Hearing Statement Windsor Link Railway
On behalf of: Windsor Link Railway Ltd. August 2020
hghconsulting.com
Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 3 2.0 Previous Representations ...... 4 3.0 Response to Matters, Issues and Questions ...... 5 4.0 Suggested Amendments ...... 10 5.0 Conclusion ...... 11
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 2 of 12
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This Hearing Statement has been prepared by hgh Consulting on behalf of Windsor Link Railway Ltd. (WLR).
1.2 WLR are the promoters of the Windsor Link Railway scheme: a strategically important railway and property development scheme in Windsor that will create a through line by connecting the two existing branch lines from Staines and Slough via a tunnel and new single station; thus releasing land for enhanced property development opportunities along the riverside area.
1.3 The project has been progressing well with Network Rail (a principal landowner) having already granted WLR exclusivity in relation to the scheme for a period of 20 years; and has recommended progressing with the preparation of a detailed programme of works and feasibility study for the project.
1.4 Given the scheme’s strategic importance to Windsor, both in terms of transport infrastructure and the delivery of new housing and other development, it is considered that appropriate recognition of WLR be included within the emerging Local Plan.
1.5 This Hearing Statement sets out our previous objections to the Local Plan for context; and addresses a number of the Inspector’s further Matters, Issues and Questions for Stage 2 of the Examination.
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 3 of 12
2.0 Previous Representations
Draft Local Plan (December 2016)
2.1 WLR objected to the Draft Local Plan on grounds that it did not include an appropriate reference to the WLR scheme.
2.2 It was recommended that paragraph 15.2.4 from the earlier Preferred Options Consultation (January 2014) document be reinstated:
“The Borough Council will consider proposals for rail access to Heathrow on their merits. In addition, there are early local proposals for a Windsor Link Railway (WLR a line joining the two Windsor stations, connecting Slough to Waterloo via Windsor) and an alternative proposal for a Slough to Windsor tram link. Whilst Network Rail and South West Trains have concluded that the WLR is both likely to have both significant passenger demand and be viable, these proposals are at a very early feasibility stage.”
2.3 This wording had been consulted upon at the Preferred Options stage and did not encountered any significant objection. Thus, it is unclear why it was subsequently removed given the demonstrable progress that has been made by WLR and Network Rail as a principal landowner, which continue as at the date of this letter
Submission Version (June 2017)
2.4 This reiterated previous objections highlighting that until appropriate reference to the Windsor Link Railway scheme was inserted, the Local Plan fails to meet the tests of “soundness” in the NPPF.
Submission Version: Proposed Changes (October 2019)
2.5 This identified that the Local Plan was failing to meet objectively assessed housing needs as calculated under the Government’s standard methodology and that more effective use of brownfield sites needed to be made before considering Green Belt release in line with national planning policy.
2.6 In particular, the proposed allocation at Windsor and Eton Riverside Station Car Park (AL30) – which is to form an initial phase of the wider Windsor rail scheme – was supported by WLR, but it was recommended that the proposed number of dwellings that the site can support be increased from 30 to 60 dwellings in order to provide a more appropriate density for a sustainable urban site.
2.7 This representation was supported by separate representations by Network Rail confirming that WLR has an Exclusivity Agreement with Network Rail that allows WLR to promote a development at this station as part of, but not reliant or conditional upon, the wider Windsor Link Railway scheme.
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 4 of 12
3.0 Response to Matters, Issues and Questions
Matter 1: Legal Compliance and Procedural Issues
Issue 2: In procedural terms, do the proposed changes to the submitted plan (published for consultation on 1 November 2019) give rise to specific problems of legal non-compliance?
3.1 Network Rail are correctly listed as a “prescribed body” for the purposes of the Duty to Cooperate. RBWM’s Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement (January 2018) outlines the discussions that have taken place with Network Rail over the Local Plan production process. However, all discussions appear to relate to Maidenhead Station only. RBWM have held no discussions with Network Rail, and WLR as its representative, regarding the Windsor Link Railway scheme despite recognition of the scheme in earlier versions of the plan.
Issue 4: Has the Plan been informed by an adequate process of Sustainability Appraisal (SA)? Have the requirements of the SEA Directive and Regulations been met?
3.2 No. The Sustainability Appraisal does not consider at any time the Windsor Link Railway scheme as a “reasonable alternative” (particularly to Green Belt release), despite it being a favoured option throughout the early consultation phases.
3.3 As described above, reference to the Windsor Link Railway scheme was made within the Preferred Options Local Plan (January 2014). A subsequent consultation was also run between 29th June and 30th September 2015 asking for residents’ opinions on several specific planning policy questions, including proposals for the Windsor Link Railway scheme. Overall, 293 respondents (64%) supported the proposals, 54 (12%) were neutral and only 111 (24%) objected. This compares to approximately 90% of respondents who supported the protection of the Green Belt as evidenced in RBKT’s Consultation Statement to the Preferred Options Local Plan. The council’s statutory consultation is supported by third party surveys of opinion, including the Central Windsor Neighbourhood Plan (now Windsor 2030/Windsor Plan), a survey by the local newspaper which found 78% support and more recent research by Copper Consultancy which found 75% support (details of which can be found at https://windsorlink.co.uk/tag/consultations/).
3.4 Despite the overall levels of support for the Windsor Link Railway scheme, the Sustainability Appraisal does not include WLR as a “reasonable alternative” as required by the SEA Directive and Regulations. The current proposals for Green Belt release around Windsor cannot therefore be considered the most appropriate or sustainable option for the Local Plan.
Matter 2: Spatial Portrait, Vision, Objectives and Spatial Strategy – Issue 3
Issue 3: Would the proposed changes to the Plan alter the focus of development proposed in Windsor from town centre sites to Green Belt sites? Is this justified?
3.5 The NPPF is clear that any amendments to Green Belt boundaries can only be undertaken in “exceptional circumstances”. There is little to no evidence or explanation of the exceptional circumstances for the proposed Green Belt amendments in the Submission Local Plan.
3.6 Rather, RBWM should be able to demonstrate that it has fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, including making as much use as possible
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 5 of 12
of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land and by optimising densities (particularly in town centres and areas well served by public transport) – as is good planning practice and principle.
3.7 The proposed changes to the Submission Local Plan no longer see Windsor Town Centre as a “growth area”, instead identifying this on the western edge of the town within what is currently Green Belt. This approach is notably at odds with national planning policy and is particularly important post COVID-19 to ensure that town centres are fit for purpose and, in the case of Windsor, remain attractive to tourism. The proposed approach towards Green Belt release will not result in a sustainable pattern of development when compared to the Windsor Link Railway scheme.
3.8 Whilst it is of course important to protect heritage assets in Windsor, the Submission Local Plan fails on two important fronts:
1) In its inability to make the most use of brownfield land within the Town Centre in what should be a key location for growth; and
2) Its inability to recognise that a careful masterplan-led approach to Windsor (as is proposed for Maidenhead and Ascot) would lead to significant improvements to the Town Centre, transport infrastructure, housing and employment provision, and enhancements to heritage assets.
3.9 As described above, respondents to earlier rounds of consultation notably preferred proposals for the Windsor Link Railway scheme over Green Belt release; but yet, RBWM has pursued Green Belt release at the expense of Windsor Town Centre. This approach is not justified.
Issue 5: Is the spatial strategy justified in respect of the effects of proposed development upon transport and infrastructure networks?
3.10 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (October 2019) makes no reference to the Windsor Link Railway scheme, despite its continuing advancement.
3.11 The previous version of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (January 2018) made the point that local economic growth is fundamentally shaped by connectivity, including links to Heathrow Airport and London via the Windsor Lines. However, it goes on to state that transport and communications infrastructure is already very congested, which is threatening to undermine growth potential, concluding that it is therefore essential to invest in it and encourage local sustainable transport networks that promote active travel on foot, bicycle and public transport.
3.12 This broader recognition appears to be missing from the latest IDP (October 2019); as does any specific reference to the Windsor Link Railway scheme within the Submission Local Plan which is not justified given its significance as an emerging infrastructure and development project.
Matter 5: Town Centres, Retail and Tourism
Issue 1.5: Policy TR2 Windsor Town Centre. Is the town centre boundary justified? Should it include the Windsor Central Station car park?
3.13 There is no public car park at Windsor Station, which is an issue that affects its viability. The closest are the King Edward (now Windsor Yards) shopping centre and the Alma Road car parks – both of
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 6 of 12
which (and all other town centre car parks such as Alexandra Gardens, Riverside Station, Home Park, KE7, River Street etc) should be included in the town centre boundary as they form an integral part of the town centre experience, for both local and national visitors.
Matter 6: Quality of Place
Issue 1: Is Policy QP1 Sustainability and Placemaking (Policy SP2 in submitted Plan) justified and effective, particularly in respect of the proposed change requiring stakeholder masterplans to be prepared for larger proposals?
3.14 The requirement for a stakeholder masterplan to support larger proposals is justified in that it is vitally important in planning terms to create high quality places and not just buildings. A masterplan- led approach is the best way of achieving this.
3.15 What is concerning to WLR is the lack of a strategic placemaking policy for Windsor. Equivalent policies have been added for Maidenhead and Ascot but not for Windsor which, as a Town Centre, has equal standing to Maidenhead and is above Ascot in the settlement hierarchy.
3.16 The proposed approach is neither effective nor justified.
Matter 10: Infrastructure
Issue 1: Are the Plan’s detailed policies for transport and infrastructure justified, effective and consistent with national policy?
3.17 As set out above, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (October 2019) needs to make reference to the emerging Windsor Link Railway scheme; and an appropriate reference to the scheme should also be made within Policy IF1 (“Infrastructure and Developer Contributions”) as was previously the case in the Preferred Options Local Plan.
3.18 WLR support the continued reference in paragraph 14.4.10 that:
“The Borough will work in partnership with service providers, developers, public transport operators and neighbouring local transport authorities to support the delivery of sustainable transport improvements in the Borough and to improve access for residents, businesses and visitors to key services and facilities.”
3.19 However, this needs to be more directly linked to proposals for the Windsor Link Railway scheme and a strategic placemaking policy for the Town Centre as discussed below.
3.20 The Windsor Link Railway scheme has passed through a formal feasibility study equivalent to Network Rail’s Governance for Railway Investment Projects (or GRIP 2) process. This concluded with a positive recommendation from Network Rail. That is, that the scheme is feasible and RBWM has received the GRIP 2 reports as well as the very detailed submissions by Skanska and Meridiam. However, RBWM has not responded to them or engaged with WLR as a strategic transport provider.
Matter 11: Placemaking and Site Allocations
Issue 4: Are the Plan’s proposed policies concerning placemaking areas necessary for soundness and, if so, are they justified, effective and consistent with national policy? Are the specific site
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 7 of 12
allocations they include justified and deliverable? How have the strategic place-making areas been chosen? Why, for example, is no equivalent policy proposed for Windsor? Is this omission justified?
3.21 As described above, there is no justification for omitting Windsor as a strategic place-making area with an associated placemaking policy. This simply illustrates RBWM’s focus on Maidenhead at the expense of Windsor.
3.22 The entire Riverside Area of Windsor is in dire need of improvement. As noted by the Department for Transport, this is cut off by the railway to the Central Station from both the Town Centre and the residential area of central Windsor, making walking difficult, particularly for the less able, as well as inhibiting cycling and the use of sustainable transport such as buses to connect to the outer areas of Windsor.
3.23 The newly formed Windsor Town Council steering group, which on Tuesday this week received unanimous support from the borough council for the requested governance review, is strongly of the view, WLR understands, that there is a need for a placemaking policy and a wider masterplan for the whole Riverside Area, and not the piecemeal approach to development that the Local Plan currently promotes.
3.24 The Windsor Link Railway scheme will address all of these issues in a comprehensive manner, bringing high-quality development and infrastructure to Windsor in a coordinated and positive way. The Local Plan should make reference to this via a placemaking policy in the same way that it does for Maidenhead and Ascot.
Allocations in Windsor (AL30: Windsor & Eton Riverside Station Car Park)
3.25 The proposed allocation is supported in principle. However, and as stipulated in previous representations, the density / total number of units should be increased from 30 dwellings to at least 60 dwellings in order to make the most effective use of the land. 30 units would create a density of only 35 dwellings per hectare which, for an urban site on the edge of the Town Centre that is not within a Conservation Area, is a significant underutilisation of the land. By way of an example, the Shanley Homes development nearby at Riverside Walk (LPA ref. 15/00355/FULL) achieved a density of 147 dwellings per hectare (28 units on a 0.19 hectare site), and that is within the Conservation Area. 60 dwellings at AL30 would therefore be reasonable and would create a density of 71 dwellings per hectare (or 98 dwellings per hectare if only using Flood Zone 1 land).
3.26 This modest increase in density is particularly important in light of RBWM’s current approach towards Green Belt release. A more optimum use of brownfield land within sustainable urban areas can readily be achieved (and not just on AL30) without detriment to the historic character of Windsor. Whilst AL30 would be an initial phase of the WLR scheme, when coupled with a comprehensive place-making policy and recognition of the wider WLR scheme within the Local Plan, a more sustainable pattern of development can be achieved than would otherwise be the case through Green Belt release.
16. Will development of this site conserve the significance of the adjacent Windsor Home Park registered park?
3.27 Yes. The site is surrounded by mature trees and there is already a covenant in place with the Crown Estate to restrict building heights. The site itself is currently a poor use of land adjacent to
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 8 of 12
the river and provides an eyesore when viewed from the north terrace of the castle (which is one of the most visited areas). Developing this land could improve that dramatically.
3.28 The railway and its associated quay and coal yards cut off the Home Park from the river in 1849, which persists today in the form of private car parks on Network Rail owned land. Some of this historic connection could be restored by development that allowed greater porosity.
17. Is it necessary to limit development to the southern part of the site? If so, is the density of development proposed compatible with that characteristic of Windsor?
3.29 No. Restricting development to the southern part of the site could encourage inappropriate development and density. It is much better to allow flexibility over the site, and to work with the constraints in an appropriate manner, including considering the characteristics of Windsor and the Castle.
18. Should the relationship of the site to Windsor Castle (views), the Thames Path and Romney Island be reflected in the proforma as features to be considered?
3.30 Yes – as above. However, these matters are adequately covered by other policies in the Local Plan so do not need to be repeated within the allocation itself.
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 9 of 12
4.0 Suggested Amendments
4.1 The following modifications to the Submission Local Plan: Proposed Changes (October 2019) are recommended to ensure that the plan is “sound” within the terms of the NPPF:
1) An appropriate recognition of the Windsor Link Railway scheme should be included in the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan. This could be achieved most simply by reintroducing paragraph 15.2.4 from the Preferred Options Local Plan which has already been consulted upon and received no significant objection.
2) Additionally, a specific place-making policy for Windsor should be included in the same way these have been provided for Maidenhead and Ascot to ensure that Windsor is being given adequate consideration in the Local Plan and that development is coordinated and carefully managed.
3) There is no requirement, “exceptional circumstances”, or local desire for Green Belt release in Windsor, with local preferences clearly going for appropriate urban development. The Windsor Link Railway scheme should therefore be included as a “reasonable alternative” in the Sustainability Appraisal with any amendments to the Green Belt around Windsor removed.
4) The total number of dwellings to be achieved from allocation AL30 should be increased from 30 to “at least 60 dwellings” (as well as minor changes to the text made as set out in WLR’s previous representations) in order to make the most efficient use of a sustainable brownfield site. The same principle applies to other sustainable brownfield sites in Windsor, thus further demonstrating that “exceptional circumstances” for Green Belt release have not been demonstrated.
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 10 of 12
5.0 Conclusion
5.1 The Submission Local Plan: Proposed Changes (October 2019) is not “sound” within the terms of the NPPF:
• It has not been positively prepared as the plan fails to meet objectively assessed housing needs as calculated by the Government’s standard method;
• The Duty to Cooperate requirements have not been met with respect to Network Rail/WLR and the Windsor Link Railway scheme;
• It is not justified as the plan fails to make appropriate reference to the Windsor Link Railway scheme and there are no “exceptional circumstances” for Green Belt release at Windsor; and
• It is not consistent with national planning policy as it does not promote a sustainable pattern of development.
5.2 The various modifications recommended above have been put forward as sensible means by which the plan can be made sound.
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 11 of 12
hghconsulting.com
Windsor Link Railway Ltd. Local Plan Examination: Hearing Statement Page 12 of 12