result in a continuation of impacts associated with processing at the Poyle processing plant including vehicle movements. There is potential for cumulative impacts with the Horton Brook operations, but this will be depending on the timing of commencement of the extraction and the stage of restoration at Poyle Quarry (and Horton Brook Quarry).

Inter Plan Effects (additive and synergistic) 1.6 Based on the spatial and temporal criteria (5km radius and operational in 2020), CEB29 was not found to have any other potentially operational (minerals or waste site) which could give rise to cumulative effects. However, it is noted that should any of the existing mineral sites extend their permissions the cumulative impacts would need to be reassessed. As noted, CEB30 may risk cumulative impacts with operations at Horton Brook and the remaining areas of Poyle Quarry to be worked. The extent of this impact will be dependent on when operations are permitted and the phasing of work at Poyle.

1.7 With respect to other types of development which may give rise to cumulative effects (i.e. housing, retail, commercial etc.), the high-level review of development proposals within 5km of CEB29 captured 7 proposals all within the Shinfield area and identified through the emerging Wokingham Borough Local Plan process. The main development area which could give rise to cumulative effects is within the Shinfield area. Site references 5SH029/40/41/47/48 land at Grazeley covering a large area of mixed use to the west of the A33

Table 4.1: Summary Cumulative Impact Assessment of Development Plans short List Within 1 Km Within 2 Km Within 3 Km Within 4 Km Within 5 Km

Sites Housing Other Housing Other Housing Other Housing Other Housing Other Total CEB29 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7*

*The table includes the list of proposed allocations as provided by Wokingham Borough Council.

1.8 The cumulative assessment could only be undertaken based on available information which was limited to key considerations for each site as outlined in the emerging Royal

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and98 Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 40 Borough of Windsor and Maidenheads Local Plan. Refer to Table 4.2 for high level cumulative assessment. Table 4.2: High Level Cumulative Effects Assessment of Allocated Sites

Site ID Short list of Sites with potential Potential cumulative effect for cumulative effect* CEB30 HA44 Land east of Queen Mother There is a potential site located in Reservoir the immediate vicinity of CEB30 (HA44). Although the magnitude of HA42 Land at Slough Road and development is not considered Riding Court Road Datchet significant, given its proximity there (refer Figure 4.2, Appendix L). is the potential for additive cumulative effects particular with respect to noise and air quality and traffic congestion on the minor roads. A further site (HA42) has been identified along the strategic road network which if there was temporal overlap may give rise to additive traffic and congestion on the network. Given the magnitude of the developments it is considered unlikely that there would be any significant cumulative effects associated with the operational phases. *Site ID as presented in Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan 2013-2033 (emerging).

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision99 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 41 Site Specific Assessment CEB29 Land west of Basingstoke Road

Land west of Basingstoke Road Site ID: CEB 29

Grid Reference: 471680 165203

Borough: Wokingham Area (Ha): 25 Ha

Objective 1: Conserve & enhance biodiversity Distance SA/SEA Judgement

SPA/SAC/Ramsar: None within 2km N/A

SSSI: The River Loddon (and Stanford End Mill) is a SSSI Adjacent which runs to the immediate south of the site.

**SSSI Impact Zones Issues:

Includes planning applications for quarries, including: new proposals, Review of Minerals Permissions (ROMP), extensions, variations to conditions etc. Oil & gas exploration/extraction.

LWR & LNR: None N/A

Ancient & Semi Natural Woodland: Adjacent to the north. Adjacent

Objective 1 justification

The site is considered to be located in a sensitive area owing to its proximity to the SSSI (River Loddon). The SSSI would be sensitive to changes in the environment in the immediate vicinity including increased run off and changes to water quality. Natural England assent would be required.

Objective 2: Maintain and Improve ground and Distance SA/SEA surface water quality Judgement

Source Protection Zone (SPZ): Zone 3 2 km

Drinking Water Protected Area (Surface Water): Within

It is in a drinking water safeguard zone (surface water)

Objective 2 justification

The site is located adjacent to the River Loddon and within a drinking water safeguard zone. Careful consideration should be given to development and potential pollution to surface waters.

Objective 3: Protect and enhance landscape & Distance SA/SEA historic environment Judgement

Topography: Largely flat agricultural fields.

Landscape Character Area: Spencers Wood Settled and Farmed Clay Character Area

TPO: There are no TPOs within the site. The nearest is Adjacent.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision 100and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 42 on Lambs Lane adjacent to the site.

Green Belt N/A

Heritage Assets:

Scheduled Monument:

Moated site at Sheepbridge Court 60m

Moated manorial site at Beaumys Castle 400m

Grade I Listed Building: None

Grade II Listed Assets:

Milestone North North west of Sheepbridge Adjacent

Girlders 275m

Wyvols Court 300m

Grade II* Listed Assets:

Sheepbridge Court 100m

Barn 80 north of Sheepbridge Court 180m

Registered Parks and Garden / Historic Parkland & Gardens: 400m Swallowfield Park

Conservation Area: <1 km Swallowfield Conservation Area

Access to countryside and open space / Public Rights of Way: On site. PROW footpath SWAFFP 19I 300m PROW bridleway SWALBR36III

Objective 3 justification

There are Scheduled Monuments and Grade II and Grade II* Listed buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site. Changes to the site have the potential to alter the setting of these assets. The site is located on the northern flank of the River Loddon and is situated within an Area of High Potential. Therefore, advice and the opinion of Historic England should be sought. There is also a PROW which will require consideration.

Objective 4: Maintain & protect soil quality Distance SA/SEA Judgement

Agricultural: Grade 3 (a or b unknown)

Contaminated Land: Greenfield

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision101 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 43 Geological Important Areas: N/A

Objective 4 justification

The site is greenfield and Grade 3 agricultural land. It is not clear whether it is grade 3a or 3b.

Objective 5: Improve quality of life of population Distance SA/SEA Judgement

Residential Dwellings:

The Mill House Adjacent

Lambs Lane Adjacent Approx. 400m Properties in Swallowfield Approx. 400m Properties in Lambs Lane

Schools:

Meadow view day nursery 550m

Lambs Lane Primary 370m

Amenities:

Warrens croft play area 600m

Objective 5 justification

The Mill Hotel is located adjacent to the site and there are small residential areas at Swallowfield and Lambs lane including a school. Therefore, there is the potential for conflict with respect to the potential development. However, it is worth noting that the number of residential properties in the immediate vicinity is low.

Objective 6: Maintain and Protect Air Quality Distance SA/SEA Judgement

Air Quality Management Area: Nearest M4 (Junction 11) 3.2 km

*Proximity to major roads: M4 Junction 11 3.2 km

*Proximity to SRN: M4 350m

Method of Transportation: Road

*Links to Rail network 4 km

Objective 6 justification

The site is some distance from an AQMA. However, the most significant junction is almost 3.2km which is within the AQMA. The development would mean increased vehicle movements on the SRN including the B3349.

Objective 7: reduce emissions of greenhouse gases SA/SEA Judgement

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision 102and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 44 Generates Energy/Heat Production N/A

Supports renewables N/A

Objective 7 justification

Not Applicable

Objective 8: Support sustainable extraction, reuse SA/SEA and recycling of mineral & aggregate resources Judgement

Recycled N/A

Composted N/A

Recovered Partial

Landfilled N/A

Objective 8 justification (Minerals)

Some infill of inert material proposed as part of restoration.

Objective 9: Economic Growth SA/SEA Judgement

Job creation (per Ha) Unknown

Type of job (Permanent/Temporary) Temporary

Support economic growth Y

Deprivation index in locality N/A

Objective 9 justification

The mineral site is likely to create temporary employment. However, the site would contribute to economic growth though the supply of sands and gravels, supporting local and regional development. The level of job creation is unknown at this stage.

Objective 10: Create and sustain high levels of access Distance SA/SEA to waste & mineral services Judgement

Waste facility N/A

Mineral facility Onsite

Objective 10 justification

Site creates a new mineral facility.

Objective 11: Alleviate Flood Risk and flood impacts Distance SA/SEA Judgement

Flood Zones: FRZ 2 and 3. FRZ 2 on site and FRZ 3 adjacent.

Areas susceptible to surface water flooding. River Loddon

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision103 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 45 Objective 11 justification

Site within Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3, likely flooding issues in the southern portion of the site.

*Distance have been measured following the shortest route

All other distances are measured as the crow flies

**SSSI Impact Zone – if development type of descriptions in the SSSI IZs at a chosen location match the nature and scale of a proposed development, this indicates the potential for impact and means that more detailed consideration is required. In this case, Natural England should be consulted for advice on any potential impacts on SSSIs and how these might be avoided or mitigated.

Sites Examples of mitigation measures  Biodiversity: Management schemes – Restoration and aftercare scheme  Landscape and Heritage: Screening / buffer, Landscape Schemes, onsite landscaping, phasing of development. Restoration and aftercare scheme, CEB29 West contaminated land assessment of Basingstoke  Water and Flooding: Water and flood management schemes– could Road include long term management through S106 as appropriate (Minerals)  Traffic: HGV routing agreements and restrictions  Design: Specifications and siting of the facilities

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision 104and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 46 Site Specific Assessment CEB30 Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry

Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Site ID: CEB 30 Quarry

Grid Reference: 501980 176535

Borough: Royal Borough of Windsor & Area (Ha): 3.75 Maidenhead

Objective 1: Conserve & enhance biodiversity Distance SA/SEA Judgement

SPA/Ramsar: South West London Wetlands 0.75km

SSSI: (overlaying SPA & Ramsar)

Wraysbury Reservoir SSSI 0.75km

Staines Moor SSSI 1.60km

Wraysbury No.1 Gravel Pit SSSI 1.70km

Wraysbury & Hythe End Gravel Pits SSSI 2.0km

**SSSI Impact Zones Issues:

Includes planning applications for quarries, including: new proposals, Review of Minerals Permissions (ROMP), extensions, variations to conditions etc. Oil & gas exploration/extraction.

LWR & LNR: Arthur Jacob Local Nature Reserve 0.40km LWR & LNR: Colne Brook Local Wildlife Site 0.60km Horton and Kingsmead lakes Local Wildlife Site 0.65km Queen Mother Reservoir 0.70km Wraysbury 1 Gravel Pit 1.70km Ancient Woodland: Old Windsor Wood 1.67km

Objective 1 justification

The site is within 0.4km of a local wildlife reserve and further advise should be sought.

Objective 2: Maintain and Improve ground and Distance SA/SEA surface water quality Judgement

Source Protection Zone (SPZ): 3 0.90km

Drinking Water Protected Area (Surface Water) Within drinking water safeguard zone

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision105 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 47 Objective 2 justification

The site is within 0.9km of an SPZ. The site is also within a drinking water safeguard zone and careful consideration should be given to development and the potential for pollution to surface water.

Objective 3: Protect and enhance landscape & Distance SA/SEA historic environment Judgement

Landscape character area: Thames Valley

Topography: Agricultural fields/bridleway

TPO: Unknown.

Green Belt On site.

Heritage Assets:

Grade II Listed Building:

Dairy at Berkyn Manor 0.20km

Ashgood Farmhouse 0.25km

The Five Bells Public House 0.35km

Registered Parks and Gardens:

Ditton Park 2.0km

The Royal Estate, Windsor: Windsor Castle and Home 3.5km Park

Archaeological Potential: High On site

Access to countryside and open space / Public Rights of On site Way: Site is a PROW – Colne Valley Way

Objective 3 justification

The site is within Green Belt, but mineral extraction is not considered inappropriate development. There are Listed buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens within 0.2km. The Archaeological potential is high, but this is not an overriding factor. The impact on the bridleway will be significant but could offer opportunity for improvement.

Objective 4: Maintain & protect soil quality Distance SA/SEA Judgement

Agricultural: Grade 2 and 3b in north, 60% Grade 3a

Contaminated Land: Greenfield

Geological Important Areas: N/A

Objective 4 justification

Greenfield site with majority as Grade 3a and therefore, there is potential for damage to soil quality during development.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision 106and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 48

Objective 5: Improve quality of life of population Distance SA/SEA Judgement

Residential Dwellings: Adjacent.

Schools: 0.44km

Hospitals: 6.25km

Amenities:

Recreation club 0.50km

Sailing club 0.90km

Objective 5 justification

There are a number of residential properties which are adjacent to the site and therefore, there is potential for conflict unless mitigation measures are applied.

Objective 6: Maintain and Protect Air Quality Distance SA/SEA Judgement

Air Quality Management Area: Slough AQMA No 2 0.80km

*Location to significant junctions: M4 J5 1.50km

*Proximity to SRN: M4 J5 1.50km

Method of Transportation: Road

*Links to Rail network: Wraysbury 0.50km

Objective 6 justification

The site is less than 1km from the nearest AQMA, but 1.5km from the nearest SRN. However, consideration should be given to the potential for increased vehicle movement within the AQMA.

Objective 7: reduce emissions of greenhouse gases SA/SEA Judgement

Generates Energy/Heat Production N/A

Supports renewables N/A

Objective 7 justification

Not Applicable

Objective 8: Support sustainable extraction, reuse SA/SEA and recycling of mineral & aggregate resources Judgement

Recycled N/A

Composted N/A

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision107 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 49 Recovered On site

Landfilled N/A

Objective 8 justification (Minerals)

The restoration scheme includes infill of inert materials (recovery).

Objective 9: Economic Growth SA/SEA Judgement

Job creation (per Ha) Unknown

Type of job (Permanent/Temporary) Temporary

Support economic growth Y

Deprivation index in locality N/A

Objective 9 justification

Objective 10: Create and sustain high levels of access Distance SA/SEA to waste & mineral services Judgement

Waste facility N/A

Mineral facility Onsite

Objective 10 justification

Site creates a new mineral facility

Objective 11: Alleviate Flood Risk and flood impacts Distance SA/SEA Judgement

Flood Zones: 1 On site.

Areas susceptible to surface water flooding. Unknown.

Incidences of flood warnings. Unknown.

Objective 11 justification

Site within Flood Zone 1 with Zones 2 and 3 within close proximity.

*Distance have been measured following the shortest route

All other distances are measured as the crow flies

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision 108and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 50 Sites Examples of mitigation measures  Biodiversity: Management schemes – Restoration and aftercare scheme  Landscape and Heritage: Screening / buffer, Landscape Schemes, onsite CEB30 Area landscaping, phasing of development. Restoration and aftercare scheme, between contaminated land assessment Horton Brook and Poyle  Water and Flooding: Water and flood management schemes– could Quarry include long term management through S106 as appropriate (Minerals)  Traffic: HGV routing agreements and restrictions

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision109 and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 51 Appendix B: Habitats Regulations Assessment Extract (Sites, Policy DM15 & Area of Search) The following extracts should be read in conjunction with the Habitats Regulation Assessment – Screening Report (June 2018)20. Sites

Site name and reference Land west of Basingstoke Road (CEB29) Location of Site Wokingham – SU71686519 Brief description of Site Current use: Existing agricultural fields Proposal: Extraction of sand and gravel from the site. The site boundary covers an area of approximately 25 ha. Ground investigations are being undertaken by the site promoter to determine the quantity of the resource. Restoration: Restoration will comprise backfill of the site with inert waste material to reinstate the agricultural fields and/or wetland habitat to enhance the ecology of the local area and the adjacent SSSI Previous consideration within the plan making process: This site is a new proposal to the Joint Plan.

110 European sites (including Ramsar) potentially Thames Basin Heaths affected Site designation status SPA Location of European site Bracknell forest, SU878566 Distance from European site 3.23 km Brief description of European site The Thames Basin Heaths form part of a complex of heathlands in southern England that support important breeding bird populations. Scattered trees and scrub are used for roosting. The open heathland habitats overlie sand and gravel sediments, give rise to sandy or peaty acidic soils, supporting dry health vegetation, wet heath and bogs. The site consists of tracts of heathland, scrub and woodland, once almost continuous, but now fragmented into separate blocks by roads, urban development and farmland. Less open habitats of scrub, acidic woodland and conifer plantations dominate, within which are scattered areas of open heath and mire.

20 Central and Eastern Berkshire – Habitats Regulation Assessment: Screening Report (June 2018) – www.hants.gov.uk/berksconsult.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 52 Species: The site supports important breeding populations of a number of birds of lowland heathland. Most namely Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus (7.8% of UK population) and Woodlark Lullula arborea (9.9% of UK population), both of which nest on the ground, often at the woodland/heathland edge, and Dartford warbler Sylvia undata (27.8% of UK population), which often nests in gorse Ulex sp. Conservation Objectives of the European site Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: • The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; • The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; • The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely; • The population of each of the qualifying features; and • The distribution of the qualifying features within the site. Qualifying Features of the European site • A224 Caprimulgus europaeus; European nightjar (Breeding) • A246 Lullula arborea; Woodlark (Breeding)

111 • A302 Sylvia undata; Dartford warbler (Breeding) Potential causes of Cited interest features likely Details significant effect to be sensitive to the hazard (Y/N) Land take N The site is located 3.23 km south east of the SPA / Ramsar. The European site will not therefore be impacted by direct land take. Removal of supporting N Although the site is within the range of nightjar foraging from the SPA, it habitat provides unsuitable habitat with significant areas of optimal and sub-optimal habitat located within closer proximity of the SPA. As such the hazard is considered to have negligible potential to cause a likely significant effect. Noise N As the site is located 3.23 km from the European site, the hazard is considered to have negligible potential to cause a likely significant effect. Vibration N As the site is located 3.23 km from the European site, the hazard is considered to have negligible potential to cause a likely significant effect. Lighting N As the site is located 3.23 km from the European site, the hazard is considered to have negligible potential to cause a likely significant effect. Dust N As the site is located 3.23 km from the European site, the hazard is considered to have negligible potential to cause a likely significant effect. Water pollution Y Due to the proximity of the European site, interest features are considered vulnerable to this hazard.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 53 Changes in surface / Y Due to the proximity of the European site, interest features are considered groundwater hydrology vulnerable to this hazard. Air quality / Traffic N As the site is located 3.23 km from the European site and as the de-minimis predicted increase in HGV traffic on the SRN would be less than 1%, the hazard is considered to have negligible potential to cause a likely significant effect. Recreation related impacts N Footpath (SWAL FP 19), which crosses the site, may be affected by the proposal. However, as the site is located 3.23 km from the European site and there are numerous ways of bypassing the footpath locally, the hazard is considered to have negligible potential to cause a likely significant effect. Details of other plans and projects which may affect the European site in-combination Wokingham Borough Council Promoted Sites List (last updated 23/10/2019) Ref: 5SW004 Land off Basingstoke Road, Swallowfield 28.1 Ha – land use proposed by the promoter (not stated) Wokingham Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD 2010 Wokingham Borough Development Plan Adopted Managing Development Delivery Local Plan 2014 Runnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan Consultation Bracknell Forest Site Allocations Local Plan 2013

112 Rushmoor Local Plan 2019 Hart Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2016-2032 Submission Version Bracknell Forest Council Site Allocations Local Plan 2013 Guildford Borough Local Plan: strategy and site (2015-2034) Could the potential impacts of the development of the proposed site have a likely significant effect? Alone? Yes (C2) In-combination with other plans/projects Yes

Site name and reference Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarries (CEB30) Location of Site Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (grid reference: 501980 176535) Brief description of Site Current use: Existing bridleway (Colne Valley Way) Proposal: Extraction of 250,000 tonnes of sand and gravel from the site. Processing will take place at existing plants at either Horton Brook Quarry to the west or Poyle Quarry to the east. The site boundary covers an area of approximately 3.75 ha and lies between the permitted Horton Brook Quarry and permitted Poyle Quarry which is yet to commence operation. It is anticipated that extraction of this site would be relatively

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 54 straightforward and would commence from the eastern side. Restoration: The site will be restored using backfill of inert waste material and the bridleway (Colne Valley Way) will be reinstated. Previous consideration within the plan making process: This site is a new proposal but forms part of Preferred Area 12 (North of Horton) in the adopted Minerals Local Plan.

European sites (including Ramsar) potentially South West London Waterbodies affected Site designation status SPA / Ramsar Location of European site Windsor and Maidenhead, TQ023746 Distance from European site 0.75 km Brief description of European site The South-West London Water Bodies comprises a series of embanked water supply

113 reservoirs and former gravel pits that support a range of man-made and semi-natural open water habitats. The predominant habitat (70%) is made up of inland water bodies. There are also areas of improved grassland, humid and mesophile grassland and broad-leaved deciduous woodland. The soil and geology are a mix of alluvium, clay, and mud, neutral and sand. The reservoirs and gravel pits function as important feeding and roosting sites for wintering wildfowl, in particular gadwall Anas strepera and shoveler Anas clypeata, both of which occur in numbers of European importance. Conservation Objectives of the European site Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: • The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; • The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; • The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely; • The population of each of the qualifying features; and • The distribution of the qualifying features within the site. Qualifying Features of the European site • A051 Anas strepera; gadwall (Non-breeding)

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 55 • A056 Anas clypeata; northern shoveler (Non-breeding) Potential causes of Cited interest features likely Details significant effect to be sensitive to the hazard (Y/N) Land take N The site is located 0.75 km south east of the SPA / Ramsar. The European site will not therefore be impacted by direct land take. Removal of supporting Y The main issue relates to the proximity of the site to the SPA. The field habitat along the eastern boundary of the site, though presenting little intrinsic biodiversity interest, provides moderate suitability (large, open and arable) for foraging over-wintering birds such as waders, brent geese and ducks, and could potentially be considered supporting SPA habitat. It is unclear at this stage whether the timing of permitted extraction works at Poyle Quarry (on the adjacent field) would render the field unsuitable as SPA habitat. Noise Y Proximity could lead to indirect impacts such as noise pollution, and behavioural change of bird species. 114 Vibration N As the site is 0.75 km from the European site, the hazard is considered to have negligible potential to cause a likely significant effect. Lighting Y As the site is 0.75 km from the European site, the hazard is considered to have the potential to cause a likely significant effect on bird species behaviour. Dust Y As the site is 0.75 km from the European site, the hazard is considered to have the potential to cause a likely significant effect. Water pollution Y Due to the proximity of the European site, interest features are considered vulnerable to this hazard. Changes in surface / Y Dewatering is a key process in the extraction of sand and gravel. This can groundwater hydrology have impacts on groundwater flow some distance from the extraction site. Due to the proximity of the European site, interest features are considered vulnerable to this hazard. Air quality / Traffic N Based on the distance of the site from the SPA/Ramsar, the nature of the proposed operations on the site, the low sensitivity of the SPA/Ramsar to

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 56 airborne pollutants and the de-minimis potential change in HGV traffic on the SRN (less than 1% increase), it is considered unlikely that the interest features are vulnerable to this hazard. Recreation related impacts Y The proposed operations would necessitate the removal of a track providing public access. This has the potential to cause a likely significant effect through recreational displacement. Details of other plans and projects which may affect the European site in-combination Sites CEB16, 18a, 18b, 19, 21, 25, 27. RBWM Local Plan Submission Version (2017) Could the potential impacts of the development of the proposed site have a likely significant effect? Alone? Yes (C2) In-combination with other plans/projects Yes

115

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 57 Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance

HRA Screening Outcome (green = screened out. Amber = Development Management Policy screened in for appropriate assessment) Category Rationale

Policy DM15 This policy ‘would have no negative effect on a A1 Past operator performance European site at all’ as it focuses on past operator 1. Where an applicant or operator has been responsible for an performance in relation to any negative environmental existing or previous minerals or waste development site, an impacts in existing or previous minerals or waste assessment of their operational performance at that existing or development. previous site will be made. This policy is screened out. 2. Where issues have been raised about the operation of an existing or previous development site, how the operator or

116 applicant has responded, particularly where there is evidence of any significant adverse effects, will be taken into consideration in decision-making on minerals or waste applications submitted by the same applicant or operator.

Area of Search

HRA Screening Outcome (green = screened out. Amber = screened in for Area of Search options appropriate assessment) Category Rationale

Option 1: No Area of Search applied No change that requires screening N/A

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 58 Option 2: ‘NPPF Compliant’ Area of Search An ‘NPPF Compliant’ Area of Search has been included in this consultation A4 document. The resultant Area of Search boundary, provided in Figure 1, includes minerals resource but avoids Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Area of Search text will be included in an amended ‘Policy M4: Locations for sand and gravel extraction’.

Although no buffer has been applied around European sites (including Ramsar sites), the Area of Search does not specifically identify any sites and any future sites proposed within this search area will be subject to detailed HRA screening through the normal development management process. In addition, the Area of Search as a whole is supported by Policy DM3 – Protection of Habitats and Species. The Area of Search is therefore

117 screened out as not likely to have a significant effect on a European site.

The addition of the Area of Search to Policy M4 is considered not to change the outcome of the HRA screening of Policy M4 in the HRA Screening Report (June 2018)21. Option 3: ‘NPPF Compliant plus Local This alternative Area of Search option (not included in this consultation A4 designations’ Area of Search document) is also screened out. See rationale for NPPF Compliant Area of Search option, above.

21 Central and Eastern Berkshire – Habitats Regulation Assessment: Screening Report (June 2018) – www.hants.gov.uk/berksconsult.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 59 Appendix C: Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Extract

The following extracts should be read in conjunction with the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statement (June 2018)22.

Land west of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood (CEB29) 118

Rating

Flood history Records of river breaching in 1990 and 1991 at border of site to a depth of roughly half a metre. No flood events in last 20 years

Fluvial flooding risk Southern edge of the site is within Flood Zone 3, bordering a Main River. Flood Zone 2 surrounds Flood Zone 3

Surface water risk Large majority no surface water flood risk, but a strip of high surface water flood

22 Central and Eastern Berkshire – Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (June 2018) – www.hants.gov.uk/berksconsult.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 60

risk running north-west to south-east across Lambs Lane to the Main River

Groundwater risk The site is not within a Source Protection Zone. Low risk from groundwater flooding

Reservoir flooding No risk from reservoir flooding risk Strategic Flood Risk Summary – The greatest risk is fluvial flooding, with the lower border of the site adjacent to a Main River. Overall it has low flood risk which given the type of development (sand and gravel extraction) is anticipated would not pose any significant issues.

From a flood risk perspective, this site is considered suitable for development.

119

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 61

Area between Horton and Poyle Quarries (CEB30)

120

Rating

Flood history No recorded flood history

Fluvial flooding Entire site in flood zone 1 risk

Surface water risk None

Groundwater risk Medium groundwater vulnerability. No Source Protection Zones across the site

Reservoir flooding In reservoir flooding zone. Majority of site at risk of 2 metres or more flooding, with risk speeds of between 0.5 and 2 metres/second

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 62 Strategic Flood Risk Summary – The greatest flood risk to Area between Horton and Poyle Quarries is reservoir flooding, which is highly unlikely. Overall it has low flood risk which given the type of development (sand and gravel extraction) is anticipated this would not pose any significant issues.

From a flood risk perspective, this site is considered suitable for development. 121

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 63 Appendix D: Landscape and Environmental Designations Map

Land west of Basingstoke Road (CEB29) 122

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 64 Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry (CEB30) 123

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 65 Appendix E: Historic Environment Map

Land west of Basingstoke Road (CEB29) 124

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 66 Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry (CEB30) 125

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 67 Appendix F: Water Environment Map

Land west of Basingstoke Road (CEB29) 126

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 68 Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry (CEB30) 127

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 69 Appendix G: Sustainability Appraisal Extract (Policy) The following SA/SEA information refers to Revised Policy M4 (Locations for sand and gravel) and New Policy DM15 (Past Operator Performance). 3.12 Specific strengths of the draft DM15 policy (see Table G1) includes:  The DM policies have been drafted in a format that includes criteria which are explicit in describing when waste and minerals development will and will not be supported. In addition, they provide a level of flexibility which allows for exceptions in the interest of the public or where the benefits out way the adverse effects.  The policy has the potential to encourage existing operators to ‘do the right thing’ which has resulted in a positive score for the SEA objective 5 as it seeks to ensure sites do not negatively impact the community. 3.13 Potential areas of improvement of the draft DM15 include:  The policy could be strengthened by explicitly requiring that the applicant provides arbitrary information ensuring a consistent approach; and  Stating under what basis applicants will be assessed and ultimately refused/ conditions applied based on poor performance.  In order for policy DM15 to achieve its objective the basis on which assessment and decisions are made must be defensible (consistent and robust). Decisions must be enforceable for example: via the use of planning conditions, and / or bonds 3.14 Specific strengths of the updated M4 (see Table G2) include:  M4 encourages a steady supply of minerals and works towards mineral self- sufficiency. The policy acknowledges that to allow for a steady supply provision needs to include specific sites and a spatial strategy (via an Area search) which is considered to have a positive effect on SEA objectives 8, 9 and 10. 3.15 Potential areas of improvement include:  Policy M4 would benefit from the inclusion of determining criteria (noise, dust, designated site, heritage etc.), providing a clear framework to be fully considered as part of any planning application and reaffirming the DM polices.  M4 would benefit from specific inclusion of a requirement for restoration and aftercare.  Although inferred via the use of an Area search the policy (stating proposals would be supported) the policy could be strengthened by explicitly stating where mineral extraction would not be supported as this would provide protection to sensitive areas.

Reg 18 Consultation: Sand & Gravel Provision 128and Operator Performance (Feb 2020) Page 70

Table G1: Detailed Assessment of Policy DM15 SA/SEA Objectives* Comments/ Effect and Potential Improvements How the SEA has been considered in the Plan

Development Management Policies

DM 15 (Past Operator Performance)

Qualityof life

1 Biodiversity 1 qualityWater 2 Landscape 3 and heritage Ground 4 conditions 5 Quality Air 6 Emissions 7 Climate / change Sustainable 8 Materials Economic 9 Growth Sustainable 10 waste and minerals Flood 11 risk DM15 Past operator performance 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 The new policy seeks to provide a material No amendments proposed. consideration that can be used where the 1. Where an applicant or operator has been determining factors on a proposal are balanced. responsible for an existing or previous minerals or waste development site, an assessment of This approach has not been included previously in their operational performance at that existing or the Local Plans and as such, no other options are

129 previous site will be made. available. 2. Where issues have been raised about the operation of an existing or previous This policy seeks to ensure that past performance is considered in the planning process. development site, how the operator or applicant has responded, particularly where there is The policy has the potential to encourage existing evidence of any significant adverse effects, will operators to ‘do the right thing’ which has resulted in a positive score for the SEA objective 5 as it be taken into consideration in decision-making seeks to ensure sites do not negatively impact the on minerals or waste applications submitted by community. the same applicant or operator. The policy could be strengthened by explicitly

requiring that the applicant provides arbitrary information ensuring a consistent approach. It would also be necessary for the applicant to be offered the opportunity to explain poor performance and offer evidence of continuous improvement and remedial mitigation that would be applied to the new application. A recommendation would be to create a standard form which would be compulsory for all applications that explicitly requires this information be provided in a standardised format. The policy lacks specific information regarding how the information provided will be assessed and on what basis an operator would be considered to have demonstrated poor performance / not provided sufficient remedial mitigation and therefore is refused. It is recommended that the policy should also include an additional point which states under what basis applicants may and will be refused/ conditions applied on the basis of poor

performance. In the absence of these changes to the policy it will be very difficult to refuse any application in a defensible manner on the basis of past poor performance and the policy could fall short of achieving its goal.

*Preferred Policy Approach* The approach seeks to balance the need for minerals and the protection of the community.

Table G2: Detailed Assessment of Policy M4 SA/SEA Objectives* Comments/ Effect and Potential Improvements How the SEA has been considered in the Plan

Minerals Policy

M4 (Location for sand and gravel extraction)

Area of Search Options

Climatechange

130

EconomicGrowth

1 Biodiversity 1 qualityWater 2 Landscape 3 and heritage Ground 4 conditions Quality 5 of life Quality Air 6 Emissions 7 / Sustainable 8 Materials 9 Sustainable 10 waste and minerals Flood 11 risk

Option 1 – No Area of Search 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 The policy scored positively with respect to objective Mitigation of impacts on the natural and historic 8 and 9 as it encourages a steady supply of minerals environment and amenity are addressed by the A steady and adequate supply of locally extracted sand but not necessarily through self-sufficiency. The Development Management policies (for and gravel will be provided by: policy acknowledges that to allow for a steady supply example, DM3 Habitats and Species) and provision needs to include specific sites and therefore, should not be duplicated as the Plan 1. The extraction of remaining reserves at the preferred areas. The policy provides details of is considered as a whole. following permitted sites: specific sites. These have not been considered a. XXXX [tbc] herein but have been assessed separately. The policy does not include determining criteria 2. Extensions to the following existing sites: which would mitigate impacts on the natural and a. XXXX [tbc] historic environment and amenity. Inclusion of such criteria would be very beneficial. 3. The following new sand and gravel Preferred Sites: Due to a lack of options for sand and gravel a. XXXX [tbc] extraction within the Plan, a sustainable supply of minerals (Objective 10) is difficult to demonstrate. 4. Proposals for new sites not outlined in Policy M4 (1, 2 and 3) will be supported, in appropriate locations. Where: a. They are needed to maintain the landbank; and/or b. Maximise opportunities of existing infrastructure and available minerals resources; or at least one of the following: i. The site contains soft sand; ii. The resources would otherwise 131 be sterilised; or iii. The proposal is for a specific local requirement.

Option 2 – With ‘NPPF Compliant’ Area of Search + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 The policy scored positively with respect to objective Mitigation of impacts on the natural and historic 8 and 9 as it encourages a steady supply of minerals environment and amenity are addressed by the A steady and adequate supply of locally extracted sand and works towards mineral self-sufficiency. The Development Management policies (for and gravel will be provided by: policy acknowledges that to allow for a steady supply example, DM3 Habitats and Species) and provision needs to include specific sites and therefore, should not be duplicated as the Plan 1. The extraction of remaining reserves at the preferred areas. The policy provides details of is considered as a whole. following permitted sites: specific sites. These have not been considered a. XXXX [tbc] herein but have been assessed separately.

2. Extensions to the following existing sites: The use of an Area of Search seeks to demonstrate a. XXXX [tbc] the potential for provision within the Plan area (self- sufficiency) which results in a positive score for SEA 3. The following new sand and gravel Preferred objective. Sites: a. XXXX [tbc] An ‘NPPF Compliant’ Area of Search means that 4. Proposals for new sites not outlined in Policy M4 nationally important designations have been (1, 2 and 3) will be supported, in appropriate excluded from the Area in which proposals are locations. Where: expected to come forwards. As such, this option a. They are situated within the Area of scores positively for Objective 1 and 3. Whilst Search (as shown on the Policies Map); landscape designations would also have been and excluded such as AONB, Objective 2 could have scored positively but there are no national landscape b. They are needed to maintain the designations. landbank; and/or c. Maximise opportunities of existing The policy does not include determining criteria infrastructure and available mineral which would mitigate impacts on the natural and resources; or historic environment and amenity. Inclusion of such d. At least one of the following: criteria would be very beneficial, but it is recognised i. The site contains soft sand; that these are addressed within the other policies within the Plan which would also need to be taken 132 ii. The resources would otherwise into account. be sterilised; or iii. The proposal is for a specific Further it does not consider that restoration of local requirement. sites may potentially give rise to a positive impact on a number of the other SEA objectives, but again this is addressed elsewhere in the policies.

*Preferred Approach* The approach appropriately balances the need to protect nationally important designations whilst seeking to provide a local and steady supply of minerals.

Option 3 – With ‘NPPF Compliant plus Local + + + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 The use of an Area of Search seeks to demonstrate Mitigation of impacts on the natural and historic designations’ Area of Search the potential for provision within the Plan area (self- environment and amenity are addressed by the sufficiency). However, by restricting the Area of Development Management policies (for A steady and adequate supply of locally extracted sand Search beyond the requirements of the NPPF means example, DM3 Habitats and Species) and and gravel will be provided by: that the Area is being limited unnecessarily. Some therefore, should not be duplicated as the Plan ‘local’ designations can be sufficiently mitigated is considered as a whole. 1. The extraction of remaining reserves at the and/or the need for the mineral can overweigh the following permitted sites: potential impact. This should be decided on a case- a. XXXX [tbc] by-case basis. The potential limiting of proposals has resulted in a neutral impact on a steady and 2. Extensions to the following existing sites: adequate provision within the Plan area (Objectives 9 a. XXXX [tbc] and 10).

3. The following new sand and gravel Preferred Sites: a. XXXX [tbc]

4. Proposals for new sites not outlined in Policy M4 (1, 2 and 3) will be supported, in appropriate locations. Where: a. They are situated within the Area of Search (as shown on the Policies Map); and b. They are needed to maintain the landbank; and/or c. Maximise opportunities of existing

133 infrastructure and available mineral resources; or d. At least one of the following: i. The site contains soft sand; ii. The resources would otherwise be sterilised; or iii. The proposal is for a specific local requirement.

Glossary & Acronyms

Amenity: Something considered necessary to live comfortably.

Ancient Woodland: A statutory designation for woodland that is believed to have existed from at least medieval times.

Appraisal: An assessment of a proposal for the purposes of determining its value, viability and deliverability taking into account the positive and negative impacts the development would have.

Appropriate location: A location which meets the criteria set out in Policy W4, M4 and/or M7 and complies with all other policies within the JMWP.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB): Areas of countryside considered to have significant landscape value and protected to preserve that value. Originally identified and designated by the Countryside Commission under Sections 87 and 88 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Natural England is now responsible for designating AONBs and advising Government and other organisations on their management and upkeep.

Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA): Specific geographical areas with the best opportunity to restore and create habitats of regional importance. They are defined entirely on the basis of identifying those areas where conservation action is likely to have the most benefit for biodiversity interest and opportunities for enhancement. The purpose of BOAs is to guide support for land management as they represent those areas where assistance for land management and habitat restoration would have particular benefit.

British Geological Survey (BGS): The BGS is part of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and is a supplier of capability in geoscience through survey, monitoring and research.

Cumulative impact: Impacts that accumulate over time, from one or more sources.

Development considerations: These are identified in Appendix A (Allocated Sites) of the Plan and are identified for each of the site allocations in the Plan. Development considerations are issues which need to be met /addressed alongside the other policies in the Plan in the event that a planning application is submitted for development.

Environment Agency (EA): A public organisation with the responsibility for protecting and improving the environment in England. Its functions include the regulation of industrial processes, the maintenance of flood defences and water resources, water quality and the improvement of wildlife habitats.

Environmental Permit: Anyone who proposes to deposit, recover or dispose of waste is required to have a permit. The permitting system is administrated by the Environment Agency and is separate from, but complementary to, the land-use planning system. The purpose of a permit and the conditions attached to it are to ensure that the waste operation which it authorises is carried out in a way that protects the environment and human health.

134 Flood risk: Areas which have a flood risk have the potential to flood under certain weather conditions. Flood risk zones are determined by the Environment Agency. Areas at risk of flooding are categorised as follows:

 Flood Risk Zone 1: Low Probability;  Flood Risk Zone 2: Medium Probability;  Flood Risk Zone 3a: High Probability; and  Flood Risk Zone 3b: Functional Floodplain.

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA): An assessment of the risk of flooding from all flooding mechanisms, the identification of flood mitigation measures and should provide advice on actions to be taken before and during a flood. The FRA should also demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

Flood Risk Zones (FRZ): Defined geographical areas with different levels of flood risk. Flood risk zones are defined by the Environment Agency.

Green Belt: An area designated in planning documents, providing an area of permanent separation between urban areas. The main aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important quality of Green Belts is their openness.

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (GPZ): Geographical areas, defined by the Environment Agency, used to protect sources of groundwater abstraction.

Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA): Statutory requirement for Planning Authorities to assess the potential effects of land-use plans on designated European Sites in Great Britain. The Habitats Regulations Assessment is intended to assess the potential effects of a development plan on one or more European Sites (collectively termed 'Natura 2000' sites). The Natura 2000 sites comprise Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). SPAs are classified under the European Council Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC; Birds Directive) for the protection of wild birds and their habitats (including particularly rare and vulnerable species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, and migratory species).

Hectare (Ha): Acronym.

Landbank: A measure of the stock of planning permissions in an area, showing the amount of un-exploited mineral, with planning permissions, and how long those supplies will last at the locally apportioned rate of supply.

Landscape character: A combination of factors such as topography, vegetation pattern, land use and cultural associations that combine to create a distinct, recognisable character.

Land-won aggregates / minerals: Mineral/aggregate excavated from the land.

Listed Buildings and Sites: Buildings and sites protected under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA): The National Planning Policy Framework requires all Mineral Planning Authorities to prepare an annual LAA. LAAs are to be based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of

135 all supply options. The LAA establishes the provision to be made for aggregate supply in Mineral Local Plans.

Local Wildlife Site (LWS): LWSs are wildlife-rich sites selected for their local nature conservation value. They vary in shape and size and can contain important, distinctive and threatened habitats and species.

Material considerations: A matter that should be taken into account in deciding a planning application or on an appeal against a planning decision. Material considerations can include (but are not limited to); overlooking/loss of privacy, loss of light or overshadowing, parking, highway safety, etc. Issues such as loss of view, or negative effect on the value of properties are not material considerations.

Million tonnes (mt): Acronym.

Million tonnes per annum (mtpa): Acronym.

Mineral: Limited and finite natural resources which can only be extracted where they are found geologically.

Mineral resources: Mineral aggregates and hydrocarbons, which naturally occur in geological deposits in the earth.

Mineral Planning Authority: The local planning authorities responsible for minerals planning. In the Plan area, The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Bracknell Forest Council, Reading Borough Council, and Wokingham Borough Council are minerals planning authorities.

Mitigation measures: Measures that reduce or minimise impacts.

Monitoring: Minerals and waste developments are monitored to ensure that they comply with the policies of the Plan and planning conditions attached to their permissions. The Plan will also be subject to monitoring.

Monitoring Indicator: This is the aspect of the development that will be monitored in order to detect any deviation from what is either expected of the development or acceptable.

Monitoring Trigger: The threshold that, once passed, signifies there is an issue with the relevant policy in its current form and may require review.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Published in March 2012 and subsequently updated in 2018 and 2019, the NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

Planning application: Operators proposing a new minerals or waste development need to apply for permission from the relevant planning authority in order to be allowed carry out their operations.

Planning permission: Once planning applications have been reviewed by the relevant planning authority, permission may be granted (i.e. consent for the proposed development is given). Permissions may have certain conditions or legal agreements attached which allow development as long as the operator adheres to these.

136 Policies Map: A map on an Ordnance Survey base showing spatial application of appropriate policies from the Development Plan.

Quarry: These are open voids in the ground from which minerals resources are extracted.

Ramsar Sites (Wetlands of International Importance): Sites of international importance for waterfowl protected under the Ramsar Convention of the Conservation of Wetlands of International Importance, ratified by the UK Government in 1976.

Restoration: The process of returning a site to its former use or restoring it to a condition that will support an agreed after-use, such as agriculture or forestry.

Rights of Way (RoW): Paths which the public have a legally protected right to use.

Routeing agreement: An agreement to require that vehicles be routed so as to avoid certain roads, possibly at all times or possibly at certain times of day e.g. to avoid conflict with peak hour traffic and/or arrivals and departures at school opening and closing times.

Safeguarding: The method of protecting needed facilities or mineral resources and of preventing inappropriate development from affecting it. Usually, where sites are threatened, the course of action would be to object to the proposal or negotiate an acceptable resolution.

Sand and gravel sales: Sales of sand and gravel from sites (for the purposes of monitoring these are sales from sites within the Plan area).

Scheduled Ancient Monument: Nationally important archaeological sites included in the Schedule of Ancient Monuments maintained by the Secretary of State under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

Sensitive Human Receptors: Locations where people live, sleep, work or visit that may be sensitive to the impact of minerals and waste activity on health, well-being and quality of life. Examples include houses, hospitals and schools.

Sharp sand and gravel: A coarse sand and gravel suitable for use in making concrete.

Site allocations: Specific sites identified for minerals and waste activities in the Plan where there are viable opportunities, have the support of landowners and are likely to be acceptable in planning terms.

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): A national designation for an area of special interest because of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features, selected by Natural England and notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Soft sand: Fine sand suitable for use in such products as mortar, asphalt and plaster.

Source Protection Zone (SPZ): Geographical areas defined by the Environment Agency and used to protect sources of groundwater abstraction.

Special Area of Conservation (SAC): Areas which have been given special protection under the European Union’s Habitats Directive. They provide increased protection to a variety of wild animals, plants and habitats and are a vital part of global efforts to conserve the world’s biodiversity.

Special Protection Area (SPA): An area of importance for the habitats of certain rare or vulnerable categories of birds or for regularly occurring migratory bird species, required to be

137 designated for protection by member states under the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds.

Statutory consultee: These are organisations and public bodies who are required to be consulted concerning specific issues relating to planning applications and help inform any decision made by the planning authority.

Sterilisation: When a change of use, or the development, of land prevents possible mineral exploitation in the foreseeable future.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): A system of incorporating environmental considerations into policies, plans, programmes and part of European Union Policy. It is intended to highlight environmental issues during decision-making about strategic documents such as plans, programmes and strategies. The SEA identifies the significant environmental effects that are likely to result from implementing the plan or alternative approaches to the plan.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA): An assessment of the potential flood risk such as from groundwater and fluvial floods.

Strategic Road Network: The SRN is made up of motorways and trunk roads, the most significant ‘A’ roads. The SRN is managed by Highways England. All other roads in England are managed by local and regional authorities.

Sustainability Appraisal (SA): In United Kingdom planning law, an appraisal of the economic, environmental, and social effects of a plan from the outset of the preparation process, to allow decisions that are compatible with sustainable development.

Tonnes per annum (tpa): Acronym.

Townscape: The appearance of a town or city; an urban scene.

Urban areas: An area characterised by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations.

Visual impact: The perceived negative effect that the appearance of minerals and waste developments can have on nearby communities.

138

A summary of this document can be made available in large print, in Braille or audio cassette. Copies in other languages may also be obtained. Please contact Hampshire Services by email [email protected] or by calling 01962 846732.

139 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

TO: EXECUTIVE 28 JANUARY 2020 ______

GREENING WASTE COLLECTION ARRANGEMENTS - INTRODUCING FOOD WASTE COLLECTION: ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE IN BRACKNELL FOREST

Executive Director: Delivery

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To outline how Bracknell Forest Council (BFC) could make changes to its waste collection arrangements to address climate change – reduce, reuse and recycle.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 To reduce Bracknell Forest Borough’s impact on Climate Change, to introduce, from 5 October 2020, a weekly food waste collection service

2.2 To launch a programme of communication to maximise the participation of residents and business to reuse and recycle their waste, minimising residual waste going to landfill

2.3 To maximise performance of the food waste collection service, the refuse capacity is reduced by changing collection frequency to once every three weeks (from two weeks).

3 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

3.1 DEFRA published their Resources and Waste Strategy in December 2018 and this was followed up with consultation on potential changes between February and May 2019. On 23 July DEFRA published an executive summary and government response to the consultations, food waste collection was addressed in this and DEFRA have said ‘We will be mandating weekly separate food waste collection’, their intention is to do this by 2023.

3.2 Food collection should enable Bracknell Forest to achieve the Government target of 50% recycling by 2020 and move towards the much higher recycling rate of 65% by 2030 that DEFRA have set as their ambition in the Resources and Waste Strategy.

3.3 Reducing the refuse collection frequency will improve the performance of a food waste service as well as increasing the use of the current recycling services compared to if the refuse service remained the same as currently.

3.4 Reducing the refuse collection frequency will pay for the food collection service and generate a saving of £219k over the life of the contract.

3.5 Recycling food waste would have a positive climate change impact that includes a potential reduction of almost 4,000 tonnes of landfill waste.

4 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

4.1 Keep the waste collection service the same as now; without the addition of food

1 141 collections. BFC would fail to meet DEFRAs requirement for having a weekly food waste collection service by 2023 and also fail to meet the national 50% recycling target. Failure to meet the 50% target could lead to fines from DEFRA.

4.2 Add a weekly food collection to the existing service and make no other changes; this would cost in the region of £2.29million more than the current service over the remaining 7 years of the collection contract term.

4.3 Add a weekly food collection to the existing service and downsize refuse bins from 240 to 180 litres; this would come at a high capital cost of £1.4m and ongoing revenue cost and have a negative climate change impact due to the need for a bin changeover.

5 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Background

5.1 In October 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a Special Report. The IPCC concluded that the Climate Change problem was getting worse. The IPCC concluded that the world needed to limit global temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels, in order to have any chance of reducing the risks of dangerous and irreversible climate change in the future.

5.2 In Motion 02/2019, on 17 July 2019, a climate change motion was agreed at Council. This stated that

“This Council strongly believes in the need to continue its work to address the impact of man-made Climate Change on our local communities. To this end, this Council asks the Executive to develop detailed action plans with measurable ambitious annual targets and an annual report to address this pressing matter to ensure that the Council meets the government target of eradicating its net contribution to climate change by 2050”

5.3 Therefore, in order to address this climate change objective, the Council needs to make changes to its services, in support of this Climate Change objective.

5.4 Addressing man-made climate change isn’t a new policy area for the council, or the council’s thinking and planning around waste management. However, this new mandate must now be clearly linked to the new objective, detailed in the council motion.

5.5 “Greening” the council’s waste management arrangements has been at the heart of the council’s strategy and was factored into the waste collection contract extension with SUEZ. Last year, the SUEZ collection contract was extended for 8 years, to 31 March 2027. The contract cost is £1.93 million per annum, excluding fuel. The contract allows us the flexibility to make changes to the service including the addition of new materials such as food waste and changes to the frequency of collections.

5.6 Twelve new, more fuel efficient, waste collection vehicles were purchased in July 2019 that are single bodied. This enables all the trucks to be used across all three of the current services (refuse, dry recycling and garden waste) which allows easier round adjustments as the number of households in the borough increases and better use of the fleet. Before purchasing the new fleet, consideration was given to the future addition of food waste and whether Bracknell Forest should consider

2 142 purchasing collection vehicles with a food pod mounted behind the crew cab. The pod vehicle was tested and due to large areas of the borough being too tight for manoeuvring it was decided a pod vehicle was not suitable.

5.7 Due to the significant increase in the number of properties in the borough in recent years the waste collection fleet was increased to thirteen waste collection trucks (previously twelve) from April 2019. Currently the fleet is made up of the twelve new vehicles detailed in 5.2, and the thirteenth truck is one of the 2011 fleet that was retained while a decision is made on the future service.

5.8 If the change to a three weekly refuse collection is made there is no need to buy a new thirteenth truck at this stage because a fleet of twelve will be sufficient. If refuse collection is to remain fortnightly, then a thirteenth truck is required, and the 2011 vehicle will need to be replaced. The purchase of the thirteenth vehicle (if required) has previously been approved by the Executive in September 2018 as part of the contract extension.

5.9 Bracknell Forest’s recycling and composting rate for 2018/19 was 39.4%, this was a 0.3% improvement on the previous year, however the recycling and composting performance has plateaued over the last four years as shown in the graph below:

For comparison the top performing local authorities are recycling more than 60% of their waste, the difference in the levels of performance is shown in the graph below;

3 143

All of the top ten authorities collect food waste and eight of them have refuse capacity of less than our 120 litres per week.

Refuse Composition and capacity

5.10 A refuse analysis for Bracknell Forest Council was carried out in February 2019 and the headline findings were;

 41% of the refuse from houses and 35% from flats is food waste  19% of refuse collected from houses and 25% from flats is recyclable  In houses 3% of refuse is garden waste and in flats as expected much lower at less than 1%.

5.11 Based on the refuse analysis findings residents are managing with the current capacity of their refuse bins and have enough spare capacity to put some recyclables and garden waste in. If a food waste collection is added to the existing service with no change in the refuse capacity that could lead to further increases in recyclable material in the refuse bins.

4 144 The diagram below shows the contents of the average 240 litre refuse bin in Bracknell Forest. The red section shows how much could be left in the refuse bin if a food waste collection was introduced and use of the other recycling facilities were maximised;

Average Contents of Bracknell Forest’s Household Refuse Bins by Weight

From looking at the diagram it is evident that there would be enough spare capacity with the food waste removed for refuse capacity to be reduced.

6. Options for Potential Challenges to service delivery

As with all waste collection services there are potential challenges to overcome. The following paragraphs are based on experience already gained with the current contract and from other Councils that have introduced a three or four weekly refuse collection.

Large families

6.2 Large families (6 or more) or those with a medical need for more capacity (incontinence pads) qualify for a second refuse bin under the current waste collection policy. The second refuse bin they are issued with is a 140 litre, this policy would remain to enable them to manage if refuse bin size or collection frequency was reduced. There is the potential that the number of households taking up the second bin option will increase, there are currently 507 households that have been authorised second refuse bins. Households that do not meet the criteria are given the option to pay for a second bin, currently there are 179 households taking up that option. In the experience of SUEZ on other contracts take up of second bins doesn’t increase hugely in these circumstances.

Nappies and medical waste

6.3 Nappies and incontinence pads will be problematic waste streams if refuse collection

5 145 frequency is reduced to three weekly. To reduce the impact of this a weekly absorbent hygiene product collection service would be introduced alongside a three weekly refuse collection, this would be for those residents that have a significant need. From looking at current records there are 125 households with second bins due to incontinence or other medical waste related reasons. These are the most likely households to apply for the extra weekly collection service, however as with the previous point the experience SUEZ have had in other areas is that take up of the extra service is extremely low and other authorities state that with three weekly refuse service families with children in nappies manage well with the decreased collection frequency without the need to use the extra weekly service.

Flats – a phased introduction

6.4 Flats are more problematic than houses when it comes to waste storage and collection. There is no ownership of the bins or the storage area and as a result there is often excess waste, fly tipping of bulky items and large amounts of contamination (wrong items) in communal recycling bins. Implementation of a food waste collection just for houses to begin with would be advisable.

6.5 Flats could then be phased in. The first flats to have food waste collected for recycling would be from April 2021. The rest of the flats could be phased in over a two year period. From looking at challenges with food bins in communal bin areas faced by other local authorities it is highly likely there will be some blocks of flats that food waste collections are not suitable for. All food waste bins in flats would be introduced on a trial basis. During a three month trial the service would be monitored, not only for its use but also for how the management agent/housing association maintain cleanliness and quality.

6.6 Management agents or housing associations would need to be fully supportive of trials in flats, they would need to take responsibility for dealing with contamination and regular cleansing of communal food waste bins. Roll out of the service to flats is something that will be supported by a review with the Overview and Scrutiny panel.

Collection frequency

6.7 Residents are likely to be concerned about issues such as; odour, vermin, maggots and increased fly tipping. Once food is removed weekly from refuse then these concerns significantly reduce. There is no evidence from other local authorities that reduced collection frequency does increase fly tipping.

There are nineteen local authorities collecting refuse less than fortnightly (some once every four weeks) across England, Scotland and Wales. Those that have made the change have seen improved recycling rates as a result. There are some additional authorities currently planning to reduce refuse collection frequencies to three weekly, including Somerset County and Exeter City, also North Devon and West Devon currently have trials taking place.

7. Service Risks

Any additional collection or change in frequency carries risks. This section of the paper highlights some of them and possible mitigation.

DEFRA

7.1 DEFRA are considering whether a minimum service standard of two weekly

6 146 collection for refuse (alongside a weekly food waste collection) is appropriate. This is subject to an assessment of affordability and value for money. DEFRA plan to consult during 2020 on including a minimum refuse collection frequency of fortnightly in the proposed statutory guidance on minimum service standards for rubbish and recycling. If a minimum service standard was introduced a roll back to current refuse collection frequency could be introduced.

Longshot Lane waste transfer station

7.2 The waste transfer station at Longshot Lane is currently used by both Bracknell Forest and Wokingham vehicles. The addition of food to the waste service is going to mean increasing numbers of vehicles using the site. The Longshot Lane site is limited in terms of space, alternative access options may need to be considered to improve traffic flow. This increase in commercial traffic does not impact on the residential disposal area.

Costs and implementation

7.3 For a weekly food waste collection all houses would be provided with an internal 5 litre caddy to keep in their kitchen and an external 23 litre caddy that they would present for collection. These caddy sizes are the most common sizes used by English local authorities that have a food waste collection service.

7.4 For the initial service roll out all properties would be given a roll of 50 caddy liners, the average usage in other areas is two liners per week. Once the bags run out residents can use any other plastic bag or some newspaper to line their caddy.

7.5 The ongoing supply of liners would be costly, approximately £35k per annum. Studies of other local authorities with food waste collection services have shown mixed results in participation with and without liners, some authorities report no impact on participation by not supplying liners while others say that supplying liners helps maintain participation levels. This is something that can be reviewed as part of service roll out.

7.6 Dedicated twelve tonne food waste vehicles would need to be purchased, these take seven months to be delivered from the point of order, Bracknell Forest would need five vehicles to run a borough wide household food waste collection. Assuming BFC would fund these vehicles with SUEZ purchasing them appropriate capital funding would be required in 2020/21.

7.7 The estimated costs are shown in the confidential annex 1. The cost for introducing food waste and changing refuse collection frequencies allows extra revenue in year one for communications and extra staff to assist with service changes.

7.8 The cost for introducing a food waste collection and reducing the refuse collection frequency to three weekly is based on estimates of how much waste may be collected. The estimated food waste to be collected is 1.5kg per household per week and comes from the experience of our contractor SUEZ and the performance of food waste collection services at other local authorities with similar demographics and the reduced refuse capacity that has been proposed. The estimate is also in line with the lowest estimated performance, there are authorities that collect close to 2.5kg per household per week of food waste so there is the potential to see greater savings in landfill disposal than those shown. In reality the average refuse bin in Bracknell Forest contains more than 3kg of food waste per week.

7 147 7.9 When changing the service and reducing refuse frequency an improvement in performance of any existing recycling is seen in other areas so a 15% increase in recycling being put in the blue bins is also predicted, equating to 0.29kg per household per week. The baseline used for kerbside refuse weight is 8.5kg per household per week and is the actual figure from 2018/19. This weight of refuse per household has been relatively stable for the last 5 years as has the composition of the refuse.

7.10 Waste trends are affected by external factors that may influence future waste composition and affect the estimates, for example changes in packaging that are made by the manufacturing sector change the composition of waste so have the potential to increase or decrease the waste that can be recycled in the blue bin. Changes to the economic situation also affect waste, during 2008/09 there was a decrease in overall waste as a result of the recession, if this was to happen in the future there may a reduction in the amount of food being thrown away.

7.11 The new service start date of 5 October 2020 is proposed. This allows enough time for ordering the food waste collection vehicles, which take seven months to arrive from the point of order. It also allows time for ordering the food waste caddies, a lead time of 6 months is advisable to guarantee stock and to allow for distribution. This time scale also allows the final service launch communications to be done in September 2020 and outside of the peak holiday season.

7.12 A two-part communications plan has been drawn up (annex 2) to support the implementation of the changes to the waste collection service. The first part will deliver the message that a food waste collection service will soon be in place for Bracknell Forest residents and the second part will provide information on the changes to the refuse collection service. The strapline will be ‘As Easy as 1, 2, 3’ to reflect the following information that demonstrates a better service offer for Bracknell Forest residents.

Table 1: Waste Collection Frequencies Under the Proposed Changes

Collection Frequency Food Weekly Recycling/garden waste Two-weekly Refuse Three-weekly

Proposed communications material:

8. Re3 and food waste processing

8.1 There is public pressure for Bracknell Forest to introduce a food waste service and

8 148 this pressure has increased since Wokingham’s service was announced. Reading Borough Council have also now put their intention to introduce a food waste service from October 2020 into the public domain.

8.2 The re3 waste disposal partnership has negotiated a gate fee for food waste with Severn Trent Green Power. The deal commenced on 1 April 2019.

9. Strategic Climate Change Implications

9.1 Recycling food waste has several positive environmental impacts that contribute to the climate change agenda –

 It could prevent almost 4,000 tonnes of Bracknell Forest’s waste going to landfill;

 It reduces the percentage of Bracknell Forest’s waste being sent to landfill to less than 10% thus avoiding 1,950,000 kg of carbon emissions;

 The processing of food waste produces a nutrient-rich liquid fertiliser which reduces the need for farmers to use fossil fuel-driven chemical fertilisers on their crops;

 The methane produced by the breakdown of food generates electricity – the plant to be used generates enough to power 4,800 homes;

 The Council will have one less 26 tonne collection vehicle on the road;

 The entire waste collection fleet will meet the Euro 6 emission standards

10 ADVICE RECEIVED FROM STATUTORY AND OTHER OFFICERS

Borough Solicitor

10.1 The recommendation in this report reflects the Authority’s statutory duty under Section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to arrange for the collection of household waste in its area. However, this is subject to frequency of refuse bin collections meeting DEFRA requirements. In this regard the reference in paragraph 5.11 to DEFRA mandating minimum fortnightly refuse collections in the future is noted.

Borough Treasurer

10.2 The estimated costs of the different options identified for the future Waste collection and disposal service are set out in detail in the annex, together with the assumptions that they are based on. While the cost of collection is felt to be accurate and has been estimated by working with the contractor, costs of disposal will depend on the mix of different waste and recycling tonnages, which are impossible to accurately predict. The estimates are shown until 2026/27, which is the end of the current Waste Collection contract. Some costs will continue beyond this period, since the capital financing costs of wheeled bins and caddies will be written off over a longer period to reflect their estimated useful lives.

Equalities Impact Assessment

10.3 See annex 3 attached.

9 149 Strategic Risk Management Issues

10.4 The introduction of a weekly food waste service and the move to a three weekly refuse collection is a significant change to the service offering to residents. With such a change, communication and project management are key in order to deliver a successful service. A project team will need to be set up to manage the implementation and a Member working group will monitor the work of this group.

11 CONSULTATION

Principal Groups Consulted

11.1 Conservative Group

Method of Consultation

11.2 Meeting

Representations Received

11.3 Included within the report

Background Papers Not applicable

Contacts for further information Damian James Assistant Director: Contract Services 01344 351325 [email protected]

Claire Pike Head of Environmental Services 01344 352520 [email protected]

10 150 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

151 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

155 This page is intentionally left blank Initial Equalities Screening Record Form

Date of Screening: 12/12/19 Directorate: Delivery Section: Contract Services

1. Activity to be assessed Change to the waste collection service; introduction of a weekly food waste collection service, a change in frequency of the refuse collection from fortnightly to three weekly, the and provision of a weekly absorbent hygiene product (AHP) collection (nappies and incontinence pads) for those who require it.

2. What is the activity? Policy/strategy Function/procedure Project Review Service Organisational change

3. Is it a new or existing activity? New Existing

4. Officer responsible for the screening Claire Pike, Head of Environmental Services

5. Who are the members of the screening team? Claire Pike, Head of Environmental Services

6. What is the purpose of the activity? To reduce Bracknell Forest’s contribution to climate change; enable Bracknell Forest to achieve the government target of a 50% recycling rate by 2020; to meet the likely future requirement of DEFRA for councils to provide a weekly separate food

171 collection and to deliver a financial saving.

7. Who is the activity designed to benefit/target? Changes to the council’s waste collection service will be introduced to all households (not flats and Houses of Multiple Occupation which will be in a second phase) within the borough and should enable the council to meet statutory targets.

Protected Characteristics Please Is there an impact? What evidence do you have to support this? tick What kind of equality impact may there be? Is the E.g equality monitoring data, consultation results, yes or impact positive or adverse or is there a potential for customer satisfaction information etc no both? Please add a narrative to justify your claims around If the impact is neutral please give a reason. impacts and describe the analysis and interpretation of evidence to support your conclusion as this will inform members decision making, include consultation results/satisfaction information/equality monitoring data

8. Disability Equality – this can include physical, Y Residents may be unable to take their bins to the Approximately 1800 residents are already signed up to mental health, learning or sensory disabilities and kerbside for collection due to a disability. have an assisted collection of refuse, recycling and includes conditions such as dementia as well as garden waste bins hearing or sight impairment. Residents with medical related waste may require Approximately 140 residents have extra capacity for additional waste capacity. medical related waste

Residents may be confused over which waste goes in Occasional requests received for home visits to explain which bin. the service, this includes provision of pictorial guides and large print guides

9. Racial equality Y Some residents who do not speak English as their first Demographic data shows that some Bracknell Forest language may not be able to understand instructions residents do not speak English as a first language. for waste collection.

10. Gender equality N

11. Sexual orientation equality N

12. Gender re-assignment N

13. Age equality Y Elderly residents may not be able to carry their outdoor Some elderly residents are signed up to have an caddy to the kerbside. assisted waste collection.

14. Religion and belief equality N

15. Pregnancy and maternity equality N 172

16. Marriage and civil partnership equality N

17. Please give details of any other potential impacts on any N/A other group (e.g. those on lower incomes/carers/ex- offenders, armed forces communities) and on promoting good community relations.

18. If an adverse/negative impact has been identified N/A can it be justified on grounds of promoting equality of opportunity for one group or for any other reason?

19. If there is any difference in the impact of the The impacts will be minor due to the actions listed below that will be in place to mitigate against them activity when considered for each of the equality groups listed in 8 – 14 above; how significant is the difference in terms of its nature and the number of people likely to be affected? 20. Could the impact constitute unlawful N Assistance and support will be offered to all those who require it discrimination in relation to any of the Equality Duties?

21. What further information or data is required to No further information required better understand the impact? Where and how can that information be obtained?

22. On the basis of sections 7 – 17 above is a full N All of the potential impacts can be mitigated against by the actions listed below in 23 impact assessment required?

23. If a full impact assessment is not required; what actions will you take to reduce or remove any potential differential/adverse impact, to further promote equality of opportunity through this activity or to obtain further information or data? Please complete the action plan in full, adding more rows as needed.

Action Timescale Person Milestone/Success Criteria Responsible

Residents will be able to have their food caddy collected from within As soon as service is in Donna Cox / Residents already on the assisted collection register for refuse, place 173 their property boundary alongside their other bins as part of the Claire Pike recycling and garden waste will automatically be on the register for assisted collection service food waste

Residents will be advised that if they have a concern over capacity in Will be communicated as Donna Cox / Residents will contact the council for additional support their bin for nappies and/or incontinence pads, then they can contact part of the comms / Claire Pike /

the council who will support them through face to face visits on an marketing material Alana Razzell individual basis

Residents who require support to understand which waste goes into As soon as Donna Cox / Residents will contact the council for additional support each bin will be offered face to face visits for support, as part of this communications begin Claire Pike /

visits pictorial information can be provided and also large print Alana Razzell versions of information

Simple language and pictorial information will be used in the As soon as Donna Cox / There will be no complaints from residents, and we will observe a marketing material and residents can request literature in different communications begin Claire Pike / similar food waste recycling performance across all groups languages Alana Razzell

24. Which service, business or work plan will these actions be Already included in the work plan of Environmental Services included in?

25. Please list the current actions undertaken to advance equality All activities already identified above or examples of good practice identified as part of the screening? 26. Chief Officers signature. Signature: D.W James Date:20th December 2019

174