Land at Blue Mountain Representations

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to Blue Mountain Golf Course development Date: 04 November 2013 09:35:01

From: Sent: 03 November 2013 18:30 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to Blue Mountain Golf Course development

Hi,

I was shocked and distressed to hear as a landlord in Pitch Place, Binfield directly outside of the golf course you have decided to attempt to rebuild the area with new property,schools and a football pitch. Particularly dismayed that the council has acted in stealth and chosen not to inform the intention to directly affected properties in the area and you have done this without consultation which will effect the legal title I hold. As you can imagine i would not be willing for you to change the title i hold and will do everything to fight these plans.

The reasons for my objects are as follows:

1. I puchased my property knowing i had views of the golf course and purchased the property at premium and validating this with my solicitors that a covenant was in place to protect it. You are now planning this to the detriment of my investment and enjoyment. 2. There is a precedence for upholding 1) based on attempts by neighbour(s) to hide the views of the golf course which shows the councils general agreement that 1) would be to of detriment to me i.e. investment and enjoyment. 3. The covenant to protect the property is in place and i do not agree with it being changed or removed 4. Section 52 already exists which protects blue mountain and as stated it CANNOT be used for anything other than its current purpose or open recreational space 5. A Football pitch and development will increase traffic into roads and side rides that are already pushed and did not account for this increase in population.Side roads are barely able to cope with the existing populations traffic. 6. The Council signed an agreement on my behalf and there is no reason to change it 7. You do not have the right to spend taxpayers money to break a LEGAL agreement

Bottom line is you are attempting to build on an area that will effect my families and others similarly quality of life, depreciated assets, deteriment to hard earned investment which has always been transparently underpined in law as being a plot of land reserved for open enjoyment or recreation.

I am expecting the council to address these point urgently and be transparent and forthcoming on its intentions.

Regards From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of Section 52 agreement. Date: 04 November 2013 09:36:24

From: Sent: 03 November 2013 19:03 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of Section 52 agreement.

Dear Sir,

I write to object to the removal of Section 52 agreement made between Bracknell Forest Council and Luff Developments Ltd in 1990 to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course or open space for 125 years. This agreement was a condition of the planning permission for Temple Park. I believe the Council is now determined to remove this agreement because they have allocated the site for a housing development, 2 schools and Bracknell Town Football stadium.

This is most regrettable and indicates that the Council is not as trustworthy as the people of Bracknell had believed and deserve. It is such a pity that we cannot depend on our Council to keep their word and the good faith of the people.

I object in the strongest possible terms to this proposed development. I was never consulted on the proposed change and was not aware of same until recently. I believe the infrastructure for such a development does not exist. The roads would be dangerous and congested in an area which already is experiencing these problems. I certainly do not support taxpayer's money being used to break a legal agreement that was designed to protect this area. Building on the golf course will have an adverse affect on my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreational/community facilities, views, tranquility and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

Yours faithfully,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to removal of Section 52 agreement on Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield Date: 04 November 2013 14:06:25

From: Sent: 04 November 2013 13:12 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to removal of Section 52 agreement on Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield

FAO: Head of Development Management, BFC, Environment, Culture and Communities Department

My husband and I are objecting to the proposed removal of the Section 52 legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course. We have been residents of Temple Park since it was built and have not been contacted or consulted about this proposed change which affects the title deeds of our property. One of the main reasons for purchasing our property was the inclusion of green open space for use by residents and the community facilities - both the park at Jocks Lane and the Golf Course, We were assured that as the Golf course had the legal agreement on it, it would not be built on but would always be preserved as green communal space. It also provides a much needed break in the development of the parish of Binfield between Bracknell and the Binfield village centre. Our property was sold to us with the covenant in place and we strongly object to it's removal or amendment. Our understanding is that the Section 52 agreement protects the Blue Mountain area from development and if it's use was to change from a golf course, it could only be to an open or other recreational space for the next 102 years (remaining duration of this legal agreement). The Borough and County Councils signed this agreement on behalf of the property owners at the time and as an owner, we see no reason why this should change now. We also strongly object to the fact that our taxpayer's money would be used to break the Section 52 agreement. It is not right that the same owner who agreed to and signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses, for his own personal financial gain, and that the council would also supported this original agreement is going back on their own policy statements for their financial gain. Any possible building on the golf course would adversely affect our enjoyment and use of the open space, sports and recreational/community facilities, views and tranquillity of this area - an area we chose to move to because of these features. Subsequent additional traffic from the proposed development would be unsustainable on the Binfield Village environs and make this a much less attractive place to live, affecting our and our family's quality of life. The golf course area already supports a thriving business, provides employment to many people and a leisure and business facility renown far and wide as excellent, There are other much less productively used spaces, not covered by legal agreements, in the borough which should developed instead of Blue Mountain. This proposal rides rough-shod over individuals personal rights and wishes and should not legally be allowed.

In summary, we object to the proposed removal of the Section 52 agreement covering Blue Mountain Golf Course.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: OBJECTION TO PLANS FOR BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE Date: 04 November 2013 14:07:14

From: Sent: 04 November 2013 13:46 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: OBJECTION TO PLANS FOR BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE

Dear Sir,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed plans to develop the land at Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield.

It was agreed under Section 52 that the land cannot be used for any other purpose than a golf course, open space or recreational space for 125 years from 1990. The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) and owner signed-up to this and I can see no reason why it should change. Furthermore, I do not support the use of taxpayers’ money to break this agreement.

When we bought our house the land was still farmed and this open space was a prime reason for choosing to live in Binfield.

Much enjoyment is derived from the golf course by residents and others from further a field. It greatly adds to the culture, ambiance and standing of the village. I do not want it to become a suburb of Bracknell.

Yours faithfully,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to Request to Modify legal agreement Section 52 for Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 05 November 2013 09:13:06

From: Sent: 04 November 2013 18:22 To: Development Control Subject: Objection to Request to Modify legal agreement Section 52 for Blue Mountain Golf Course

I wish to notify you that I strongly object to any modification of the legally- binding Section 52 Agreement, which prohibits the removal of the golf course for 125 years, and also prohibits using the land for any other purpose.

Like many fellow residents of Temple Park, I moved to this estate in the 1990s, while it was still under construction, because of its small size and attractive adjoining golf course. Fortunately, Bryant Homes provided ample documentary confirmation (along with a ream of other planning-related documentation) that the adjoining golf course land was legally-protected for 125 years and could only be used as a golf course. I regularly use the golf course's facilities and have done so since I moved to Temple Park. I would have saved thousands of pounds by buying a similar property elsewhere and without an attractive adjacent golf course.

Once again, I strongly object to any modification of the Blue Mountain Golf Course's legally-binding Section 52 Agreement.

Kind regards,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain development and removal of Section 52 agreement Date: 05 November 2013 09:12:56

From: Sent: 04 November 2013 17:33 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain development and removal of Section 52 agreement

Head of Development Environment Culture and Communities Department Bracknell Forest Council Time Square Market Street Bracknell RG12 1JD cc.

Dear Sir

With regard to the Blue Mountain development I am writing to raise the following objections:

I understand that Bracknell Forest council signed a section 52 agreement with Luff Developments in 1990 to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course or open space for 125 years and was a condition of the planning permission for Temple park. I do not support the use of taxpayers’ money to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf by the council, the main reason for which was to protect this land from development. I also object strongly to the idea that the same owner who signed the agreement should be allowed to break this agreement to build more houses.

Building on blue mountain will have a significantly adverse affect on the amenity of our immediate surroundings and our enjoyment of the open space. One of the main reasons for our buying our property was the close proximity to green space afforded by the blue mountain plot. Development would destroy the green space between Bracknell and Binfield. Moreover, it would also result in a large increase in traffic along Forest Road, on which is our house frontage.

Yours Faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to removal of section 52 agreement - Blue Mountain Date: 05 November 2013 09:13:57 Attachments: BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE.docx

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 05 November 2013 00:27 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to removal of section 52 agreement - Blue Mountain

Please find attached my objections to the proposed removal of the section 52 agreement relating to Blue Mountain Golf Course

Kind regards PLANNING PERMISSION NO. 614307

BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE – PROPOSED REMOVAL OF SECTION 52 AGREEMENT.

I wish to object to the removal of the Section 52 agreement on the following grounds:

The agreement was set up for a purpose, to ensure that the land remained an open space for 125 years, thus providing a community facility for residents and to preserve the green gap between Bracknell and Binfield. The importance of this is quite clear, and is reflected in the fact that Temple Park was build with reference to the agreement. I do not believe anything has changed that warrants either changing or removing the agreement.

With confidence that the agreement was in place, many people purchased properties both in Temple Park and the Binfield village. Removal of the agreement and the subsequent building on the site will destroy the community facility, tranquillity of the area, open space, views and the green gap that bought so many people to the area. The council should be representing these taxpayers and have an obligation to honour the agreement not to approve an application to break it.

What are the grounds for the removal of the agreement? ‘We’ve know we signed an agreement but now we want to build on the site’ IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS.

The agreement was signed by the Borough Council and County Council on behalf of the taxpayers of the area. As a council tax payer I object to the fact that if the council support this application they will be using my money in order to break the same agreement.

If the agreement is removed it will be setting a dangerous precedent, any parties considering setting up such an agreement in the future, or indeed any party with a current agreement in place, will have no guarantee that the agreement will be sufficiently legally binding to be of any value. A legal agreement is exactly what it says, A LEGAL AGREEMENT.

, From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: To object to this removal of the section 52 agreement for Blue Mountain golf course Date: 05 November 2013 10:56:43

From: Sent: 05 November 2013 10:49 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: To object to this removal of the section 52 agreement for Blue Mountain golf course

My husband and I would like to object to the council's proposal for the following reasons:

One of the main reasons we bought the property 2 years ago was due to its proximity to the golf course and open space. We understand that a Section 52 agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration ofth eagreement (102) years. It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. Building on the golf course will affect our enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views, tranquility and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. Regards From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 05 November 2013 09:55:22 fyi

From: Sent: 05 November 2013 09:46 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course

We live at and were horrified to hear that there was a proposal to develop the land on Blue Mountain Golf Course. We believe that there is a covenant in place preventing such development and therefore we write to object to the removal of the Section 52 agreement by the Council. We understand that the proposal is to build a huge housing development, 2 schools and a stadium for Bracknell Town Football Club.

Our objections are based on the following: - We were not consulted on any proposed change which may affect the legal title that we hold. - One of the main reasons we bought my property was due to its proximity to the golf course and the open space. - The property was sold to us with the covenant in place and we certainly did not agree to it being changed or removed. - We understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (viz 102 years). - The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on our behalf and therefore there is no reason why this should change. - We do not support the fact that taxpayers' money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on our behalf which was to protect the land from development. - It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. - Building on the golf course will affect our enjoyment, views, tranquility and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

Removal of the covenant will not only destroy the rural environment around Binfield and Temple Park but also alter the title deeds of our property. Continued development will result in the convergence of Bracknell and Wokimngham.

Regards

Premier Services is a trading name of Perimitech Limited. Registered no: 3000592, England. VAT Registration number 720627065. NSI Certificate number GRD/G/5158. This email contains confidential information and is for the exclusive use of the addressee/s. If you are not the addressee, then any distribution, copying or use of this email is prohibited. If received in error, please advise the sender and delete it immediately. We accept no liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person/s arising from use of this email; moreover, this email including attachments is opened at your own risk; furthermore, information, statements, and/or opinions contained within are submitted by the author, not Premier Services unless subsequently confirmed by an authorised representative. Please ensure you have adequate virus protection before you open and/or download any medium from this transmission. Premier Services has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that this email including attachments has been swept for viruses.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: 04/11/13 to Head of Development Management Date: 11 November 2013 09:21:10

From: Sent: 08 November 2013 17:33 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: 04/11/13 to Head of Development Management

Dear Sir or Madam

The subject Letter (delivered by hand to Head Of Development Management and emailed to the copy list above) refers to my objection to the proposed lifting of the Section 52 agreement relating to Blue Mountain Golf Course.

Please add the following sentence to my letter after the existing 1st Paragraph.

"However, I am objecting to the request to remove the Golf Course land from the Agreement, and in particular to the request from the landowners to be released from a Covenant in the Tenth Schedule, Part II (paragraph 1). "

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Development, Section 52 Agreement. Date: 06 November 2013 09:18:05

From: Sent: 05 November 2013 17:17 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Development, Section 52 Agreement.

To: Head of Development Management Bracknell Forest Council

Dear Sir/Madam

Bracknell Forest Council signed an agreement with Luff Developments Ltd in 1990 to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course and open space for 125 years.

When we purchased our house in Temple Park in 2002 one of the main selling features to us was the proximity of the Golf Course and the other open spaces near our home. You are about to ruin this with your current determination to build on the Blue Mountain site. This is something we have not been consulted on and may affect the legal title we hold. We understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any other purpose other than as a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement which is 102 years. The property was sold to us with this covenant in place and we strongly disagree with your intention to change or remove the covenant. The Borough Council and County Council at the time, signed an agreement on behalf of residents and people living in this area and we can see no justification for changing this legal agreement.

We do not support your intention to use taxpayers money, i.e. our money!, to break a legal agreement, signed on our behalf, which was to protect this land from development. It is NOT RIGHT that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses without the specific agreement of the householders impacted by the breaking of the covenant.

Building on the Golf Course will affect our enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation, community facilities, views, tranquillity and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. A green space which we hugely value and which we intend to fight for most strenuously!

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain golf course Date: 06 November 2013 09:26:22

From: Sent: 05 November 2013 20:19 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain golf course

I have strong objections to the development proposed for the Blue Mountain golf course. These are:

1. A Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect this course from development and it cannot be used for anything other than golf, recreational or open space, for the remainder of the agreement (102years)

2. I object to taxpayers' money being used to break a legal agreement which protects this land from development.

3. The same owner who signed this agreement should not now be allowed to break it and spoil the whole area for the residents around it.

4. Building on the golf course will adversely affect everyone's enjoyment of the facilities it offers, the green views and its tranquillity.

5. The wildlife will also be badly affected by this development destroying the habitat and green corridors essential for survival.

6. I strongly object on the grounds of the strain this will put on water supplies, electricity, traffic on roads, etc..

7. This development of green land will increase the risk of flooding to the surrounding community.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain development project Date: 06 November 2013 09:18:22

From: Sent: 05 November 2013 18:08 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain development project

To Head of Development Management, Bracknell Forest Council.

Sir/Madam,

I wish to object to the proposed building of houses and other facilities on the Blue Mountain Gof Course on the following grounds:

• I have not been consulted on a proposed change, which may affect the legal title I hold. • One of the main reasons I bought this property was due to its proximity to the golf course and open space. • The property was sold to me with the covenant in place and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed. • I understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years). • The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on my behalf and there is no reason why this should change. • I do not support that taxpayer's money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. • It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. • Building on the golf course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views, tranquillity, and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

Yours truly, From: To: Subject: FW: TITLE: Blue Mountain Golf Course-Section 52 Agreement Date: 06 November 2013 08:23:30

From: Sent: 05 November 2013 18:51 To: Cc: Subject: TITLE: Blue Mountain Golf Course-Section 52 Agreement

Dear sir, We live in Binfield and have been resident since 1982 and we feel very angry about the proposal to renege on an agreement put in place when the agricultural land was converted to Blue mountain Golf course. We objected at the time for this conversion and were only persuaded to remove our objection when Bracknell Council (or its predecessor) provided a legal guarantee (Covenant) that the Golf course would retain its lease for at least 99 years and therefore maintaining the separation between Bracknell Town and Binfield.

In our view we felt this was a legal agreement and an obligation we felt that the Council would keep.

If you now renege on that agreement we believe that you have betrayed that trust and have let us and all the other residents of Binfield down.

It suggests that any legal agreements that Bracknell Forest Council enter into with the residents has no meaning and consequently it would be pointless in anyone having faith with local government and the current apathy as well as anger that prevents people bothering to vote will be significantly increased.

We will not accept any suggestion that Bracknell has been forced into making a decision by Central Governmemt as it is up to the local government to protect the interests and lives of its local residents.

As out trust has been damaged I have copied this Email to BVPS as a record that we have objected to this proposal.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Objection to the removal of Section 52 Agreement Date: 06 November 2013 15:49:57

From: Sent: 06 November 2013 14:59 To: Development Control; ; Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Objection to the removal of Section 52 Agreement

All

I am writing to object to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement protecting the Blue Mountain Golf Course.

My objection is based upon the following:

1. I have not been consulted on a proposed change, which may affect the legal title I hold.

2. One of the main reasons I bought my property was due to its proximity to the golf course and open space.

3. I understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement - i.e. the next 102 years.

4. The Borough Council & County Council (at the time) signed the agreement on my behalf and there is no reason why this should change.

5. I do not support that taxpayer's money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was put in place to protect this land from development.

6. There is no justification for BFC to overturn something it would have been a party to under the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 simply to push through their plans and meet housing targets particularly when the agrement was specifically designed to protect future development. This is in direct contradiction of the basis on which the land was sold in the first place!

7. To remove the Section 52 Agreement would also set a dangerous precedent for waiving other such agreements in the future - not only in Binfield but across the country - as it effectively makes them worthless if they can be overturned whenever its suits the Borough Councils agenda. These agreements were put in place for good reasons which have not changed.

8. It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement (i.e. Mr Luff) to protect the land in the first place, now wishes to break the agreement in order to build more houses and reap the financial rewards of so doing.

9. Building on the Blue Mountain Golf Course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views, tranquility and the current green space between Binfield and Bracknell.

10. Given the proximity of Binfield Manor, I would also seek some reassurance from BFC that its current owner - the Sultan of Brunei - has been personally consulted as I feel sure the title deeds of the property he owns will include a covenant not to use the Golf Course Land for any other purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement - i.e. the next 102 years.

Finally I would add that the credibility of the Borough Council will be called into question if they remove this Section 52 Agreement. For once I hope they stand up and back what they originally signed on behalf of their local constituents.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to removal ofthe legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 06 November 2013 14:54:04 Attachments: Letter BFC objection covernent removal 6 11 2013.doc

From: Sent: 06 November 2013 13:28 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to removal ofthe legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sirs,

Please find attached our letter of objection to the plans to discharge or modify the Covenant protecting land on the Blue Mountain Golf Course.

I will forward hard copies of this letter to you all.

Yours faithfully

6th November 2013

Head of Development Management Bracknell Forest Council Environment, Culture and Communities Department Time Square Market Street Bracknell Berkshire RG12 1JD

Dear Sir

We would like to place our strong objection to the discharge and or modification of the legal agreement (Covenant) protecting Golf course land relating to the land at the Blue Mountain Golf and Conference Centre, off Wood Lane, Binfield.

The Agreement with Bracknell Forest Council signed by Luff Developments Limited in 1990 was to keep the land as golf course land for the provision of sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the golf course land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the uses mentioned in this paragraph. The covenant signed in 1990 was taken for a period of 125 years, the year 2115. This agreement was a condition of the planning permission for Temple Park known as Section 52 agreement.

I understand the Council is set on removing this Covenant agreement allocating the site to a housing development and 2 schools and a football stadium. This is clearly a breach of the covenant.

Covenants related to land related covenants are called ‘real covenants’, a major form of covenant, and imposing restrictions on how the land may be used. A negative (restrictive covenant) is a private agreement between land owners where one party will restrict the use of its land in some way for the benefit of another’s land. The restrictive (negative) covenant, once agreed between the parties, is placed in the title deeds. It binds the land and not the parties personally. In other words the ‘restrictive covenant ‘runs with the land’. This means that the covenant continues even when the original parties to the covenant sell the land on to other people as in your plan.

Attempts to make an application under Section 84 of the Law of 1925 or Article 5 of the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 Property Act to have the Covenant ‘Discharged’ or ‘Amended’ on the Golf course land will fail. For ‘Discharge’ and or ‘Amendment’ to apply, the restriction should be deemed to be obsolete because of changes in the character of the property or the neighborhood. This is clearly not the case; the Golf course land continues to be a thriving golf course providing amenities to us and to people far and wide and its removal will affect us personally.

Secondly, those persons, entitled to benefit from the restriction, have agreed to the discharge or modification. As a resident and Title Deed owners of property which includes the covenant in Temple Park we object to the covenants discharge or modification. Thirdly, we feel that removal or amendment of this covenant with adversely affect us personally.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 07 November 2013 09:11:25

From: Sent: 06 November 2013 17:29 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course

I am writing to object to the proposed development of Blue Mountain Golf Course. This development clearly conflicts with the spirit and letter of the 1990 Section 52 Agreement to retain the land as a golf course or open space for 125 years. The proposed development will do nothing to meet local needs for affordable housing, which would be better met using local brown field sites adjacent to Bracknell’s existing infrastructure and amenities. It would however destroy the remaining countryside between Bracknell and Binfield, and result in Binfield becoming just a part of Bracknell instead of a village in its own right. Blue Mountain Golf Course is used by many people for far more activities than just playing golf and should remain as it is for the benefit of the community. I do not approve of the use of taxpayer’s money to break a legal agreement made on my behalf, for the benefit of developers rather than current or potential residents, and in the face of extensive local opposition.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 07 November 2013 09:11:19

From: Sent: 06 November 2013 21:16 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sirs.

Attn: Head of Development Management, Borough Solicitor, Local Member of Parliament

I am writing to object strongly to the proposed modification of use of the Land on which lies the current Blue Mountain Golf Course.

The title deeds of my property, my home, on Temple Park, refers to the Section 52 agreement between Bracknell Forest Council and Luff Developments Ltd dated 1990, a condition of the planning permission for the development at Temple Park. “1. Not to use the Golf Course Land for any purpose other than as a golf course for the provision of sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the Golf Course Land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the uses mentioned in this paragraph” My understanding is that Bracknell Council signed the above agreement to protect Blue Mountain from future development for a time period of 125 years, of which there must be over 100 years of protection remaining.

The major reason I purchased my first house on Temple Park in which I brought off plan from the builders, was the immediate proximity to the golf course and that this agreement protected the green space and prevented further development in the immediate area. Indeed when I chose to move to a larger house I stayed within the Temple Park development, I moved to again confident in the knowledge on the future protection of the land as a golf club. You will notice that both are extremely close to the actual land boundary of the golf course, I chose both these locations to buy my homes, to invest my money, as a direct consequence of the location knowing the golf course land was legally protected from future construction and development.

Building on the land of the Blue Mountain Golf Course will have an immediate negative effect on both my wife and my own enjoyment of the tranquillity and relative peace and quiet that we currently enjoy living in Indeed on several occasions I have actually played a round of golf at the course, I do use the course’s driving range because of its locality.

I also have serious concerns that the proposed development on the golf course will severally effect the value of the home that I have built up in Bracknell in the many years that I have lived here, partly due to the overloading of the local infrastructure and local roads that at times struggle to cope with the current level of activity. Not to mention the removal of the current 85ha area of protected green open space.

Both the properties that I have owned on Temple Park were sold to me with this covenant in place and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed. I strongly object to any change of use of the land at the Blue Mountain Golf Course.

Please confirm receipt of this email was before the deadline stated on the council website of 10 November 2013, it was sent on the 6th November.

Yours sincerely

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of legal agreement Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 07 November 2013 09:11:08

From: Sent: 06 November 2013 22:31 To: Development Control; Development Plan Cc: Subject: Objection to the removal of legal agreement Blue Mountain Golf Course

For the Attention of Head of Development Management Bracknell Forest Council.

I would like to to register my objection to the removal of the section 52 agreement concerning the proposed re development of Blue Mountain Golf Course.

As a Binfield resident I do not wish to see the removal of the Blue Mountain Golf course. I enjoy the open spaces and walks around the course and do not wish the Binfield community joined up with more development, increased traffic and disruption to village life.

My understanding is the Section 52 Agreement was put in place to protect the Blue Mountain site from development for the remaining duration of the agreement of aprrox 102 years.

I do not support the use of tax payers money to try and break the legal agreement protecting the site.

Kind Regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Removal of S52 Agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 07 November 2013 09:11:14

From: Sent: 06 November 2013 22:21 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Removal of S52 Agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course

Further to your consultation on the proposed removal of the Section 52 Agreement to allow a large development to go ahead on Blue Mountain Golf Course, I wish to make my objection to the proposal in advance of your decision on 10 December.

I do not agree that the council should be considering waiving the Section 52 Agreement, signed in 1990, which protects the land at Blue Mountain from being used as anything other than an open space, recreational facility or golf course for 125 years.

The site was protected because it was a vital green gap between the village and Bracknell, it provides a much valued public and community facility for golfing and social activities, and it is an area of open space that is sacred to the people of Binfield. The reasons for protecting the site are still hugely important to the local community now, only 23 years after the agreement was signed, and have been a overriding factor in the decisions of many residents to purchase homes in this area since that time.

I purchased my home on the understanding that the agreement was in place to protect this land and I have a legal document in my possession which says I should benefit from the covenant in my title deeds which stipulates that this land is to be kept as a golf course or open space for 125 years.

I do not believe that the council has the right to simply remove this legal agreement, particularly as some of those individuals who first signed the agreement have since agreed to it being released. This action demonstrates such a blatant disregard for a correct moral approach, regardless of whether it seemed like the most practical solution at the time.

I purchased my home because of the location of the golf course and its wide range of facilities which my family uses on a regular basis. I will not accept that there is any situation where this can now be taken away from me and my neighbours in order to destroy the nature of the area forever. This site was protected and I do not believe it should have been considered as part of the council's site allocations.

Neither the council, nor the developer should stand to benefit from the development of this protected land when they have already benefited from the development of Temple Park. There are suitable sites for schools elsewhere in the borough, and I do not accept that this is a suitable site on which to relocate Bracknell Town Football Club.

Individually and as a member of Binfield Village Protection Society I would like to ask the council to do what is right and preserve this agreement for future generations so that it is maintained for the very purpose it was created for.

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Objection to removal of section 52 Agreement Date: 07 November 2013 13:04:37

From: Sent: 07 November 2013 11:51 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Objection to removal of section 52 Agreement

I am writing to confirm my opposition to the removal of this agreement.

I purchased my house on Temple Park in 1994 purely because of its location to the golf course and the surrounding green land and open space. I also believe that the property was sold to me on this basis and that a covenant was in place to prevent any building on the land for 125 years. I do not agree that this covenant/agreement should be changed without consultation with the residents of Temple Park and Binfield, many of whom will be immensely affected by the proposed developments.

I also believe that the proposed building on this land would create huge problems in terms of traffic and pressure on local services. The traffic from Blue Mountain to the A329M is already heavily congested at peak hours and would not be able to support any extra traffic created by additional residents in the area.

Building on the golf course will certainly affect my enjoyment of the current open space and facilities currently provided by the golf centre.

I hope that you will take into account the wishes of local residents when considering your position regarding this situation.

Best regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Section 52 Agreement -16th Feb 1990 Date: 07 November 2013 15:42:32

From: Sent: 07 November 2013 15:06 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Section 52 Agreement -16th Feb 1990

Dear Sirs,

I hereby wish to register my strong objection to the planned removal of the Section 52 Agreement for Blue Mountain Golf Course.

As an avid golfer, with usage enjoyed by family, friends and colleagues I find the proposal awful and not in keeping with the long term plan for leisure & sports facilities for the residents. In addition we moved to our current property in the early 90's based on the open space & proximity to the golf course with it's plan to remain for 102 years. The Borough Council & County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on our behalf & there is no reason why this should change.

There are many more plots of land suitable for development of new housing, please leave this valuable space for use by local families to maintain the current green gap between Bracknell & Binfield.

My address is

------

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objections to removal of Section 52 agreement Date: 07 November 2013 16:55:30

From: Sent: 07 November 2013 16:46 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objections to removal of Section 52 agreement

Attention: Head of Development Management

I would like to register my objection to the removal of the section 52 agreement currently protecting the Blue Mountain Golf Course.

I purchased my property on Temple Park in 1996. One of the main reasons, was the proximity to Blue Mountain Golf Course. The open space prevented Temple Park becoming just another enormous housing estate and provided much needed recreational space and wildlife habitat.

The property was sold to me on the understanding that a covenant was in place protecting the open space for a perpetuity period of 80 years. My solicitors confirmed that the land would not be built on.

It is morally wrong that the council can sign an agreement and then simply change it as and when it suits. This removes any credibility from future agreements and promises the council may undertake. It is equally wrong that the council can then use tax payers money to attempt to break a legal agreement to the detriment of the taxpayers affected by that agreement.I would suggest that the local council should be representing the wishes of the local electorate rather than Developers. After all, it is the electorate that vote them into office.

Although I do not play golf, I use the Blue Mountain area frequently for recreational purposes and removal of this will have a detrimental effect on the area. The infrastructure around Binfield is already insufficient to deal with current traffic volumes.

I understand from the original Covenant, that a Wildlife Species survey was carried out in prior to January 1990 and formed the basis of the section 52 agreement. Removal of this Agreement would presumably also remove the protection of the woodland areas within the Temple Park Estate. Part of the Agreement also required an archaeological survey. As a result of this, two areas of archaeological evidence were deemed to be suitable for preservation in situ within the golf course. This would be threatened in the event of further development.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course, Removal of Section 52 Agreement Date: 08 November 2013 09:17:53

From: Sent: 07 November 2013 20:41 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course, Removal of Section 52 Agreement

Dear sirs

I am concerned that Bracknell Forest Council are seeking to build on the above and list below my reasons

The section 52 agreement dated 16th February 1990 still has 102 years to run and therefore to terminate it must be deemed illegal One of the main reasons we bough our house was due to it's close proximity to the golf course Building on the golf course will affect our enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreational/community facilities, views, tranquility and the current green gap between Binfield & Bracknell It can't be right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses I do not support the use of tax payers money being used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect the land from development Yours sincerely

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course - objection to removal of covenant Date: 08 November 2013 09:18:24

From: Sent: 07 November 2013 22:42 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course - objection to removal of covenant

To the Head of Development Management, Bracknell Forest Council

I have been a resident of Temple Park, Binfield since the the estate was built in 1994 firstly at bought from Bryant Homes, secondly at and now at . Over nearly 20 years I have enjoyed the benefit of the proximity of Blue Mountain Golf Course along with the knowledge that the title deeds to my houses included a covenant that the land could only be used for recreational facilities or as open space for the next 125 years.

I would therefore like to register my complaint that this covenant is about to be revoked. I have not been consulted on the proposed change and it is unclear whether this will impact the legal title to my property. Further, the covenant was signed for a period of 125 years for the very reason that it was designed to avoid future planning officers trying to develop the site! Therefore, the land cannot be developed or used for any other purpose than open space, golf course or similar recreational use. I also understand that tax payers money is being used to break this legal agreement - of course I cannot support this further waste of public funds.

I have enjoyed the open space for many years - latterly with my children riding our bikes around the golf course, which of course will be lost with the proposed development. Part of the reason for buying the property was the knowledge that there would be protected open space at Blue Mountain and surroundings, together with space at Jocks Lane.

I fully accept that land in the area will be used for development and Temple Park will be impacted by the proposed development of Cabbage Hill and the land at Warfield. We are also in close proximity to other developments at Amen Corner and Montague Park (in Wokingham). Therefore, to loose the land at Blue Mountain as well is a severe "blow" to the area. It is also something that you have the power to stop, as has Adam Afriyie as our MP.

I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of my complaint. Please also confirm the legality of altering my title deeds by revoking this agreement, without consultation.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement on Blue Mountain Golf Course. Date: 08 November 2013 09:19:22

-----Original Message---- From: Sent: 08 November 2013 08:44 To: ; Development Control; Subject: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement on Blue Mountain Golf Course.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to object to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement that was put in for the protection of Blue Mountain Golf Course.

My objection is based upon the following:

1 One of the main reasons I bought our property in five years ago, was due to its proximity to the golf course and open space as my daughter grows up. At that time there were no issues raised on any of the checks when buying the house because of the length of the agreement on the golf course. My understanding then was the Section 52 Agreement was in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement - i.e. the next 102 years.

However it seems that the council can just change its mind, tear up any agreement even though the council put it in place to ensure the land was protected. It makes the paper any of these agreements are written on totally worthless. Instead it seems we are driven by financial gain for a few (Mr Luff an the developers), and maybe a legacy for others a legacy of bricks and mortar.

2.There has to be an issue that the same owner who signed the agreement (Mr Luff) to protect the land in the first place, now wishes to break the agreement in order to build more houses and gain financially from so doing. And it’s even more surprising that he asks to break this agreement after BFC has decided to build on the land, will he be allowed to break it?

The answer must be yes because the council want this to happen It seems like a series of amazing coincidences and good for all parties involved. Mr Luff gets to make a great deal of money with rumours even of 900 houses being asked for, and the council gets to build on a piece of land they had agreed to protect. We have all seen on other large planning application in Bracknell, that it starts at one point in terms of houses and ends somewhere else.

3. Building on the Blue Mountain Golf Course will affect not just my families enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, but also those of a great many other people. It is the main green area on this side of Bracknell I have used it in the last year for playing golf, running, cycling with my daughter, blackberry picking and the fireworks. My daughters school also took part in a schools golf day there as well. It acts as a good break between Binfield and Bracknell and is a breathing space in the housing around here.

4. There is no justification for BFC to overturn something it would have been a party to under the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 simply to push through plans and meet housing targets particularly when the agreement was specifically designed to protect future development. This is in direct contradiction of the basis on which the land was sold in the first place!

I do hope that the residents around here are listened to. It’s not a case of not in my back yard its a case of protecting a valuable facility for this side of Bracknell. We already have a football club within mile, we don’t need Bracknell FC moving into what is supposedly Binfield or does that mean it should be classed as Bracknell? The Section 52 Agreement was put in place for a reason to stop building, yet here the council is progressing as fast as possible to get building work started.

I fully expect that things will just happen anyway, especially as Binfield/Warfield now comes under Windsor in terms of voting. Which is perhaps what is hoped for that indifference and the feeling that nothing can be changed, will mean you don’t get that many complaints. If we keep overwhelming people then we can say the majority must agree because they didn't complain, and that means we can go ahead. It is an unfortunate way how the planning laws appear to work in this country, the people who can pay to push things through are the people who typically will win.

Your Sincerely

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Objection to removal of section 52 Agreement Date: 08 November 2013 11:59:30

From: Sent: 08 November 2013 10:52 To: Development Control; Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course - Objection to removal of section 52 Agreement

I am writing to confirm my opposition to the removal of this agreement.

Building on the golf course will certainly affect my enjoyment of the current open space and facilities currently provided by the golf centre.

I hope that you will take into account the wishes of local residents when considering your position regarding this situation.

Best regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection : Removal of Legal Agreement Protecting Blue Mountain Golf Club Date: 08 November 2013 13:04:20

From: Sent: 08 November 2013 12:50 To: Development Control Cc: ; Subject: Objection : Removal of Legal Agreement Protecting Blue Mountain Golf Club

Dear sirs

As residents of this lovely village of Binfield since 1995, we write to object to the proposal removal of the Section 52 agreement in respect of the Blue Mountain Golf Course Land, Binfield, Bracknell, Berkshire.

Our reasons for objecting are :

We understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than as a Golf Course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement ( currently 102 remaining years).

We do not support that taxpayer’s money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on our behalf which was to protect this land from development.

It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses.

Building on the golf course will affect our enjoyment of open space, sport and recreational facilities, views, tranquillity, and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

We have concerns about the impact on local resources, especially the roads, brought about by the resulting increase in the population of Binfield that new housing will create.

We are hopeful that this request to remove this section 52 agreement is turned down and that common sense will prevail.

Yours faithfully

______Friday, 08 November 2013

Head of Development Management Bracknell Forest Borough Council Environment, Culture & Communities Department Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell RG12 1JD

NOTE: This letter sent by email to development.control@bracknell‐forest.gov.uk. Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course

Objection to Request to Modify a Section 52 Planning Agreement

Dear Sir,

I am writing to submit my comments and record my strong objection to the request to release the land owner and developer from the conditions of the covenant in the Section 52 Agreement.

As part of the SADPD process Bracknell Forest Borough Council commissioned Entec UK Limited to undertake the following study (SAL76):‐

Landscape Analysis of Sites Allocations and an Assessment of Gaps/Green Wedges. The Final Report of this Study concluded:‐ (7.2.3) Bracknell and Binfield are settlements with clear identities which are separated by open land between the B3034 and Temple Way. The topography and openness of this area provide visual separation between Bracknell and Binfield. The area provides recreational opportunities and some public access. The development along Popeswood Road and St Marks Road serves to reduce the perceived separation between the settlements and there are some limited views of North Bracknell across the Blue Mountain Golf Course. These factors enhance the importance of this gap in preventing coalescence and protecting the identity of the settlements.

This conclusion is identical to that reached by Bracknell Town Council, back in 1990, when they approved Luff Developments plans to build what is now Temple Park. The approval for the 550 home development was granted on the clear condition that Luff agreed to the covenant in the Section 52 Agreement, and to the 125 year lease, to protect the green gap between the urban settlement of Bracknell and Binfield village.

______

Since that time Blue Mountain Golf and Conference Centre has established itself as an important community facility and recreational amenity, for local residents and visitors. The complex comprises fully air conditioned conference and banqueting suites in addition to a public 18 hole pay & play golf course, driving range, public restaurant and licensed bar. The Centre is a popular location for special occasions such as weddings, birthdays, anniversaries, corporate dinners and seasonal balls. It also hosts exhibitions and auctions, and runs regular ‘open to all’ dinner dances and music concerts. Their annual November 5th bonfire and fireworks display, pantomimes, and Christmas and New Year parties are attended by many hundreds of local residents. Crown Golf Academy provides valuable education and training facilities for youngsters from the surrounding areas and many schools make use of these services. In the recent SADPD process Sport England praised these facilities and objected strongly to their loss.

Releasing the land owner from the covenant in the Section 52 Agreement and allowing housing development at Blue Mountain will destroy these established community facilities and significantly reduce pay & play golf capacity in the local area. The BFC sponsored Neil Allen Associates study into pay & play golf capacity in the area clearly stated that: “There is some spare capacity at BMGC (and elsewhere), but it is still difficult to accommodate demand at peak times (weekends). Any spare capacity is at off-peak times”. Closure of Blue Mountain Golf Centre will reduce the number of 18 hole pay & play courses in the area from three to just two. Clearly if, as stated, it is difficult to meet demand at peak times with three courses, then it will be quite impossible to meet future demand with just two courses and many thousands more residents moving into the area.

The restrictions on this land were put in place to protect the local community and, through the foresight and good work of officers and councillors at the time, they created Blue Mountain Golf & Conference Centre. Now in 2013 we look to our elected representatives to enhance and create new amenities for local communities ‐ not to vote for their destruction.

For these reasons I urge Bracknell Forest Councillors to honour clearly stated long term commitments made to the community and made to people who, in good faith, purchased homes in Temple Park.

Yours Sincerely,

______

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Section 52 Agreement at Blue Mountain Date: 08 November 2013 14:36:35 Attachments: Section 52 Objection.doc

From: Sent: 08 November 2013 14:32 To: Development Control Subject: Section 52 Agreement at Blue Mountain

Please find attached my letter to the Head of Development Management concerning the above planning application. Please can you ensure that my comments and objections are recorded on your system in good time for the Executive Meeting early in December. Thank you,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Object to removal of Section 52 agreement on Blue Mountain Date: 11 November 2013 09:21:27

From: Sent: 08 November 2013 18:59 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Object to removal of Section 52 agreement on Blue Mountain

Dear Sir,

I understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years). It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. In addition I don't think that it is right for taxpayer's money to be used to break this legal agreement.

I'm fortunate enough to have benefited from the presence of the Golf Course at Blue Mountain for 20 years. In addition to this being a pay and play course enjoyed by not only the local community,110 local school children are also receiving coaching from the professionals at Blue Mountain. Not only is this a valuable green space between Binfield and Bracknell, but is also the home to some less common wildlife including newts and adders. All of this is in danger of being lost by the development of this land.

Yours faithfully,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to the release of Section 52 Agreement - Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 11 November 2013 09:21:39

From: Sent: 08 November 2013 19:23 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to the release of Section 52 Agreement - Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sirs,

I would like to register my objections to the request made to release the Section 52 Agreement on Blue Mountain Golf Course for the following reasons : -

1. I have not been consulted on the proposed change. 2. I purchased the property based on the proximity to the golf course and other open spaces. 3. The property was sold to me with the covenant in pace and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed. 4. I understand that there is a Section 52 agreement in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement - 102 years. 5. The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on behalf of the local residents and there is no reason why this should change. 6. I do not support that tax payers money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. 7. It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. 8. Building on the golf course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreational/community facilities, views, tranquillity and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. 9. Simply put, the local infrastructure will not handle the 1000+ cars that are likely to be on the road at peak times as a result of the proposed housing and other facilities planned.

Yours faithfully,