Core Strategy Development Plan Document

ANNEX 3

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework

Statement of Compliance (Regulation 28)

Also known as Pre-submission Consultation Statement

October 2006

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. Statement of Community Involvement ……………………………. 1

Part A: Consultation in accordance with Reg. 25 (Pre- Submission Consultation)

3. Core Strategy Newsletter 2004 …………………………………….... 3

4. Core Strategy (& Site Allocations) Sustainability Scoping Reports ………………………………………………………………….. 3

5. Core Strategy and Site Allocations Issues & Options Development Plan Documents ………………………………………4

Part B: Consultation under Reg. 26 (Pre-Submission Public Participation)

6. Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Development Plan Document: Draft Spatial Framework for Bracknell Forest Borough to 2026 ………………………………7.

7. Responses- A summary of the main issues raised and how they have been addressed in the submission version of the Core Strategy ………………………………………………………………… 8

8. Draft Sustainability Appraisal (SA) January 2006 ……………… 8

D-R-A-F-T Core Strategy Development Plan Document Statement of Compliance (Regulation 28)

1 Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Compliance (the statement) has been prepared to outline how the Borough Council has involved people in the community in the preparation of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD).

1.2 For clarification this Statement is the same as the ‘pre-submission consultation statement’ referred to in Reg. 28(3) (c) (iii).

1.3 The Statement has been prepared in accordance with Regulation (Reg. 28(1) (c) & (d)) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. Reg. 28 (1) (c) requires that the submitted Core Strategy DPD should be accompanied by a statement detailing how the Borough Council carried out consultation under Reg. 25 Pre-submission consultation. Specifically:-

a) the bodies consulted pursuant to Reg.25 b) how these bodies and any other persons were consulted c) summary of the main issues raised d) how these main issues have been addressed in the DPD

1.4 In addition, Reg. 28(1) (d) also requires details of all representations that were received in accordance with Reg. 27(2) as part of the Reg. 26 Pre- submission public participation including;-

a) the number of representations made b) a summary of the main issues raised in the representations c) how those main issues have been addressed in the DPD

1.5 This Statement then specifically relates to two periods of public consultation:

Part A: Consultation under Reg. 25 (Pre-Submission Consultation) Part B: Consultation under Reg. 26 (Pre-Submission Public Participation)

2 Statement of Community Involvement

2.1 The Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) was adopted in July 2006. The SCI sets out in detail how the Borough Council will involve all members of the local community in preparing Local Development Documents (LDDs) and considering planning applications. It

contains methods and processes that reflect the way people would prefer to be involved.

2.2 The pre-submission consultation (Reg.25) and the pre-submission public participation consultation (Reg.26) were prepared having regard to the emerging SCI. Prior to the start of each consultation a strategy was prepared detailing the methods of consultation to be used. Reference was made to Table 1 of the SCI which sets out statutory minimum requirements for consultation and the additional engagement, (the extra we may wish to do). Appendix 4 of the SCI, the suggested tool kit of people, places, methods & techniques was also referred to.

Table: 1 Stages in the preparation of The Core Strategy DPD & Statement of Community Involvement

DPD Stage SCI Stage Core Strategy DPD, SCI Adopted, July 2006 submitted November 2006 CS DPD: Draft Spatial Submission Version SCI, October Framework for Bracknell 2005 Forest Borough to 2026, draft Sustainability Appraisal Jan/Feb 2006 CS & SA DPD Issues & Draft SCI, March 2005 Options July/August 2005, Initial Sustainability Appraisal, July 2005 Core Strategy Newsletter, Newsletter, ‘First Steps In Getting Us October 2004, All Involved’, November 2004 CS & SA Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Reports, December 2004

Part A: Consultation under Reg. 25 (Pre-Submission Consultation)

The following documents were published:-

• Core Strategy Newsletter – October 2004 • Sustainability Appraisal scoping report – February 2005 • Core Strategy & Site Allocations Development Plan Document – Issues and Options - July/August 2005 • Initial Sustainability Appraisal – July/August 2005

3 Core Strategy Newsletter 2004

3.1 A Core Strategy newsletter was published in October 2004. This was prepared at an early stage in the pre-submission consultation process of the Core Strategy DPD (Reg. 25). The purpose of the newsletter was to: • Provide feedback on the Issues Paper consultation published in 2003 which attracted over 500 responses; • Set out further information on the preparation of documents forming the Local Development Framework; and • Seek further views on the issues and ideas for options.

Who was consulted ? 3.2 More than 400 stakeholders were contacted including; all relevant specific consultees under Reg. 25 stage 1 and selective general consultees, including local interest and community groups and organisations, other Local Authorities, planning consultants and housebuilders, public employers, registered social landlords and public transport providers (See Appendices 1& 2).

3.3 How were they consulted

The consultation was by newsletter which was sent to those listed above. The newsletter was also available on the Council’s web-site.

Responses

3.4 25 responses were received covering a wide range of issues relating to amongst others, sustainable development, the need for a clear direction for future development and the co-ordination of infrastructure. These responses are summarised in more detail at Appendix 3.

How these issues have been addressed: 3.5 Responses from the newsletter were one element of the range of sources used to inform the preparation of the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Issues and Options Document.

4 Core Strategy & Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Reports

4.1 In December 2004 a Scoping Report for a Sustainability Appraisal (SA), incorporating the requirement for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), of the Core Strategy DPD was published for consultation.

4.2 This consultation document sought to ensure the SA is comprehensive and robust enough to support the Core Strategy Document in later stages and to seek advice on the appropriateness of the sustainability objectives and key sustainability issues and comprehensiveness of baseline data.

4.3 A Scoping Report for the Site Allocations DPD was published for consultation in January 2005 and a revised Report was published in February 2005.

Who was consulted ?

4.4 The four specific Consultation Bodies, The Environment Agency, The Countryside Agency, English Heritage and English Nature were consulted. In accordance with draft Sustainability Appraisal guidance and Planning Policy Statement 12. Other appropriate social and economic consultees were also contacted (See Appendix 4)

How they were consulted

4.5 Consultees were sent a paper or electronic copy of the Scoping Reports. To help the consultation process, comments were requested on a series of questions. In addition both scoping reports were published on the Borough Council website.

Responses

4.6 8 external responses were received from this consultation relating to the built environment, open space and landscape, pollution and water usage, specific comments on key sustainability issues and specific comments on biodiversity baseline data and collection of indicators in later stages of SA. A full summary is listed in Appendix 5.

How these issues were addressed

4.7 The comments received were either noted for further action, or integrated into the Initial Sustainability Appraisal (see below)

5 Core Strategy and Site Allocations Issues and Options Development Plan Documents July/August 2005 5.1 In the summer of 2005, a series of documents were produced as part of the process of engaging the community and local stakeholders in discussions

on issues and options relevant to the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD. The following documents were produced at this stage:

• Bracknell Forest Borough Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD, Issues and Options – The Context • Bracknell Forest Borough Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD, Issues and Options – Your Views (a questionnaire) • Bracknell Forest Borough Core Strategy and Site Allocations Initial Sustainability Appraisal (and summary) • Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework Fact Pack • Urban Housing Potential Study, April 2005

Who was consulted ?

5.2 Specific Consultees and General Consultees listed in Appendix 1 and 2 of this report including a wide range of local interest and community groups and organisations, other local authorities, planning consultants and housebuilders, public employers, registered social landlords and public transport providers.

How they were consulted

5.3 Consultation on the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Issues and Options took place between 4 th July and 31 st August 2005. The methods of consultation are listed in Appendix 6. This also indicates how this relates to the stages and methods set out in the emerging SCI. In summary, the following engagement methods were used:

Copies of The Context, Your Views (the questionnaire) and a summary of the Initial Sustainability Appraisal were sent to approximately 650 groups and individuals held on the database. Copies of Your Views (See Appendix7) were distributed to all households, and most businesses. The Initial Sustainability Appraisal was sent to statutory consultees. A launch event held at a local hotel was attended by 47 people (including BFBC officers) Two ‘Meet the Planner’ sessions were held in each of the five Parish Councils and Bracknell Town Council. During these informal sessions, planning officers were available to answer questions based around a small exhibition, A workshop was held in each Parish, during which the main issues were highlighted. These were informal sessions and attendees were invited to participate in planning exercises exploring different options for further development in the Borough. Presentations were made to a number of groups and organisations who had requested them, for example the Bracknell Forest Partnership and the Youth Parliament. Individual meetings were held as requested.

A number of press releases were issued and an article was published in Town and Country a local newspaper distributed free to all households in the Borough. Copies of all documents went to all Parish/Town Council offices and local libraries Electronic copies were made available on the Borough Council website. An electronic response form was also made available on the Borough Council website to encourage on-line responses.

Responses

5.4 Just over 2,000 written and electronic responses were received to the Issues and Options Consultation. In addition there was considerable feedback from the Meet the Planner sessions and the workshops, in addition to discussions held with individual groups. A table of responses from each of these mediums is set out in the Appendices 8, 9 and 10.

5.5 In summary, the common issues raised in no priority order were:

Support for promoting development primarily within existing settlements Support for continued protection of the Green Belt and areas of landscape and conservation importance. Support for the promotion of development only at the level planned for in the Berkshire Structure Plan Support for a mix of types, sizes and styles of new houses to meet local needs A mixed response to either promoting limited employment growth (46% supported this approach), or promoting higher levels of employment growth (39% supported this approach) Support for the promotion of ‘smart’ growth Support for promoting development close to jobs and services and for promoting public transport whilst also planning for car use Support for policies which promoted the sustainable use of resources and deal with issues of climate change Support for the regeneration of Bracknell Town Centre and the promotion of successful smaller local centres.

How these issues were addressed

5.6 How the feedback from this consultation was used to inform the development of a preferred option for the Core Strategy is included in the response commentary in Appendices 8, 9 and 10.

Initial Sustainability Appraisal

5.7 The initial Sustainability Appraisal was published for public consultation in July 2005 alongside the above mentioned Core Strategy.

5.8 Who were consulted?

The initial SA was sent to specific Consultees including, The Environment Agency, The Countryside Agency, English Heritage and English Nature.

5.9 How they were consulted

The initial SA was the subject of the same methods of engagements summarised in paragraph 5.3 of this statement.

Responses 5.10 Seven responses were received focussing specifically on the initial SA.

5.11 The general consensus from responses is that the approach of the initial SA is comprehensive and reasonable and makes use of a clear range of appropriate objectives. The responses make more specific comments concerning the site assessment criteria, which will need to be incorporated at the next stage of the appraisal. A summary of consultation responses is set out in Appendix 11.

Part B: Consultation under Reg. 26 (Pre-Submission Public Consultation)

The following documents were published:-

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Development Plan Document: Draft Spatial Framework for Bracknell Forest Borough to 2026 Draft Sustainability Appraisal

5 Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD: Draft Spatial Framework for Bracknell Forest Borough to 2026

6.1 In January 2006, a Draft Spatial Framework was published for public consultation (Reg. 26).

Who was consulted

6.2 Over 2000 individuals, groups, and organisations were consulted by mail, including Specific Consultees and General Consultees listed in Appendix 1 and 2 and all individuals and organisations who responded at the issues and options stage.

How they were consulted

6.3 Details of the consultation and how this relates to the stages and methods set out in the emerging SCI are detailed in Appendix 12. In summary, the following engagement methods were used.

Copies of the document together with a draft SA and a response form were sent to the Specific Consultees listed in Appendix 1 of the SCI

A letter was sent to all General Consultees on the LDF Uniform data base notifying them of the publication of the latest documents All documents and a Response Form were published on the Borough Council website A number of press releases were issued, and a press briefing was held prior to the start of the consultation. A summary leaflet ‘your chance to influence new draft planning policies’ was distributed to all households and some businesses (Attached as Appendix 13) Presentations were made to four of the five Parish Councils and to a number of groups including Binfield Village Protection Society and Bracknell Primary Care Trust During the consultation period, a ‘staffed’ mobile exhibition trailer visited twelve locations throughout the Borough including Bracknell Town Centre (pages 8 & 9 Appendix 12). Copies of documents were sent to all Parish/Town Council’s and local libraries A statutory advert was placed in the local press giving details of when and where the documents were available for inspection (attached as Appendix 14) Individual meetings were held as requested

6.4 In addition to the above and in response to a request from Warfield Parish Council, Officers attended a public meeting at Brownlow Hall. The meeting was attended by approximately 200 local residents. A presentation was given explaining the consultation documents which was followed by a question and answer session (Notes from the meeting are attached as Appendix 15)

7 Responses - A Summary of the main issues raised, the Council’s Response and how they have been addressed in the submission version of the Core Strategy

7.1 The Council received approximately 650 individual comments on the Core Strategy document. Comments were received from a wide range of individuals, groups & organisations, as well as statutory consultees such as Government Office for the South East. In accordance with Reg. 28(1)(d) a schedule summarising these comments has been prepared and is attached as (Appendix 16). The schedule also identifies the Councils response to the representations received and how they might influence preparation of the submission version of the DPD.

8 Draft Sustainability Appraisal (SA) January 2006

8.1 A draft SA was published alongside the Draft Spatial Framework document for public consultation. The SA Appraisal tested the policy approaches and suggested changes to the documents to ensure that sustainability issues are integral to the development plans. The full appraisal results and changes made as a result of the process are described in the draft Sustainability Appraisal Report.

8.2 The four environmental Consultees (Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English Nature, and The Environment Agency) were specifically consulted.

8.3 A total of 13 responses were received focussing specifically on the SA report with a further 30 responses commenting on the SA process as part of a broader response on the development plan documents. These have included comments from Thames Valley Police, landowners and residents. The main issues being raised relate to the appraisal scorings for individual sites and propose amendments to the scorings on specific sites. The responses are attached as Appendix 17.

Appendix 1- List of Specific Consultation Bodies

The Regional Planning Body South East England Regional Assembly Relevant authority any part of whose area is in or adjoins the area of the local planning authority Wokingham District Council Finchampstead Parish Council Hurst Parish Council Wokingham Town Council Wokingham Without PC Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Bray Parish Council Old Windsor Parish Council Shottesbrooke Parish Council Sunningdale Parish Council Sunninghill & Ascot Parish Council Waltham St Lawrence Parish Council White Waltham Parish Council Hampshire County Council Hart District Council Blackwater & Hawley Town Council Yateley Town Council Surrey County Council Surrey Heath Borough Council Windlesham Parish Council Chobham Parish Council JSPU Town and Parish Councils Binfield Parish Council Bracknell Town Council Crowthorne Parish Council Sandhurst Town Council Warfield Parish Council Winkfield Parish Council The Countryside Agency The Countryside Agency (South East Region) The Environment Agency The Environment Agency The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

Specific Consultation Bodies Bodies Consultation Specific English Heritage (South East Region) English Nature English Nature (Thames and Chilterns) Network Rail Network Rail The Highways Agency Highways Agency Area 5 The Regional Development Agency RDA South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) Telecommunications Operators Mobile Operators Association Strategic Health Authority

Berkshire Shared Services Organisation Electricity Undertaker Energis Street Works Office Malcolm Judd & Partners National Grid Scottish and Southern Energy Gas Undertakers Kingston Infrastructure British Gas Sewerage undertaker Thames Water Property Services Water undertaker South East Water Three Valleys Water Dynamco Ministry of Defence Defence Estates Directorate of Organisation and Management Development The Planning Inspectorate The Planning Inspectorate The Theatre Trust GOSE Government Office for the South East

Appendix 2- List of General Consultation Bodies

Consultation Requests Mrs Burchnall-Wood G Daniel A R Davies Mr Hill L D Toman Jane Light Tina Simpson Sylvia Trevis Tim Wootton Mr Sutton Bernard Edwards

Mr Stanley B Veit Philip Woodhams Lawson Wild M J Gale Dave Sharp Lysander Cutler Kathleen James Graham Sharp A Yapp G Welham J Barber LR Atif Fauzy S McCarthy Natalie Strood S Dassanaike Katy Walker Martin Taylor Alastair Grant Lorraine Kelly Matthew Inman Mr & Mrs G Cook Julian Bailey Olwen Fordham Robert Gristwood Phil Burchell Emma Hardman V Jones P Osada Ms Langton Anthony Stevens Avril Voller General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Monica Bishop Mark Seymour Mrs Daborne Paul Silwood Louise Pryer T Goodall Laura Roff Mr Clark Julian Pacey Hallam Land Management Cliff Walsingham & Company

DevPlan UK Royal Mail Group HLL Humberts Leisure Consulting Vail Williams Development Planning Partnership King Sturge LLP UN Association CAMRA GL Hearn Ltd Cruise bereavement Stewart Roff Associates GVA Grimley Princegate Estates

Economic Consultees 3M (UK) Ltd Avis Europe PLC BMW (GB) Ltd Boehringer Ingelheim Bracknell Regeneration Trust Cable & Wireless Dell Computer Corporation Fujitsu Siemens Ltd Hewlett-Packard Ltd Honeywell Control Systems Ltd Hutley Holdings Legal & General Properties Novell UK Ltd M&S, The Meadows Overbury Panasonic Qunitiles Morrisons Sainsburys Schroders Simens Nixdorf Syngenta Tesco SmithKline Beecham Waitrose Supermarkets TRL Support Shop Ltd Bracknell Forest Chamber of Commerce and Industry Thames Valley Economic Partnership

General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Blackwater Valley Enterprise Trust Bracknell Job Support Centre European Information Centre Crowthorne Enterprise Centre Educational Consultees Bracknell and Wokingham College Newbold College Oxford Brookes University Wellington College Royal Military Acadamy BFBC - Education & Libraries, Seymour House Brackenhale School Easthampstead Park School Edgbarrow School Garth Hill School Ranelagh CE Sandhurst Comprehensive School

Ascot Heath Infant School Ascot Heath CE Junior School Binfield CE Primary School Birch Hill Primary School Broadmoor Primary School College Town Infant & Nursery School College Town Junior School Cranbourne Primary School Crown Wood CE Primary School Crowthorne CE Primary School Fox Hill Primary Great Hollands Infant School Great Hollands Junior School Harmans Water Primary School Holly Spring Infant & Nursery School Holly Spring Junior School Meadow Vale Primary School New Scotland Hill Primary School Owlsmoor Primary School The Pines Primary School Sandy Lane Primary School St Joseph's Catholic Primary School St Margarets Clitherow Catholic School St Michael's CE Primary School St Michael's Easthampstead Primary School Uplands Primary School

Warfield CE Primary School Whitegrove Primary School Wildridings Primary School Winkfield St Mary's CE Primary Wooden Hill Primary & Nursery School Kennel Lane School Environmental Consultees Babtie Environmental Berkshire Archaeology Babtie Group Berks, Bucks, Oxon Wildlife Nature Trust (BBOWNT) Berkshire Archaeology Society Berkshire Field Research Group Berkshire Record Society English Partnerships Government Office for the South East Greenham Common Trust SE Network European Information Relays Valuation Office (Reading) Planning Issues Forestry Commision England Royal Society for the Protection of Birds British Wind Energy Assocation BTCV Ministry of Defence - South East Estate Agent Consultees Berkshire Property Services Chancellors Estate Agents Connell Estate Agents Crown Estate Commissions Duncan Yeardley General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Gerry Burke & Co Halifax Estate Agents Haslams

Keith Gibbs Mann Countrywide Martin & Pole Nicholas Michael Hardy Prospect Estate Agency Prospect Lettings and Property Management Richard Worth Roger Chapman Plc Romans Estate Agents Vail Williams Wentworth Estate Agents Woolwich Property Servicse Ltd IMG Real Estate Tuffnell & Partners Email Consultees

Lisa Vanderberg Andrew Hall Lynda Taylor Paula Scarlett Richard Ireland Kate Turner Nick Griffin Anthony Clayden Annette Flowers Lawson Wild Tom Beardmore-Gray Mr D W Cullup

Mr Richard Abbott Local Groups Consultees Bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the autho rity’s area MIND Mencap Age Concern CAB Home-Start Indian Community Association African Group Red Cross NCH Bodies which represent the interests of different religious groups in the area Binfield Free Church Pastor of Crown Wood Church Churches Together in Bracknell Bodies which represent the interests of disabled persons in the authority’s area Access Panel Bracknell Users Group Berkshire Disability Information Network Bodies which represent the interests of other local groups in the authority’s area Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust Berkshire Local History Association Bracknell & District Urban Wildlife Group Health Advisory Group Bracknell Forest Senior Citizen Group Binfield Badger Group Bracknell and District Friends of the Earth General Consultation Bodies Consultation General CPRE

Voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit any part of the authorities area Berkshire Voluntary Services Binfield Village Protection Society Birch Hill Community Association Birch Hill and Hanworth CLG Bullbrook Community Association Bracknell Forest Patient & Public Involvement Forum Bracknell Forest Voluntary Action BFVA Bracknell Forest Tenants and Leaseholders Panel Bracknell Forest Voluntary Action Bracknell Forest Youth Forum Bracknell Forest Young People's Forum Bracknell PCT Patient Forum Bracknell Senior Citizen's Forum Bracknell Federation of Community Groups Chavey Down Association CVAG Crownwood Community Association Easthampstead & Wildridings Community Association Easthampstead and Wildridings CLG Farley Wood Community Centre Farley Wood Community Association Forest Park Community Association Great Hollands Neighbourhood Organisation Hanworth Community Association Harmans Water Community Association Martins Heron & The Warren Community Association The New Great Hollands Community Association The New Owlsmoor Community Association The New Priestwood Community Association North Ascot Community Association Nuptown Area Preservation Society

Priestwood Community Association Sandhurst Residents' Association Warfield Park Community Association Winkfield Residents Association Maidens Green Society Glebewood Residents' Association Cranbourne Society Soc. for Protection of Ascot & Environs The Ridgeway & Woodridge Close Residents' Assoc. The Sandhurst Action Group NORPAG Kings Ride Residents Asssociation North Ascot Resident's Association Winkfield Row Association Rambler's Association (SE Berks Group) The Garden History Society

General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Peacock Lane Action Group Priest Avenue Residents Association Carers Support Group Crowthorne Traders' Association Broad Lane Action Group Berkshire Association of Club For Young People Showman's Guild of Great Britain Berkshire County Blind Society Bracknell Action Group for the Physically Handicapped Bracknell Active Retired Associated (BARA) Bracknell Council for Voluntary Services (BCVS) British Dyslexia Association

Bracknell Crossroads Care Scheme Forestcare Samaritans Shelter Royal British Legion (Bracknell) Royal British Legion (Crowthorne) Longdown Lodge Residents Association Snaprails Resident's Association Hive Planning Woodlands Trust Touchen End & Paley Street Residents Association LSP Member Consultees Bracknell Forest Borough Council Bracknell Forest Primary Care Trust Thames Valley Police Bracknell Forest Voluntary Action Voluntary Sector Forum Lifelong Learning Partnership Waitrose Bracknell Forest Chamber of Commerce Transport Research Laboratory Ltd Bracknell Regeneration Partnership Local Council Consultees ACTVaR Guildford Borough Council Reading Borough Council Rushmoor Borough Council

Slough Borough Council Waverley Borough Council West Berkshire Council Wokingham District Council Wokingham Town Council Wokingham Without PC Hurst Parish Council Other Consultees South Hill Park Arts Centre Bracknell Sport & Leisure Centre Coral Reef - Bracknell's Water World The Look Out Discovery Centre Edgbarrow Sports Centre Sandhurst Sports Centre Downshire Golf Complex

General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Easthampstead Park Conference Centre Bracknell Library Gypsy and Traveller Organisations The Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition National Travellers Action Group National Association of Gypsy and Travellers Officers National Association of Health Workers and Travellers National Association of Teachers of Travellers Friends, Families and Travellers The Gypsy Council for Health, Education and Welfare The Gypsy Council Commission for Racial Equality Ian Baseley Associates Local Members

Councillor M J Adams Councillor Mrs M Ballin Councillor G M Barnard

Councillor M J Beadsley Councillor C Baily Councillor Mrs E C D Barnard Councillor Mrs M E Beadsley Councillor P D Bettison Councillor D P Birch Councillor Mrs G M Birch Councillor A S Browne Councillor M Brunel-Walker Councillor C R Dudley Councillor R W Earwicker Councillor R C Edger OBE Councillor A E Finch Councillor P Grayson Councillor J G Finnie Councillor J B Harrison Councillor Miss A K Haydon Councillor Mrs D A S Hayes

Councillor A H Kendall Councillor L R Jones Councillor I Leake Councillor I A McCracken Councillor R L McLean Councillor I C D Mihell Councillor T Mills Councillor P L North Councillor R C Osborne Councillor T Packham Councillor J S Piasecki Councillor Mrs S R Pile Councillor Mrs J D S Ryder Councillor E M Sargeant Councillor Mrs J M Shillcock Councillor R H Thomas Councillor J C Thompson Councillor C R M Turrell Councillor R H Wade Councillor A F Ward Councillor D J Worrall Cllr G Barnard Private Sector Consultees A C Quest Adams Holmes Associates Adrienne Hill Development Planning Consultancy Services Alan Johnson Associates Alliance Environment & Planning Andrew Kalik Associates Ltd Annington Homes Arcadia Ventures Ltd

General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Atis Real Weatheralls Balfours Bancroft Developments

Barratt Homes Ltd Thames Valley Division Barrie Taylor Associates Barton Wilmore Partnership Beaulieu Homes Ltd Beazer Homes PLC Bellway Homes Berkley Strategic Berkshire Homes

Bewley Homes PLC Biffa Waste Services Ltd Bill Reed Architecture Blue Sky Planning Bovis Homes South East Boyer Planning Ltd Brandon Gate Homes Ltd Brown & Co Bryant Homes Burrell Developments Ltd Cala Homes Carter Jonas Castlemore CDC2002 PLC Chamberlain Syrad Architecture Charles Church Southern Ltd Charles Planning Associates Chavey Down Association Cliff Walsingham & Co Planning Consultants CMA Architects Cole and Sharp Ltd

Commpro Telecommunications Compton Lacey Corrigan & Soundy & Kilaiditi Cotleigh Consultancy Ltd Cover Brothers Cover Village Homes Ltd Crescent Design Ltd Crest Nicholson Croudace Ltd Cushman & Wakefield David Wilson Homes Day Tanner Partnership Derek Homer Associates Development Planner Development Planning Partnership DevPlan UK Diocese of Portsmouth DPDS Consulting Group Dreweatt Neate Drivers Jonas DTZ Pieda Consulting Dunster & Morton Dunthorne Parker Architecture EDAW Plc Edward Irish Partnership Ellmer Homes Limited Elsmore Construction Englemere Homes Fairview New Homes Ltd FBD Savills Fourth Dimension Architectural Design General Trading & Investments Plc General Consultation Bodies Consultation General George Wimpey PLC GVA Grimley

Hall & Woodhouse Limited Hallam Land Management Harbour Properties Harrison Homes Haslams Heronsbrook Homes Ltd

Hicks Developments Ltd HLN Architects Ltd Hodson Developments PLC Hogarth Developments Ltd Ian Pankhurst Architects John Lewis PLC Jones Day Jones Lang La Salle Joseph and Partners JP Kenny Ltd Key Properties Ltd Kimberley Securities Plc Kings Oak Thames Valley Kings Sturge & Co Klein Consultancy Laing Homes Thames Valley Landmark Landscape Design Associates Langridge Planning Services Lennon Planning Linden Homes Littman Robson Llewelyn-Davis Lovejoy Homes Luff Homes MAB Ltd

Maclaren Settlement Malcolm Judd & Partners Marafeld Ltd Martin Butler Architectural Design & Planning Consultants Mason Richards Planning Mathew Allchurch McCarthy & Stone MGA Town Planners Michael Shanley Homes Millgate Homes Montagu Land Morley Properties Ltd Mulhern New Homes Ltd MVM Planning Ltd Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd National Housing Federation Nationwide Planning Network Legal Nicholas Haddon & Associates Nike Design Group One Stop P J Smith Associates Paradigm Housing Group Limited Parsons Brinckerhoff Paul & Company PC Estate Peacock Smith Persimmon Homes Phillips Planning Services Ltd Pinsett Curtis Biddle Planning & Development Partnership Planning Issues General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Planning Perspectives

Planware Premier Planning

Prodat Systems Project Planning Associates Pyfeld Properties Ltd R Clarke Planning Consultants Ltd Rapleys Red Kite Development Consultancy Redrow Homes (Southern) Limited Redrow Homes South East Ltd Richard Meadley Associates RICS RMPL Roger Miles Planning Limited Robert Aden Associates Robert Shaw Planning Robin Bradbeer Ltd Romans Professional Services RPS Group RPS Planning RPW Architects Ltd RTPI Savills

Scott Browns & Turner Ltd Shire Consultants Showmens guild of GB Slough Estates Plc Southern Housing Group Squires bridge Strathmoor Group Stride Treglown Limited Taylor Williams Daley Terence O'Rourke Ltd Tetlow King Planning The Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Reading The Bell Cornwell Partnership The D & M Planning Partnership The Development Planning Partnership The Fairfield Partnership The Graham Whitehouse Practice The Home Builders Federation - Southern Region The Keen Partnership The Planning Bureau Ltd Three Counties Planning Tourism South East Town Planning and Development Consultant Trimount Properties Tufnell & Partners Tym & Partners Wates Landmark WDM Planning Ltd West Waddy ADP Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd White Young Green Consulting Engineers White Young Green Planning General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Wilcon Homes Southern Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd Woolf Bond Planning Consultants Wyevale Garden Centres Public Employer Consultees

Acute Trust Bracknell Fire Station Broadmoor Hospital

Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Service Thames Valley Police, Bracknell Thames Valley Police, Thatcham Thames Valley Police HQ , Crowthorne West London Mental Health NHS Trust National Institute for Health and Clinical Exellance Bracknell Forest Primary Care Trust Primary Care Trust & Heatherwood & Wexham Park RoyalHospital Berkshire NHS Trust Ambulance NHS Trust - BSSO RSL Consultees

Ability Housing Association Airways Housing Society Ltd Apex Group Beacon Housing Association Chiltern Hundreds Housing Fordham Research Hanover Housing Association Housing 21 James Butcher Housing Association Levvel Consulting Ltd London & Quadrant Housing Trust Look Ahead Housing & Care Ltd Notting Hill Home Ownership Ltd Oldfield King (Architects) PACT Paradigm Housing Group Parkside Housing Group Rosemary Simmons Memorial HA Ltd Samuel Lewis Housing Trust Southern Housing Group Sovereign Housing Association Surrey Heath Housing Association Tetlow King Planning Thames Valley Housing Association The Estate Office The Guinness Trust The Housing Corporation Toynbee Housing Association Ltd Warden Housing Association Ltd William Sutton Trust Windsor Housing Ltd Transport Consultees Courtney Coaches First Beeline South West Trains Thames Trains Ltd White Young Green (Transport Consultants) Bracknell Forest Borough Council Employees

General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Chris Taylor Alison Sanders Aeneas Richardson Anthony Radford-Foley Carol Billyard Carol Cull Chris Atkins Chrissie Jagger Ms Chris Pickett Chris Vaal David Steeds

David Day Frank Goodall Gary Fewkes Helen Tranter Jane Eaton Janet Dowlman Mr Jon Freer Judith Winship Karen Campbell Kim Stevens Lorna Porter Lucia Smeraldi Lynne Dick Mark Devon Monica Bateman Neil Mathews Paul Eggleton Peter Robinson Richard Scrivener Rob Sexton Simon Mitchell Steve Loudoun Vincent Haines Vincent Paliczka Andrew Hunter Mr Bev Hindle Chris Page Colin Griffin Ginny De Haan Glen Carter Heather White Jim Naylor John Waterton Mandy Bates Manjit Virdee Martin Bourne Nigel Moore Nigel Smith Paul Trevis Peter Brooks Roger Cook Sue Cuthburt Steve McKenna Paul Beetham Steve Booth Tony Ecclesons Mayuri Naker

General Consultation Bodies Consultation General Vincent Badu

J Le Patourel Rob Cummins J Moody D Obang Kelly Hillman

Appendix 3 – Summary of Responses to Core Strategy Newsletter

Respondent Comment

Strategic Rail Authority LDF must make it clear that the SRA should be consulted at an early stage of proposals for development of rail-related facilities or infrastructure.

Key issues are:

Managing transport sustainably – concentrate new development at locations where there is potential for realistic public transport usage. Include enabling policies to ensure that rail infrastructure and/or services are enhanced commensurate to the new pressures the proposed additional development will bring.

Developer contributions for Sustainable Transport – include appropriate policy to enable contributions to be sought towards improving sustainable transport.

Proposed new Stations – Reference should be included to SRAs new stations policy & guidance, together with an indication in the text of the need for any new rail stations to meet the railway industry’s requirements for technical, commercial, and operational feasibility.

Need for Rail Station car parking – car parking levels at railway stations should be determined by the train operating companies, network Rail and the SRA in discussion with the Local Planning Authorities. Adequate parking for rail users is important if public transport is to be encouraged.

Encouragement for Rail Freight – policies should support the movement of goods by rail rather than road – draft policy suggested. English Heritage Supports current Local Plan Strategy towards sustainable development and would like to see it carried forward into the Core Strategy. Must recognise the contribution that the historic env, makes to quality of life, local character and distinctiveness. Needs to recognise the potential of conservation-led regeneration. If some DC policies on historic environment to be deleted then would like to see key principles in the Core Strategy to provide more strategic guidance and ‘hooks’ for more detailed policies. Guidance being produced for LPA’s on sustainability issues. Landscape Character Assessments should be reflected in the Plans Strategy or vision and objectives and should underpin policies for the location, nature and scale of development that set the criteria for design. Warden Housing Change of contact. Housing 21 Needs of older people must be included in the Core Strategy and all subsequent documents. Thames Valley Police Must recognise government policy in respect of crime, disorder and safe places through: - Crime & Disorder Act 1998 - Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention - Secured by Design Heatherwood & Wexham Park Keen to be involved in the development of the Core Strategy.

Hospitals Bracknell Fire Station Maintenance of a safe, clean environment has a direct link to levels of anti-social behaviour. Recycling areas can become a target for vandals and arsonists and need careful maintenance. Garage blocks are also a focus for antisocial behaviour, particularly those that are derelict. BBOWT Pleased to see importance placed on open and green spaces. Keen that the Core Strategy should address the issue of protection of areas from inappropriate development. Areas important for local biodiversity are protected within the strategy. Could incorporate such issues into the planning process through consideration of ‘Green Infrastructure’ requirements at the early stages of the planning process. Malcolm Judd & Partners No specific comments – include in future consultations. Bracknell & Ascot CPRE Need to pay careful attention to potential conflict between increased employment & improved transport. Ensure adequate consultation of local groups. Must be a finite limit to growth of Bracknell New building should be in keeping with its surroundings and environmentally friendly Must define ‘sustainability’. Waverley Borough Council No comments. Mono Consultants Limited (on Important that a telecommunications policy remains in the LDF. behalf of the Mobile Operators Policy and text suggested to be included in one of the main association) Local Development Documents such as the Core Strategy. Blue Sky Planning (on behalf of Not yet in a position to comment but will take part in future The Trustees for The Peel consultations. Centre) Wokingham Without Parish Particular concern about the rural part of the Parish along the Council line of Old Wokingham Road. Detailed comments are made on the following: The ’gradient’ of urban development between currently densely developed land and this rural area, The affect on traffic and roads, especially Old Wokingham Road and Nine Mile Ride Fears that Crowthorne together with parts of Wokingham Without perceived as Crowthorne will lose its separate identity as a village community. Government Office for the South General guidance on the content of Core Strategies. East Thames Water Key objective must be that new development is co-ordinated with the infrastructure it demands. Suggest a policy relating to water and sewerage infrastructure capacity and text, and a policy on Utilities development. Comments related to capacity of sewerage systems and the likely need for developer funding. Reference to the encouragement of surface water source control and the need for the LDF to make reference to the necessary consultation with Thames water.

Haslams Broadly support the eight suggested topics for inclusion in the Core Strategy Represent Wellington College, Crowthorne and Interlaken Investments at Murrell Hill Farm. Key issues are: Future major housing development should be focused primarily on the main town in the Borough, maximising sustainability of future development and reducing reliance on the car and encouragement of use of other forms of transport. Consider the revised housing figures in RSS will mean that the Borough will have to give considerable thought to urban expansion. Considers that urban expansion would be best accommodated on the west side of Bracknell. Barton Willmore Broadly agree with suggested topics for inclusion in the Core Strategy. Must look long term – i.e. to 2026 but recognises problems related to timing of RSS housing numbers. However, the Core Strategy should establish a clear physical direction for the future long term expansion of Bracknell town irrespective of the precise level of development which may ultimately be given. The vision should also address long term development needs in a comprehensive manner. English Nature Expect the Core Strategy to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. A key feature is the protection of biodiversity and the natural environment. Core Strategy will need to make reference to the Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Plan currently being prepared. Expect Core Strategy to contain over-arching policies that protect both statutory & non-statutory sites. Also include policies on habitat creation and enhancement. Must recognise the need for ‘green infrastructure’. Recommends standards for access to green space adopted by the Audit Commission. Nike Design Group Advocate a planned development at Amen Corner in line with the document ‘Amen Corner Planning Framework, Consultation Draft, Dec 2003’. Westbury Homes Change of consultee. Binfield Parish Council No comments but request advice regarding how objectives would be addressed. Environment Agency Expect the Core Strategy to emphasise the positive management, rather than control of, development. Strategic issues important to the EA, and discussed in detail are: - Flood Risk - Sustainable water management - Water Quality - Sustainable Design and Construction - Nature Conservation

William Sutton Housing Support issues identified for the Core Strategy. Also could Association address: - ODPM desire for higher densities - Height of buildings to be constructed in Bracknell - Traffic management and Park and Ride - Car parking provision and balance between needs of disabled and families with young children.

Appendix 4 - Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

Consultation body Other Environmental Bodies BBOWT CPRE Forestry Commission Forestry Enterprise Friends of the Earth RSPB Thames Water Social and Economic Bodies Primary Care Trust Learning Skills Council Thames Valley Economic Partnership Bracknell Forest Chamber of Commerce and Industry Internal Officers – Bracknell Forest Borough Council Relevant Council Officers, including: Environmental Health, Countryside Services, Waste and Recycling, Transport, Sustainable Development, Education. Social Services, Housing Members Neighbouring Local Authorities Joint Strategic Planning Unit Hampshire County Council Hart Borough Council Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Surrey County Council Surrey Heath Borough Council Wokingham District Council Government Agencies SE England Development Agency (SEEDA) SE England Regional Assembly (SEERA) Government Office for the SE (GOSE)

Appendix 5 – Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report – consultation responses

At the scoping stage, responses were received from the organisations below. These comments were incorporated into a revised Scoping Report, upon which the Initial Sustainability Appraisal was based. Future iterations of the appraisal, i.e. the draft Final SA, will also include these comments. Respondent at Scoping Stage Comment summary Response included within revised Scoping Report English Heritage and subsequent iterations of the Final Sustainability Report Response included within revised Scoping Report English Nature and subsequent iterations of the Final Sustainability Report Response included within revised Scoping Report Countryside Agency and subsequent iterations of the Final Sustainability Report Response included within revised Scoping Report Environment Agency and subsequent iterations of the Final Sustainability Report Response included within revised Scoping Report Joint Strategic Planning Unit and subsequent iterations of the Final Sustainability Report Bracknell District Urban Wildlife Response included within revised Scoping Report Group / Bracknell Forest Senior and subsequent iterations of the Final Sustainability Citizen’s Forum / Health Advisory Report Group Response included within revised Scoping Report Housing Strategy Committee and subsequent iterations of the Final Sustainability Report Bracknell Forest Borough Council officers Energy Conservation and Commented on the baseline data and suggested Promotions Officer additional data Commented on the baseline data and suggested Wildlife Ranger additional data Senior Performance and Commented on the baseline data and suggested Improvement Officer additional data Community Safety Information Commented on the objectives Officer Commented on the objectives, baseline data, plans Lifelong Learning Officer and programmes Commented on the baseline data and suggested Transport Planning Officer additional data Commented on the baseline data and suggested Senior Environmental Health Officer additional data

Appendix 6: Summary of consultation

Date Who How Actioned Comments 4-week consultation period; report of Statutory Specific consultees listed in Appendix 1 responses available on Minimum of the SCI Targeted mail; newsletter on Core Strategy 08-Oct-04 BF Online

Specific consultees listed in Appendix 1 4-week consultation of the SCI Targeted mail; newsletter on Allocated Sites DPD 10-Jan-05 period

Specific consultees listed in Appendix 1 Targeted mail; copy of Issues & Options papers & of the SCI summary of initial SA 4-week consultation period; report of General consultees listed in Appendices responses available on 2 & 3 of the SCI Targeted mail; newsletter on Core Strategy DPD 08-Oct-04 BF Online

General consultees listed in Appendices 4-week consultation 2 & 3 of the SCI Targeted mail; newsletter on Allocated Sites DPD 10-Jan-05 period

General consultees listed in Appendices Targeted mail; copy of Issues & Options papers & Sent to all consultees 2 & 3 of the SCI summary of initial SA with covering letter.

For Initial Sustainability Appraisal, consult specific consultation bodies Targeted mail; copy of the Initial Sustainability 5-week consultation listed at Appendix 1 of the SCI Appraisals period

Officers held face to face meetings early on in the local plan review process. The new BFBC LDF SEERA, SEEDA, Highway Agency, process was outlined and issues relating to Between English Nature, English Heritage, & consultation with agencies with environmental January & In-breadth Environment Agency responsibilities were discussed. May 2004 Additional General public Nov 04 Engage- Information, newsletters and Issues & Options papers onwards ment In- available on BF Online; free access at libraries & breadth Council offices General public Article published in Town & Country 11/11/2004 July article highlighted & July 2005 some of the key areas to be addressed in the Issues & Options Document and contact information. All members of the community Media

All members of the community Targeted mail/e-mail- with existing consultees & selected stakeholders, groups and other hard to reach groups in this way initially. Consult everyone on data base. All members of the community who wish Questionnaire - To inform policies in CS & SAD, Initially a questionnaire to respond views were sought on a series of policy statements. was sent to selected The statements were organised under a series of consultees on data base themes discussed more fully in CS & SAD DPD. The and a newsletter sent to response form was available on-line & as a hard everyone else. copy. Relative support/opposition will inform Subsequently, a copy of preparation pf preferred policies the on-line questionnaire was posted to all 45,000 Borough residents on the weekend of the 23-24 July. Deadline for responses extended to the 31 st August.

In- breadth Residents, visitors, elderly, children, Posters giving information about the LDF process; 01/04/05 & A poster explaining the young people, working parents placed in community centres, GP surgeries, leisure 26/06/05 consultation process centres, libraries, nurseries, play areas, schools & and covering letter colleges, shops, supermarkets, toddler groups requesting the poster be displayed was sent to specific venues including libraries & community centres

In-depth High profile event Invitation only, to Launch Event - Late afternoon/early evening. Launch selected stakeholders e.g. community LDF presentation and exhibition, Question and event held groups, development industry. answer session. at the This event was attended Representatives of the local press Grange by 47 invited guests attended. Hotel, representing the local Bracknell community, parish on 4 th July council’s, BFBC 05 at members & officers. After 5.30pm refreshments, 13-Dec-04 In-depth Presentation on LDF process, and general discussion meetings Federation of Community Associations at meeting 18-Apr-05 Presentation on LDF & SCI process, general Preferred Partners Registered Social discussion at meeting, and clarification of where Landlords meeting affordable housing issues will be dealt with 26-Apr-05 Presentation on LDF & SCI process, and general Tenants and Leaseholders’ Panel discussion at meeting 12 th July Discussion on progress of Core Strategy & cross 2005 Meeting with Wokingham District Council boundary issues. 12 th July Senior Citizens Forum LDF presentation and discussion 2005 19 th July Federation of Community Groups LDF presentation and discussion 2005 19 th Jul Tenants & Leaseholders Panel 2005 19 th July Bracknell Town Council Presentation on Core Strategy & Site Allocation document, interspersed with Q&A’s 2005 8th September Local Strategic Partnership Housing Consultation Workshop 2005 Format of presentation/workshop 9-11 th based on a two hour Bracknell Youth Parliament Taking part in residential weekend September session. Developers Update meeting ( Invitations Presentation at Easthampstead Park Conference 12 th sent to approx 50 developers who Centre with Q & A session. September submitted sites for possible future 2005 housing development, and other major developers in the Borough 13 th Bracknell Primary Care Trust Update on Peacock Fm, Staff College & T.Centre September Ongoing face to face meetings with developers, Wokingham District Council and other local Authorities will take place on request. All members of the community “Meet the Planner Sessions” Q & A’s based around a small exhibition at parish councils, libraries (during opening times).

July 5 th & Meet the Planner 6th Sessions Crowthorne PC Meet the Planner July 11 th & Sessions Binfield PC 12 th

Meet the Planner

July 14 th & Sessions Bracknell PC th 15 Meet the Planner th July 19 & Sessions Warfield PC th 20 Meet the Planner July 25 th & Sessions Winkfield PC 26 th

Meet the Planner July 29 th 1 st Sessions Sandhurst PC August In-depth Targeted to relevant community Planning Work Shops- targeted by parish. Structure groups/interest groups and parish/town meeting, highlight main issues. Carry out planning councils but also attended by individuals. exercises, and report back.

July 7 th Workshop Session at 2005 Crowthorne PC July 13 th Workshop Session at 2005 Binfield PC July 18 th Workshop Session at 2005 Bracknell TC July 21 st Workshop Session at 2005 Warfield PC July 27 th Workshop Session at 2005 Winkfield PC August 8 th Workshop Session at 2005 Sandhurst TC

Appendix 7- Copy of ‘your views’ questionnaire (to follow)

Appendix 8 – Summary of issues raised at Town and Parish Workshops

Crowthorne Residents see Crowthorne as an ‘ entity ’ Definition : a) Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law. b) The fact of existence; being. c) The existence of something considered apart from its properties. Contradiction of what residents want. Increased traffic in area Vision for Community is missing from BFB

Binfield Better design quality of smaller development units taking into consideration energy savings. Development to be set back from road, to allow for off-road parking. With reasonable prices. Good village facilities, but felt they are oversubscribed Concerns over empty office buildings, felt that economy in Bracknell is returning, however growth type is different. Don’t need old style buildings. Concerns over car ownership rising, travel to work is up, cross travel in/out work.

Warfield Received mixed views on Bracknell Town Centre & Redevelopment – vibrancy is wanted/unwanted Comments made about development in North Bracknell, felt the north is inadequately provided with local facilities (Schools/Drs etc). North Bracknell schools are currently full, South Bracknell schools have vacancies. Traffic movement concern over different way people live today and loss of industry within Borough.

Winkfield Main issue of concern was lack of school places available for current residents, let alone any new build development. Empty office blocks raised concern, comment put forward of demolition and replace with housing. Concerns rose over lack of local doctor’s facilities and continuation of Heatherwood Hospital. Peacock Farm development was raised as developer has not started building and planning consent was issued some time ago.

Bracknell Town Concerns raised over personal safety when walking/cycling (especially when using underpasses) Issues raised about flatted development not fitting in with countryside Concerns rose over transport issues to outside borough locations, eg. Wexham Park Hospital Education requirements vary throughout the borough; need to work out demographics to identify education needs in BFBC and adjoining boroughs.

Sandhurst Town No minuted comments (no one in attendance).

Appendix 9 – Your Views Responses – Questions 1 - 36 Responses at 11 th November 05 Responses are in percentage of respondents.

Question I believe that the Borough Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly No number Council should: Agree disagree response 1 Promote development 36 35 7 11 6 4 primarily within the existing settlements 2 Promote development 4 11 10 34 36 5 primarily outside existing settlements 3 Plan for a number of smaller 19 50 11 9 7 4 extensions to settlements rather than one large extension, if development outside settlements is necessary. 4 Plan for one larger community 4 10 13 37 27 8 extension to existing settlements. 5 Continue to maintain the 82 13 2 1 0 2 Green Belt boundaries and protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. 6 Continue to protect sites of 85 12 1 0 0 1 nature conservation and landscape importance. 7 Promote development only at 37 38 11 6 4 4 the level already planned for in the Berkshire Structure Plan (an average of 532 dwellings per year). 8 Plan communities which are 45 40 6 2 3 3 able to deliver a range of services and facilities to support the community. If development takes place outside the settlement boundaries, I would prefer to see it within area(s) 9 A – South West of Bracknell 18 27 13 15 21 6 10 B – West of Bracknell 12 25 17 18 18 7 11 C – North of Bracknell 11 24 13 18 28 6 12 D – East of Bracknell 9 23 15 18 28 8 13 See below I believe that the Borough Council should: 14 Promote a mix of types, sizes 39 49 5 3 2 2 and styles of new houses to meet local needs. 15 Include a policy on providing 36 44 9 5 4 2 housing to meet all income levels. 16 Promote higher densities of 19 34 15 18 11 3 housing within a 10 minute walk (800m) of town, district and village centres or good public transport. 17 Promote limited employment 10 35 18 26 6 5 growth 18 Promote higher levels of 11 27 22 26 9 5 employment growth 19 Promote “smart” growth which 36 46 10 4 1 3 encourages real growth within existing businesses in the Borough without the need for large amounts of new floorspace or employees. 20 Promote employment 10 28 17 28 14 4 development through identifying new sites within the Borough to attract new business to the area. 21 Protect and promote 34 54 6 2 1 3 employment development on existing employment sites in the Borough.

22 Allow some of the under-used 34 46 7 8 4 2 employment areas to be developed for other uses including housing. 23 Promote alternatives to ease 45 42 6 3 1 2 the impacts of car use while also planning for car use. 24 Promote public transport and 30 27 13 18 9 2 use measures to limit the use of the car. 25 Promote new development 36 41 12 6 2 3 close to jobs and public services (e.g. doctor surgeries, food stores) to reduce the need to travel by car or public transport. 26

27 Protect areas which have a 82 16 1 0 0 1 high nature conservation value or contribute significantly to the countryside character of the Borough. 28 Continue to provide policies 54 39 4 1 0 2 which ensure high quality design and layout on all new development 29 Seek local recycling facilities 56 36 5 1 1 1 in all new developments 30 Require developers to 45 37 13 2 1 2 incorporate alternative energy sources into their development. 31 Require developers to ensure 46 41 9 1 1 2 the sustainable use of natural resources in new development. 32 Promote policies which limit 54 35 7 2 1 1 the effects of known causes of climate change e.g. emissions from fossil fuels, transport etc 33 Promote policies which seek 53 37 7 1 1 2 to reduce the impacts of climate change e.g. flooding, extreme temperatures. 34 Continue to promote a mix of 53 40 5 1 0 1 uses in the town centre to better serve the residents of Bracknell Forest. 35 Ensure that Bracknell town 38 40 13 6 1 2 centre is the focus for new employment, retail and housing development in the Borough. 36 Promote the regeneration and 39 43 11 4 2 2 success of the smaller community and neighbourhood shopping centres (e.g. Crowthorne, Binfield, Sandhurst).

Question 13 From the list below tick the five most important to your quality of life: % respondents Access to local health services 13 Good job opportunities 7 Access to local parks and natural areas 11 Access to good bus and rail facilities 10 Providing a choice of homes 6 Access to local schools 7 Quality of the local built environment 9 Protecting the countryside 13 Reducing rubbish and pollution 11 A safe environment 13 Other 2

Question 26: In order to help us to consider where new developments should be located, and the type of services that should be provided on new development please identify which of the following you would most like to live within a five minute walk of? Rank 1 – 7 with number 1 being most important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Food shops 20 26 23 16 8 5 2 Health facilities 26 25 20 13 9 5 1 Parks and natural spaces 24 14 18 18 15 7 3 Job opportunities 4 4 6 10 15 32 28 School 12 13 9 9 10 18 28 Other shops 1 3 7 16 24 19 29 Public transport i.e. bus stop or rail station. 14 15 17 19 18 11 7

Appendix 10 – Summary of responses to Questions 37 – 39 of ‘Your Views’

Question 37 – Comments on a Vision

Summary

Broad Issue Summary of Issues Response

About the Should include reference to desirable location to live and work, The vision will be implemented and monitored Borough range of facilities, forward-looking and ambitious and through the Core Strategy policies and other DPD environmental issues. policies. These and the vision seek to improve quality Concerns that the Borough Council should focus on of life for those who live work and visit the Borough. responsibilities not vision. Concern that vision should become a reality

Bracknell Town Comments supporting redevelopment for a mix of uses to The vision makes reference to the importance of the Centre attract a range of shoppers and visitors and give a sense of regeneration of Bracknell Town Centre and is identity. supported by a specific Core policy. More detail will Concern that redevelopment must be a priority, should take be include within the Site Allocations Development place before further expansion Plan Documents and other guidance such as the Some concerns about the level of proposed development Town Centre Masterplan. Specific concerns regarding the design and materials Concerns regarding the traffic implications of the town centre, the need for adequate parking and public transport facilities Centre should be something unique, remember origins No further out of town superstores Promote fair trade products Rates should be reduced Redevelopment is not a priority

Community Need to encourage diversity, sense of community A key element of the vision and the strategy is to Create open, friendly, safe neighbourhoods with sense of contribute to the delivery of cohesive communities community through the design and layout of new development, Town centre lets down sense of community through improvements to the built environment and the provision of social and physical infrastructure.

Density/Design Concerns about design/character of high density flatted The broad vision in the Core Strategy seeks to developments ensure good design is achieved in all new Must deliver high quality design, consider visual impact, development and this is supported by a broad Core character etc design policy. More detailed policies will be contained Concern about flats in North Ascot/Crowthorne etc within other Development Plan Documents. Comments regarding need for good design on specific issues, for example design of new housing estates, consideration of trees Concern about impact of high density development on local value. Concern that don’t overdevelop close to town centre.

Education Educational opportunities should be given greater prominence. The vision makes reference to the need for adequate Should promote adequate provision for schooling, and promote social infrastructure including educational facilities. A excellent standards specific Core Policy is proposed which seeks to Need quality, affordable out of school activities for teenagers support the land use elements of lifelong learning. Specific comments relating to Garth

Elderly Need improved services and facilities for the elderly (transport, The vision seeks to improve quality of life for all health, safety etc) residents. Concerns about ageing population

Employment Comments regarding the amount of empty office space in the The vision seeks to reinforce the importance of town centre and close to residential areas. Bracknell as a business centre supported by specific Need to support diverse economy – e.g. light industry not just Core policies. IT. Bracknell has potential for significant growth Retain major employers Provide adult education to support local jobs Local shops and businesses can’t survive without sufficient parking

Environment Must aspire to a high quality environment, protecting open The vision and Core policies seek to recognise the space, green areas, trees for future generations importance of the natural and built environment to Protection of Green Belt quality of life in the Borough. The broad strategy Shouldn’t extend beyond settlements into countryside seeks to protect the most important elements of the Opposed to development at The Rough environment. Care for the environment must be a priority Quality has improved but still some way to go – make sure potential impacts considered and compensated for. Waste management, recycling and control of pollution important Maintain gaps to prevent coalescence Better street cleaning More education on environment needed

Housing More good quality affordable housing for low incomes, local The vision recognises that as required by people and key workers Government there will be continued residential Need a mix and choice of housing development. The proposed strategy seeks to Development should be on brownfield sites promote development on previously developed land Concern at control of central Government (brownfield sites) but recognises that not all future Concern at social implications of low cost, subsidised housing growth will be accommodated in this way. The Concern at implications of buy to let strategy sets a broad framework for achieving a mix Preference for a particular housing type e.g bungalow, small of dwelling types. dwellings No more houses, concern at intensification Not to promote multiple house ownership Concern at Met office development Control estate agents signs

Infrastructure Sports facilities required for all ages The vision recognises the need for adequate social Need better health facilities, including hospital, and better and physical infrastructure to go alongside new access development. This is supported through the Core Infrastructure before more housing/development policies. Must use planning powers to secure infrastructure Spend less on design & development which doesn’t benefit locals Support for both convenience and comparison facilities in accessible locations Better provision for elderly Water is a key concern. Limit mobile phone masts North Ascot specifically needs health and school facilities Specific comments re need for better schools, places of worship, quality of existing facilities. No objection to Staff College so long as infrastructure provided.

Leisure & Support for wider range of quality leisure & sports facilities The Core policies recognise the importance of leisure Entertainment and recreational facilities but are not specific about Suggestions for need to support specific facilities including, the promotion of particular uses and facilities. restaurants and bars, concert hall, bowling, sports and training facilities Support for existing facilities e.g. Look Out More potential at The Point Safe & accessible open spaces, recreational facilties Vision should say more about leisure, entertainment & culture More facilities for specific age groups Police should take more action on damage to parks & playgrounds

Level of Area at optimum development level The level of housing development is allocated by the Development Government and must be planned for in a Housing should be low priority, will affect quality of life sustainable way. The vision and Core policies seek to Only support modest build rate. ensure the provision of adequate infrastructure as set Concern at specific level of developments in Crowthorne and out above. North Ascot Vision focused too much on housing & profit for developers Comments made regarding the need to ensure adequate infrastructure Limit the number of flats, need smaller homes with gardens Protect older areas, don’t turn into a mini London

Local Must maintain character of towns and villages (e.g. Crowthorne The principles set out in the vision and Core Strategy Distinctiveness & Binfield) seek to recognise the character of different Principles too ‘woolly’ settlements and to set a framework against which the Protect older areas from flatted developments principles of new development will be considered. Must protect open space in the Borough, maintain ‘countryside’ feel.

Location of Make more use of brownfield land The vision promotes the re use of previously Development developed land and also considers the location of Don’t extend beyond settlements, impact on quality of life new housing development. This is dealt with more Focus on Bracknell Town Centre & environs specifically in the Site Allocations DPD. Need new homes – put on outskirts not overdeveloping existing areas Core policies seek to set a framework for the Re-use empty office buildings protection of open space and the delivery of New housing sites must be accessible adequate social and physical infrastructure. Concern at infilling in North Ascot Redevelop Sandhurst Town Centre Protect amenity/open space Protect employment areas for employments and housing areas for housing Peacock farm & Amen Corner are the best places for development Focus on towns not villages Concern about existing infrastructure Need to ensure regeneration of all areas not just Bracknell Town centre Development should be encouraged to north of England.

Quality of Life Mustn’t erode quality of life The vision seeks to improve quality of life for all who Make Bracknell a better place, improve image live, work and visit the Borough through the broad High levels of development will not improve Quality of Life spatial strategy set out in the Core policies. Protect green areas Quality of life is a priority Need to consider needs of specific groups, and work/life balance Includes access to a range of facilities e.g. schools, health Regeneration will improve Quality of Life Need to maintain high quality built environment

Recycling Need to make stronger policies to encourage more recycling The vision does not make specific reference to Control burning of rubbish recycling however proposed policy approaches seek to increase sustainable resource use.

Safety Need more local police stations and greater police visibility The vision does not make specific reference to safety Improve safety measures for walking however, a specific Core policy approach has been Continue commitment to safety measures and cleanliness suggested.

Sustainable Maintain a balance between social, environmental and The vision seeks to ensure that new development is Development economic issues. accommodated in the most sustainable manner – this Take account of sustainable community policy set out in UK is supported through the Sustainability Appraisal of Sustainable Development Strategy the proposed policy approaches. Not Council’s concern, why need sustainable growth Encourage people to stay in their own homes Is it compatible with high economic growth

Timescale 10 years is too long – shorter milestones/timescales Guidance suggests that the Core Strategy should Encourage developers to consider long term look long term – preferably to the same timescale as Support long term issues the Regional Spatial Strategy (2026). Site Allocations policies and proposals should look at least ten years forward from the date of adoption (currently anticipated to be 2008).

Transport Need adequate car parking in new developments and at The vision includes reference to the need for town/village centres improved accessibility in the Borough and to key Improve reliability, cost and provision of public transport locations. This is supported by two suggested Core Concerns over traffic congestion/heavy goods policy approaches which consider the transport Separate pedestrians, cyclists from road traffic needs of new development and accessibility issues. Limit road signs Site specific improvements are not considered in the Better overall accessibility, radical solutions Vision. Encourage measures to increase walking, cycling Use minibuses not large empty buses Better train and bus integration More road safety schemes Improved transport for specific groups Concerns at impact of more development on transport infrastructure Road improvements - general Specific road improvements: Underpass/overpass at twin bridges Link between M3 & M4 not via A329 Reroute A321 to bypass Yorktown Rd/High Street Downshire Way should be dual carriageway Upgrade/widen A3095 Bus from BTC to Heathrow Night buses to Reading and London Ring road and park & ride Concern at impact of Staff College development on roads

Must state are against third runway at Heathrow Against congestion charging Once large development will deliver solutions better than several small ones

Youth Provide stimulating development opportunities for youth The vision seeks to improve quality of life for all including better public transport, facilities to keep away from residents of the Borough but does not consider drugs and drinks, and out of school facilities specific groups in detail. Focus on young people, future of the Borough

Other Support suggested elements of vision, provided delivered The new system for preparing planning policies and Don’t waste money on short term improvements proposals gives greater emphasis on community Borough will do what it wants regardless involvement and engagement in the process. Residents should have greater influence Encourage integration with other plans and strategies A key element of the Core Strategy (and other Too vague Development Plan Documents) is to integrate with Many issues are in conflict – need balance other strategies and where relevant these are referred to in the Core Strategy. Improve on what we have

Social inclusion

Question 38 - Comments on Objectives Summary Objective Summary of Issue Response

Sustainable Environmental sustainability is vital and should be given more The strategy proposed through the Core strategy Development emphasis in all objectives. seeks to ensure that the principles of sustainable Controlled, sensitive balance is needed for housing, development are met in meeting the future growth employment & shopping areas and the location of recycling needs of the Borough. plants and alt. energy resources, to avoid overcrowding, rise in crime rate, unemployment & pollution There is now a statutory requirement for local Saturation point has been reached planning authorities to undertake their functions with Need strong leadership from the Council on sustainability, that a view to contributing to the achievement of does not allow developer greed to blind judgement sustainable development. Objective A Underlying assumption on growth-why? The Borough Council is required to plan for a certain Keep a good balance of employment and housing with number of dwellings each year as allocated by necessary facilities to cut down on commuting Government. Whilst it is unlikely that everyone will Why so many empty office blocks, apartments, so few housing work where they live, promoting a balance between association developments? the number of workers and the number of jobs, helps Allow more people to qualify for key worker housing to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development. Objective B Balanced approach to housing with a good mix of all housing The broad strategy set out in the vision and Core types (with adequate parking) including affordable housing and policies seeks to provide a framework to aid the key worker housing (which should be available to private/other delivery of a mix of housing types to meet a range of non profit making sectors and semi skilled workers). housing needs in the Borough. A slight amendment Improve existing housing stock to meet increasing needs to this objective has been made. Would not welcome affordable/key worker housing in my community. Would be disappointed if existing community impacted Current housing development is for the benefit of property developers Objective C Support the regeneration of Bracknell town centre This objective supports the priority in the Sustainable Do not believe regeneration will happen or is needed community plan and the Borough Council’s medium Housing should be accommodated in regenerated town centre term objectives. The detail of the redevelopment Redevelopment should be limited to retail facilities and not proposals will be determined through implementation include additional housing of the town centre master plan and the planning Proposals for the arts, culture (theatres, galleries), applications. cafes/restaurants and space to socialise are missing from plans, something different. Seen as key to attracting all ages once shops have closed Need shops large, upmarket, specialist Reduce rents and you will regenerate Want a safe shopping environment Need to support town centre residents Lament passing of 1960’s Bracknell Suggest a panel of Bracknell residents to choose shops, clubs and cafes Objective D Restrict development to brownfield /built up areas This objective seeks to ensure that development Prevent expansion of the settlements, SE already takes place in the most sustainable locations in the overpopulated and cannot sustain further growth Borough. The sequential approach is reflected in New development should blend in Core policies. Ensure all communities are regenerated not just Bracknell town centre Promote new settlement to ease pressure on Binfield Build according to need Objective E Only very reliable, cheap, accessible (hop on, hop off) public This objective seeks to ensure that new development transport will get people out of their cars is accessible by a choice of transport modes. Support objective Detailed transport considerations will be dealt with Bracknell roads to big & fast through documents such as the Local Transport Plan A car is a necessity not a luxury and in the Site Allocations Development Plan Network overloaded and can’t cope. Need to increase capacity Document. The Core Strategy seeks to ensure that rather than just charge commuters more development is located in accessible locations

Improve local public transport links London rail link, access to through the sequential approach, or that sufficient Heathrow, bus service from North Ascot to Ascot station, shuttle transport infrastructure can be provided to allow bus to Crowthorne , night time buses, access to hospitals travel through a choice of modes of transport. Sorting out local transport issues should be a priority e.g. School run, congestion on Bagshot Rd Further development without restructuring road systems will increase traffic problems Garages should be built and used to keep cars off roads Bracknell suffers as a link fro M3 to M4, accessibility as commuter zone questionable Promoting alternative transportation should not deter people from using their car Road maintenance worst in country, must include more roads Objective F Support this objective This objective is supported through core policies on Need well designed, sustainable/’eco’ friendly housing design and will be supported in more detail through Design of Bracknell town centre should reflect its rural area existing ‘saved’ Local Plan policies and through Council tax implications for good design policies to be developed in the Development Incorporate adequate public and private amenity space into new Management Development Plan Document. housing development New development should be in keeping with Binfield Objective G More housing and more people must be balanced with provision Concerns regarding the ability of infrastructure to of improved community facilities including a hospital with A&E, keep up with new development was identified during schools, doctors surgeries etc. the issues and options consultation process. This Ensure quality of life and facilities for existing residents objective and associated Core policies seeks to Provision for young people should be made ensure that infrastructure is provided alongside new Poor place to get educated. This must be addressed development. Provision of public transport, shops and doctors surgery in Little Sandhurst would create more of a sense of community Consider the needs of an ageing population Need to insure incremental housing growth does not over stretch community facilities, should be provided by developers Utilities and roads must be provided before development e.g. Staff College site Housing and employment growth must accommodate provision for the learning and physically disabled BFBC provides good communications, excellent services and facilities now. Regenerate swimming facilities Objective H Impossible Accessible development will be delivered through the Development should not be at the cost of community and choice of location and provision of infrastructure. environment Objective I Protect the environment, mitigate the effects of development These issues are considered under relevant Consider the effects of development on existing communities proposed Core policies. Consider the design of new housing Maintain clear boundaries between residential and industrial areas Objective J Economic growth must be sustainable The Borough Council has undertaken an Not convinced of need for high level growth Employment Potential Study 2005 to help inform Too many empty offices proposed Core Strategy policies. Subject to certain Council should avoid meddling with employment policy criteria the re-use of employment land and buildings Crowthorne lags behind for other uses may be acceptable. Objective K Promote the sustainable use and disposal of resources These detailed issues are addressed through the Water resources should be highlighted Core policy approaches. Recycling in Bracknell could be improved Objective L Mitigate against and adapt to climate change The impact on climate change is assessed through Leave this to Central Government the sustainability appraisal, and through the vision Objective L and D appear to contradict and Core policies set out in the Core strategy. All development should adhere to EIA guidelines Power station on 3M roundabout would be contrary to vision and objectives Objective M Against objective In order to deliver the housing requirement, and to Supports this objective ensure that infrastructure is provided alongside new Needs careful watching in view of development pressures development, regular monitoring of development will take place and will be reported through the Annual Monitoring Report. Other Support all objectives, hope they are all achievable These issues are considered either through the Core Admirable but empty words policy approaches or will be considered through more Must consider existing communities/local areas and views of detailed policies in other Development Plan residents Documents. Consider the needs of youth, elderly disabled and other minority groups Include objective relating to a safer environment Include objective relating to being flexible to changing economic climate Promote computer tech. in the home to reduce pressure on roads and facilities Objectives cater for physical needs of community; Council also has a duty to address spiritual needs Socio-economic system has natural forces that lead to house building for profit; no similar balancing forces to protect environment and quality of life Do not want objectives to result in council tax increases

Question 39 – Additional Comments Summary

Broad Issue Summary of Issues Response

Bracknell Town Support regeneration, including mix of uses, including Both the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Preferred options Centre for community services and open space. deal with the principles of the regeneration of Bracknell Town Avoid mistakes of the past Centre. The detailed considerations will be through the Town does not need redevelopment, or should be implementation of the town centre Master plan and the small scale determination of planning applications. Improve safety, e.g. tunnels and underpasses Support for flowers and plantings Concern at 3M eyesore More effort on outlying villages Consider re-use of Peel Centre for housing Concern at power station Bring back the Co-op

Brownfield Sites Do not develop sites already used for leisure Proposed policy approaches seek to maintain and enhance Concern at impact of new development on character leisure facilities. A proposed core policy approach on design and infrastructure of College Town along with ‘saved’ local plan policies seeks to protect important Use houses on Broad lane and Staff College for aspects of character. cheaper houses to rent.

Climate Change Support promotion of renewable energy alternatives The proposed strategy seeks to reduce the impact of climate and energy efficient construction, measures must be change through the location of new development and through affordable. for example proposed policy approaches seeking to increase Question evidence of climate change sustainable construction methods. Assessment of policy Concern at vehicle emissions on e.g. asthma impacts through the sustainability appraisal will assess any Build a waste incinerator plant with recoverable potential impacts on climate change. energy Beware of alternatives that do more harm than good.

Cycling and Need top class access for pedestrians and cyclists Detailed provision of facilities will be identified through the Site Walking especially to centres, and integral to new Allocations Development Plan document, and supported development through the LTP framework. Secure bike storage and short term spaces Limit cycleways on pavements as conflict with pedestrians

Density Concern at continued increase in densities on parking Appropriate densities will be considered through the and quality of life development control process having regard to saved and Concern regarding densities in Crowthorne emerging design and character policies.

Design Recent developments out of character e.g. North The Core Strategy includes a proposed overarching design Ascot, Crowthorne policy which will be supported by existing ‘saved’ Local Plan Too many flats/high density at loss of large houses policies. Specific comments on design of new housing e.g. room sizes, gardens Policies should guide towards acceptable types of development Must retain character of settlements

Elderly Need to ensure adequate attention paid to needs of The Core Strategy does not identify specific groups in detail but elderly seeks to ensure the needs of all residents in the Borough are Concern about impact of ageing population considered.

Employment Concern at the level of empty employment space The broad framework proposed for future employment How to balance employment and housing development proposes a flexible approach which seeks to Concern at impact of further employment floorspace concentrate new employment development in Bracknell town on housing/congestion centre and the existing employment estates. Take more account of needs of small businesses Concern slums may be created if insufficient jobs Get people off assistance and back to work Work with neighbours to promote employment development

Environment Protect natural areas/open space/trees The broad issues of protecting areas of natural quality and Important to maintain clean environment – e.g. clear significant gaps are considered in policy approaches in the Core rubbish, reduce vandalism and graffiti Strategy. Prevent coalescence of settlements Promote recycling Improve environment on estates Specific comments re rubbish & landscaping improvements needed on A3095

Green Belt Protect Green belt The Borough Council is not identifying any changes to the Release Green Belt for affordable housing Green belt boundaries or to existing Green belt policy. Must choose sites in Green belt with care

Housing Resist regional pressure Proposed policy approaches in the Core Strategy seek to Support less housing, better infrastructure ensure that the Borough’s housing allocation is delivered and Support affordable/key worker housing that a range and mix of housing types are provided. This is Concern at impact of cheap housing and mixing supported through the identification of specific sites through the private and affordable developments Site Allocations Development Plan Document. Use empty office space Need mix of house types Need smaller units Too many small units Key workers should include public sector Encourage people to live at home until 25 and raise driving age Comments regarding speed of repairs and personal need for better housing Need to consider wider housing market

Housing Sites Object to development at The Rough, North Ascot The Site Allocations Preferred Options Document identifies Object to development at Murrell Hill and Foxley Lane future sites for residential development. Consider overdevelopment at Swedish Houses, Binfield New town could provide all the housing required and necessary infrastructure

Infrastructure New development must take account of existing The proposed policy approach in the Core Strategy and the Site infrastructure e.g. schools, health care, transport Allocations documents seek to ensure that the appropriate level Concern at impact of new development in North Ascot of infrastructure is provided alongside new development. The on infrastructure Borough Council will work with the relevant service providers in Need improved infrastructure e.g healthcare, achieving this. education (all ages), transport Need a local hospital Need to improve water resources – already at a critical level Need increased school capacity in Warfield Need mobile/drop-in centres for healthcare Large housing developments outside settlements must create community and provide key services New roadside cafes and restrooms just outside & inside Borough boundaries Need to consider impact of Heathrow 3 rd runway

Leisure & Improve evening entertainment in the town centre The approach in the Core Strategy seeks to provide a broad entertainment framework for supporting leisure and entertainment facilities. Support for arts, sports and recreational facilities including theatre, museum, concert hall Improve community facilities for all ages especially youth and elderly Need to maintain clean, safe environment Need leisure facility in north of Borough Need discount to local residents More festivals at South Hill Park Lookout excellent – don’t charge for parking

Level of Enough housing and employment development, The level of residential development is provided through the Development affects quality of life housing allocation set by Government. The level of Should reduce development development on major sites will be identified through the Site Protect character of areas such as Binfield Allocations process. Needs better infrastructure e.g. hospital not housing Staff College – no more than 730 houses, concern no Council representative at residents meeting Document sounds promising but driver seems to be ‘Lets build more houses wherever we can’

Local Protect character of each settlement/community The Core Strategy seeks to provide through core policies a Distinctiveness framework for the protection of important aspects of character Define green areas between settlements and significant gaps.

Location of New housing should be located close to dual The proposed approach in the Core Strategy seeks to focus Development carriageway & rail links development primarily in settlements. The Site Allocations Opposed to development of Area A preferred options identifies potential sites for accommodating Opposed to development of Area B future development. Opposed to development of Area D Support Area C Promote development in settlements No more development in Crowthorne Protect land beyond settlements and Green Belt Reuse employment sites Need a comprehensive approach Restrict development to Bracknell Town Centre Concern at level of infill Should renew and update Promote development on brownfield land in

sustainable locations – more in London Housing will be built as and where the Council wants

National Context Emphasis should be on regenerating other areas of The Core Strategy and Site Allocations Preferred Options have the country been prepared in the light of national guidance. Queries what guidelines we have to follow/interaction between local and central Govt

Public Transport Need fast trains to London The approach in the Core Strategy seeks to promote Must improve roads, cost of public transport development in the most accessible locations and to ensure that prohibitive/non-starter adequate infrastructure provision is provided to enable travel School bus passes through a choice of transport modes. This and more detail is Need to improve bus routes/reliability identified through the allocation of sites in the Site Allocation Improve public transport to/from Sandhurst Preferred options Document. Need station needed as part of Area B development Park & ride needed Opposed to bus lanes

Quality of Life Ensure Borough attractive to all age groups. The approach in the Core Strategy seeks to maintain and Particularly existing residents enhance quality of life in the Borough. Need to cater for all individuals Specific concerns re Winkfield Row/Little Sandhurst Need to protect from blackspots, rough areas, and take care in higher density development

Recycling Greater levels of all recycling should be encouraged Issues of recycling are considered in a proposed Sustainable e.g. glass collection, garden rubbish Resource policy.

Safety More development/people will increase crime/anti- The Safer Communities Strategy 2005-2008 identifies specific social behaviour actions to tackle crime. The Core Strategy proposes a specific Various measures suggested to improve safety overarching policy approach to Community Safety. including more community police, tighter penalties for dog fouling, mopeds on footpaths, safer bays for drop offs, slow traffic in residential areas and increased resources to drug & alcohol problems

Sub regional Concerns about proposals for expansion of the south The Core Strategy and Site Allocations Preferred Options context east, and implications for Bracknell and natural Documents have been prepared in the context of regional resources guidance. Need to consider links with adjoining communities

Sustainable Crucial to undertake full sustainability appraisal of Local planning authorities now have a statutory duty to Development development to meet the vision undertake their functions with a view to contributing to We live on an island with too many cars, roads and sustainable development. Through the Sustainability Appraisal, people for it to be a sustainable project. the sustainability of the policies and proposals will be assessed.

Traffic and Concern about traffic levels in North Ascot Policies and proposals in the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Transport Documents seek to promote development in the most Concern at congestion levels and implications of more sustainable locations and to ensure that adequate infrastructure development – need measures to reduce congestion is provided alongside new development to both reduce the need e.g. M3-M4 link, traffic control. to travel and to ensure that travel can take place through a Need improved integrated public transport choice of travel modes. Improve existing roads, recognise car use and ownership Specific movement proposals are proposed within the Site More parking required, free in town centre Allocations Preferred options Document. Less parking should be provided Possible roundabout at A3095 and Owlsmoor Road Safe crossing needed from Roman Hill into Caesars Camp Bypass (Bagshot Rd to A329M) would have avoided traffic issues related to Staff College King Edwards Rise should be improved and adopted From Sandhurst/College Town need links to Frimley Park, Camberley centre and Farnborough Station Don’t waste money on car schemes

Youth Need more investment in youth and facilities for them The broad framework set out in the Core Strategy does not Concern about entrance to All saints Scout Hut being identify particular groups but seeks to ensure that the needs of considered for access to possible development on the all residents are considered. Rough. Long lease no intention of moving

Other Glad to be consulted, support for Council Wide ranging comments. Consultation will make no difference, concerns about questionnaire The new planning system places greater emphasis on the Must benefit the whole Borough, not just Bracknell engagement of and feedback to, stakeholders and the town community. Supportive of objectives & goals Reduce the amount of centrally funded work you do Telecommunications masts will be considered under the Spend time on creative use of existing buildings and existing ‘saved’ local plan policies. open space Concentrate on what we have today and deliver 100% Reference has been made in the Core Strategy to working with better service adjoining local authorities.

Opposed to any more telecommunications masts Encourage way for people to think about the less fortunate Improve communications with residents and be more responsive to residents needs Have seen a lot if changes in Bracknell since 1968 Need more mention of working with other La’s Hygiene is the most important issue Not supportive of work of Council so far, would move if could.

47 ANNEX 3

Appendix 11 - Initial Sustainability Report – consultation responses Respondent at Initial Changes made as a result of consultation SA Stage English Heritage No comments made at this stage. EN would like to see the requirements of the BAP give rise to protection and enhancement of non-statutory sites. As a result a survey has been commissioned to map areas of biodiversity importance highlighted within the BAP in order to inform the DPDs with wider information than simply designated sites. This information will be available to be included in the next iteration of the Final SA. • EN wishes to see open space included within the Core Strategy as mitigation for the SPA. Work to identify levels of appropriate mitigation is ongoing so has not been included at this stage. • EN supports a sequential approach and the aim to maximise the re-use of PDL, with the understanding that there would be no adverse impact on existing biodiversity. This policy is preferred English Nature with mitigation on maintaining and enhancing biodiversity within these areas to be included. • They state that of the strategic areas proposed, Area A will be likely to receive objections from EN. Their preferred option is Area C which they believe is unlikely to have significant impacts on the SPA. • EN refers to the Delivery Plan as a means of deciding upon new locations for residential development. This is still in draft form so is not at a stage where the findings can be incorporated within this appraisal. • EN states that sites over 2km and within 5km of the SPA may require mitigation of adverse effects. Sites within this area have now been noted in the appraisal as potentially requiring mitigation measures.

Respondent at Initial Changes made as a result of consultation SA Stage Countryside Agency No comments made at this stage. • The use of 2 assessment scorings (i.e. + / -) has not been changed to a cumulative score of 0, in accordance with the EA suggestion, as it was felt it is important to highlight where there are both positive and negative impacts, instead of recording a cumulative 0 which may be taken to mean there is no impact. • The impact of health on social issues has been noted. • The impact of proposed sites on the biodiversity of river corridors has been included within the objectives to maintain and improve water quality in the Borough’s water courses and to protect and enhance characteristic countryside. However, important local habitats and biodiversity identified within the BAP are currently being mapped and their distribution will be used to inform future iterations of the appraisal, in addition to designated sites. Until Environment Agency this study is complete, and more detail on the biodiversity within river corridors is gathered, the loss of biodiversity will be encompassed within the above 2 objectives. • Specific comments on the appraisal of options have been included where they relate to preferred core strategy options. • Contamination of land will be considered once an assessment of the Borough is completed. • The appraisal on flooding has been altered to score sites outside flood risk areas as neutral as opposed to positive. SUDS have also been proposed as mitigation in 1 of the Core Strategy policies. • Specific comments on the site allocations with reference to flooding, loss of habitat and soil quality have been considered and changed made. • KS wishes a further objective is added, “To make best use of King Sturge existing / PDL in meeting future development”. To cover this

Respondent at Initial Changes made as a result of consultation SA Stage issue, this additional text has been added to objective 10. • KS noted that objective 14 could be interpreted as providing blanket protection for the countryside. This objective has been changed to read “To protect and enhance where possible the Borough’s characteristic countryside and its historic environment in urban and rural areas” • BW requested an explanation of the relationship of each objective to problems and opportunities in Bracknell Forest. The relationship to the Council’s Medium Term Objectives is already noted in the document. The list of objectives aims to cover the whole spectrum of sustainability impacts within the Borough and not solely focus on several issues which are key within the Borough. • The ticks in boxes next to the objectives have been re-evaluated and the main impacts (however not all possible secondary or synergistic impacts) have been identified as being predominantly of a social, economic or environmental bias. • Reference to landfill constraints has been removed from the draft Barton Willmore final version of the appraisal. • In the Site Allocations DPD the basis of the scoring for each site in both the initial SA and draft final SA is fully documented and backed up with evidence in order to remove any element of subjectivity and professional judgement. The underlying information (i.e. any technical information used in the appraisal) will also be made available. • As further iterations of the SA emerge these will include more specific appraisal and mitigation measures which can make each strategic site more sustainable. The appraisal in the initial report is at a broad strategic level. • A quality assurance checklist will signpost where the guidance

Respondent at Initial Changes made as a result of consultation SA Stage has been met and additional text will be added at the beginning of sections quoting the requirements of the SEA Directive. • The appraisal has noted the comments made on the site Drivas Jonas allocations scoring for the redevelopment of Bracknell town centre and appropriate changes have been made. Binfield Village • Specific comments on the appraisal of specific sites have been Protection Society considered and incorporated. Government Office for • How the document will be reviewed in the light of changing the South East guidance has now been included within the draft final SA report.

Appendix 12 summary of methods of consultation

Core Strategy & Site Allocations Regulation 26 Pre-submission Consultation

Statutory Minimum Statutory six week consultation period 6/105- 27/2/05 Who How Date Actioned Comments All Make sure documents and stakeholders statement of proposals matters are available for viewing at usual public buildings. An interpretation of Reg 26 gives details of what to put, where (see attached schedule). 16th January 2006 GOSE Send all documentation listed in interpretation of Reg 26 sheet. Specific Targeted mail with copies of 16th January 2006 consultees Core Strategy & Site listed in allocations DPDs. See Reg Appendix 1 26 sheet for further details of of SCI if what to send. they are likely to be affected

Targeted mail: that includes 16th January 2006 all items on Reg 26 list but not actual DPDs.

All Publish all documentation Docs went live Mon 16th On-line documents and stakeholders listed in interpretation of Reg January response form went live on 26 sheet on BF On-line 16th January. All Advertise in one local paper Statutory advert placed in A statutory advert was stakeholders details of DPDs, consultation Bracknell News on the 12th placed in the local press prior period, when/where January 2006. First press to the start of the six week documents can be inspected. release was published on consultation. 2 press See interpretation sheet for Wednesday 11 January in the releases were issued to details of what to put in braacknell Midweek publicies the consultation and advert. newspaper and a second details of the mobile press release appeared in the exhibition. A photo call was Bracknell Standard on issued for the first day of the Thursday 12 January 2006. consultation in Bracknell TC at the mobile exhibition.

Additional Consultation/ engagement General Meetings held with parish Separate meetings with public councils on 24th January, 1st Crowthorne Parish Council February, 14th February, 31st Warfield Parish Council Article already going in Dec January, & 15th February Bracknell Town Council T&C about July consultation respectively. Binfield Parish Council responses, also mentions Jan Winkfield Parish Council, '06 Consultation. Need to be were held to provide an over pro-active with town/parish view of the two consultation council's getting them to documents and a summary of disseminate information early the main planning issues. through their contacts with local community groups and publications e.g.. Binfield Beacon, Crowthorne Eye etc. (We have some details, Sam has asked Parish/town councils for other publications and deadlines). Lou has already prepared words for Winkfield which we can use and add to when we have more information on dates (probably won't publish dates until new year). Check deadline for Environment Focus & Forest Views. All members Press briefing held on 15th A Press Briefing was held of the December 2005 for members of the local community press. The briefing provided background to the CS and SA documents including Media/radio -Press releases spatial objectives and (Week before, during and highlighted the contraints follow up) and advert in local within which the documents press prior to (but not the day have been prepared. before) consultation period.

General Newsletter/information Leaflet delivered week A Summary Leaflet "Your Consultees leafle t explaining preferred beginning 24th January chance to influence new draft (including all options and including planning policies" was respondees response form. A map should destributed to all households on Uniform be included showing site and business during the database as allocations. Questions should second week of the 6 week well as be based around 'tests of consultation period consultees soundness'. Send this to all in Appendix General Consultees. Make it 1,2 & 3 of available online and at usual SCI) locations.

Local Write to groups we have Thurs 8th-9th February Meetings Attended Binfield Voluntary/ previously made Village Protection Society community presentations to (Fed.of Thurs 9th February. groups Community Grps, Youth Bracknell PCT Wed 8th groups Parliament etc) and suggest February. Local Strategic further meeting or respond to Partnership Thurs 9th requests. Perhaps these February. RSL partners meetings could be in the form meeting 30 March 2006. of a workshop?

All members "Meet the Planner The mobile exhibition/road of the Sessions" should be in the show took place between community form of a mobile exhibition Mon 16th January- Sat 25th Mobile Exhibition: The that visits once in each parish January Councils mobile exhibition before public meeting, and trailer visited 12 locations then selected venues to be around the Borough during decided on the basis of the the six week consultation areas that will be most period. "Manned" by officers affected by preferred options from the LDF Team to documents e.g.. Amen answer questions,and with a Corner, Tesco's Warfield. display of exhibition boards Exhibition should also go to summarising the Bracknell TC on first day of consultation, the exhibition consultation as a form of a visited:- Bracknell Town ''launch" of the consultation, Centre on Mon 16th January Could we have a prize draw? & Sat 25th February. Whitegrove Primary School Sat 21st January. Binfield Parish Car Park Tues 24th January. Crowthorne Market 27th January. The Meadows Shopping Centre 28th January. North Ascot Library Thurs 2nd February. Crowthorne Baptist Church Sat 4th February. Sandhurst Library Thurs 9th February. Winkfield Parish Offices Sat 11th February. Brownlow Hall Thurs 16th February. Farley Wood Centre Sat 18th February.

All members Public meetings or forums Warfield Parish Council Public Warfield Public Meeting of the to be organised by individual Meeting Thurs 23rd February Thurs 23rd community parish council. Officers to February.Organised by attend by invitation only. Warfield Parish Council & attended by approx. 200 local residents. Presentation followed by Q&A session. The parish Council had previously delivered their own leaflet to drum interest.

9 ANNEX 3

Appendix 13 - Summary leaflet ‘your chance to influence new draft planning policies’ (to follow)

Appendix 14 - Statutory Advert

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document ‘Draft Spatial Framework to 2026’ and Site Allocations Development Plan Document ‘Draft Approach to delivery of the Spatial Framework’ Planning helps define the places where people live, work, learn and play. It affects all of us. Bracknell Forest Borough Council therefore wants everyone to have the chance to get involved in the planning process that helps to shape the environment around us.

The Council is preparing some new planning documents to guide future development in the Borough. These documents are the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Documents.

The Core Strategy will set the broad local planning framework for the Borough over the period to 2026. It will set out the broad approach against which decisions on future development relating to where we live, work, spend our leisure time and how we travel, will be considered.

The Site Allocations Development Plan Document will include site specific proposals to deliver the policy framework set out in the Core Strategy DPD, including sites identified to meet the Borough’s housing allocation .

Copies of both the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Documents are available at:

• Council offices at Time Square and Easthampstead House, Bracknell, between 8:45am and 5:15pm, Monday to Thursday, and 8:45am and 4:45pm on Fridays*; • Your local library*; • Town and Parish Council offices*;

• The Borough Council’s website, www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/ldf .

The period for you to submit your comments runs from 16 January 2006 to 27 February 2006. You should send them to: Development Plans Team Time Square Market Street Bracknell Berkshire RG12 1JD

Or, you can email them to: [email protected]

The Borough Council will carefully consider all representations received and these documents will then be developed into the Draft Core Strategy and Draft Site Allocations DPD and then formally ‘submitted’ to the Secretary of State. This is currently timetabled for July 2006, and will include a further statutory 6 week period of consultation. An examination by inquiry is likely to occur early in 2007. You may request to be notified at a specified address that the Core Strategy and/or Site Allocations Development Plan Documents have been submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination under section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and of the adoption of the Core Strategy and/or Site Allocations Development Plan Documents.

To discuss further any aspect of the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Documents, contact John Waterton via the above postal and email addresses, or by telephone on 01344 351179. We look forward to receiving your comments by 27 February 2006 .

The Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Documents, and accompanying documents, are available for inspection at the following places and times:

Bracknell Forest Borough Council

• Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell, RG12 1JD. Monday – Thursday 8.45-17.15 Friday - 8.45-16.45

• Easthampstead House , Town Square, Bracknell, RG12 1AQ Monday to Thursday - 8:45 to 17:15 Friday - 8:45 to 16:45

Parish/Town Councils

• Binfield Parish Council , Parish Office, Benetfeld Road, Binfield, RG42 4EW Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday - 9.00-12.00, Tuesday - 13.00-16.00 Wednesday - Closed

• Bracknell Town Council , Brooke House, High Street, Bracknell, RG12 1LL Monday-Thursday - 9.00-17.00 Friday - 9.00-16.00

• Crowthorne Parish Council , Morgan Centre, Wellington Road, Crowthorne, RG45 7LD Monday-Friday – 9.00-13.00

• Sandhurst Town Council , Sandhurst Memorial Park, Yorktown Road, Sandhurst, GU47 9BJ Monday-Friday – 9.00-17.00

• Warfield Parish Council , 17 County Lane, Warfield, RG42 3JP Monday-Thursday - 9.30-12.30 Friday - Closed

• Winkfield Parish Council , Fernbank Road, Ascot, SL5 8JW. Monday-Friday – 9.00-13.00

Libraries

• Bracknell (Central) Library , Town Square, Bracknell, RG12 1BH Monday & Wednesday – 9:30-17:00 Tuesday, Thursday & Friday – 9:30-19:00 Saturday – 9:30-16:00

• Ascot Library , Fernbank Road, Ascot, SL5 8JW Monday & Thursday – 9:30-13:00 & 14:00-19:00 Tuesday & Friday – 14:00-17:00 Wednesday – Closed Saturday – 9:30-12:30

• Binfield Library , Benetfeld Road, Binfield, RG42 4JZ Monday – 14:00-19:00 Tuesday, Thursday, Friday – 14:00-17:00 Wednesday – Closed Saturday – 9:30-16:00

• Birch Hill Library, Leppington, Birch Hill, Bracknell, RG12 7WW Monday & Thursday – 10:00-12:00 & 14:00-17:00 Tuesday – 14:00-17:00 Wednesday – Closed Friday – 14:00-19:00 Saturday – 9:30-12:30

• Crowthorne Library, Lower Broadmoor Road, Crowthorne, RG45 7LA Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday – 9:30-17:00

Thursday – 9:30-19:00 Saturday – 9:30-16:00

• Great Hollands Library, Neighbourhood Centre, The Square, Bracknell, RG12 8UX Monday – 14:00-17:00 Tuesday & Wednesday – Closed Thursday – 10:00-12:30 & 14:00-17:00 Friday – 14:00-19:00 Saturday – 9:30-12:30

• Harmans Water Library, Neighbourhood Centre, The Square, Bracknell, RG12 9LP Monday – 14:00-17:00 Tuesday & Wednesday – Closed Thursday – 10:00-12:30 & 14:00-17:00 Friday – 14:00-19:00 Saturday – 9:30-12:30

• Sandhurst Library , The Broadway, Sandhurst, Berkshire, GU47 9BL Monday, Thursday & Friday – 9:30-13:00 & 14:00-17:00 Tuesday – 9:30-13:00 & 14:00-19:00 Wednesday - Closed Saturday – 9:30-16:00

• Whitegrove Library, 5 County Lane,Warfield, RG42 3JP Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday – 9:30-17:00 Wednesday – 9:30-18:00 Saturday 9:30-16:00

Appendix 15 – Notes from Warfield Parish meeting

Core Strategy/Site Allocations Reg 26 Consultation

Notes from Warfield Parish Meeting at Brownlow Hall

Thursday 23 rd February

Present: Bev Hindle Steve Loudoun John Waterton Mary Ballin Katie Bailey Katie Andrews Andrew Hunter Sam Enright

Warfield Parish Clerks and residents.

Issues raised:

Identification on Amen Corner and SPA boundaries

Q. There are defined lines between Binfield and Winkfield, but no gaps between Bracknell and Warfield Street why is this? A. Lines are to separate major settlements

Warfield is a village in its own right and should be defined, council are closing the gap between Warfield and Bracknell.

Q. Getting rid of the identity of Warfield will affect the environment of Warfield is this not being considered? A. We feel if we are to grow then this is the best location.

Warfield is 1,000 year old village and you are wiping it out.

Observation on the consultation exercise, made difficult for people to follow and don’t explain fully how people can get involved. Adverts etc do not really explain

A. Documents which were prepared have to be as open as possible, leaflet drop was done across the Borough to all households, the website details all information and adverts were placed in the local paper.

Q. Why has it taken a letter from the Parish Council letting residents know about the consultation and only 4 days before the end, therefore not giving us time to respond/ A. First consultation started in 2003 advising of what would be happening.

Some concerns raised about lack of information received, some residents claiming not to have received leaflet through the household drop.

Q. Letter Parish Council sent out said placing of 2 schools, community centre etc, where will a hospital go? A. The Borough Council does not build hospitals

Then the council should not build anymore houses.

Q. That happens if they say no to hospital?

A. Have met with the PCT and they are happy for the provision of houses without a hospital. How does this improve health and well being? Q. Referring to policy approach on Sustainable principles, what about adequate provisions for the supply of water for the next 20 years, need to feedback these issues to the government. Should also demand builders to fit more sustainable developed buildings, planners not currently demanding would like to see in the planning process. A. All South East authorities have been telling the government of issues of water, agree point on sustainable buildings within the process, recent improvements in building regulations.

A. Met with Thames water and other water companies, realise the South East is growing and looming at a new reservoir in the region.

Q. Also need to completion to Tesco’s, will need this in area if going to complete A. Tesco still need to look at possible community needs if to expand here, Tesco already overloaded but what is the right mix.

Q. What is more important a hospital or tesco? A. For hospitals PCT’s are working on future solutions of provision and trying to encourage facilities such as healthplex in the town centre.

Review on Policy E6 encouraging renewable energy do you agree?

BC talking with GP’s and need to have at least 2 Dr practices so need 1600 to support this.

Q. How are people supposed to interpret 3 hexagons, should of come here as a propriety. A. Did come here early, happy to meet with people to discuss further.

Q. How much difference are we all going to make? A. Won’t influence 11,000 houses this is an allocated number. What we are trying to do is move forward in the best way possible, this particular site has been analysed and we believe this is the right way. But don’t have absolute control other landowners will be challenging us. You have to challenge us as not a fait accomplished, encourage people not to say no to houses.

Q. If talking about quality of life why building throughout Town Centre? A. Now planning permission almost granted need to deliver Bracknell Town Centre up to 2016 and Warfield will be in place to link into the new development.

Q. How can we have an influence to detail of any development in terms of storeys, layout etc?

Q. Problems with no being able to get into Frimley Park Hospital? A. This is not something we can answer, need to raise with PCT.

Q. Is there anything to stop it being built sooner? A. Yes it takes long time to plan properly can put polices in place to phase

Q. (Gareth Barnard) if we have to build 11,000 houses, do we have strong case to go back and say no as have SPA and Greenbelt constraints, we can’t actually build 11,000 houses without requiring quality of life, can we say no?

A. SPA is a concern to the government, solution still to be agreed regarding mitigation, part of our job is to make case whether to mitigate. But social implications if don’t build housing units, schools etc. Q. Can we say in Warfield we have good sites where maintaining open spaces such as lark Hill, can we say that? A. Yes of course.

Q. Why won’t government give us a hospital as well if giving housing allocations? A. ?????

Q. Question on Map 1 in document, the sites under consideration do they have planning permission? A. Yes

Q. Why do they not include site areas for housing density? A. Yes would be helpful

Q. Will the Greenbelt boundaries be affected? A. No, greenbelt national design but not like the European design in Borough, as polices allow exceptional development.

Can’t stop people making applications.

Q. Sustainability – Whitegrove and Quelm Park only 3 rd rated, 42 other sites more suitable why let development happen, building a small town compared to Warfield. A. Other sites don’t give us 11,000 houses,

Q. New schools/health facilities needed If building more houses, schools will be oversubscribed? A. We are planners so we can’t plan for new schools/hospitals.

A. We have to plan for 11,000 houses we are trying to find the best way of planning those commitments that delivers the facilities we need.

Q. But North Bracknell not planned properly? A. imposed on BFBC and given 2 months to negotiate, instead of the 12-18months needed.

Q. Met office plan, what happened to provision for school>

Q. How can we oppose the development? A. Make representations on forms provided or email.

Next stage is to take account of forms, further analysis and will work towards a submission document and further consultation.

Q. Past chairman of Warfield PC said there was cynicism in planning process. In 1994 3 policies were incorporated in this plan – re open land & development EN7, ENV9, ENV8. A. The policies quoted are in the consultation document but are not taken into the adopted plan. In the core strategy these principles are being taken forward but we protect one side, there is pressure on others.

Q. Why Q. Are they in; yes or no?

A. The policies in the BFB Local Plan are those we are reviewing and if people think they should be carried forward, then tell us and if people want Cabbage Hill, then tell us.

Q. What can this community do to make sure the deficiencies in existing communities are not repeated again? A. We need to think about what makes a community:- Are there things we can do to make the current community better? We have to build on the existing community both new and old. We prefer to plan this in.

Q??? Little real consultation. Ads etc doesn’t explain how people should respond. A. The documents we prepare (leaflets, websites, adverts) have to be as open as possible. Q. Why is t he council running around after SEERA? A. On there – cannot believe we are coming out so late – 4 days before the end of the consultation. A. Bev – the planning started in 2003. This is the first consultation stating where we are going.

Q. There was concern over the lack of information – some people didn’t get leaflets.

Q. The letter the PC sent out says there is planning for 2 schools, community centre etc..

Q. Where will the hospital go? A. This council does not build councils.

Q. Then the council shouldn’t build houses. A. We do not have to build houses – say no!

Q. What happens if we say no? A. Regarding the request for a hospital; people should tell the PCT but they are content that they can make health provision without a hospital.

Q. Sustainable principles – Policy approach – what about an adequate supply of water. The issues of possible water problems should be fed back to Government. Demand for more sustainable development building styles should be put in the planning process Need other shops to compete with Tescos.

A. All the South East authorities have been warning the Government about water issues The council agrees about sustainable building processes and there have been recent improvements in Building regulations to this aim. We do need to look at community needs for shops. Tesco already over loads but we need to know what is the right mix.

Q. But a hospital is more important than Tescos. A. 4 Hospitals currently serve the Bracknell borough. The PCT’s are looking at future provision. We can try and encourage facilities such as a healthplex in Bracknell Town Centre. John Waterton replied:

Regarding the water issues; we have approached Thames Water & other companies; they said water supplies are OK here but they realise that the whole SE is growing and they are looking at building a new reservoir in the region. Regarding renewable energy; E3 encourages renewable energy and do people agree? Health provision; John has been talking to GPs about a 2 Dr practice and they said that 1600 clients are needed to support this.

Q. How are people supposed to interpret 3 hexagons? The council should have come here as a priority? A. We did come here early and are happy to meet and discuss with people.

Q. How much difference are we going to make, honestly? There are lots of concerns about layout etc. A. People cannot influence the 11,000 houses destined for the Bracknell borough. What we are trying to do is move forward in the best way. Regarding the Warfield site, at the moment we think this is the best way to deal with it. The council doesn’t have absolute control as other landowners will be challenging us and the public needs to challenge us too. However we need to encourage people not to just say no to 2500 houses.

Q. If we are talking about quality of life, why is the council building throughout Bracknell Town Centre. A. Now the planning permission is almost granted, we need to get it delivered. The Bracknell Town Centre plans are up to 2016. This development will be built afterwards and must be linked into the new development.

Q. I meant, how can we influence the detail of any development in terms of storeys, layout etc.? There are problems with F. Pk. A. Bev cannot answer.

Q. Is there anything that can be done to stop it being built sooner? A. Yes; it takes a long time to plan properly. We can put policies in place to phase the building.

Q. (Gareth Barnard) If the council has to build 11,000 houses, can we go back and perhaps have SPA and CS constraints. 11,000 houses cannot be built without affecting the quality of life. Can we say no? A. SPA concern to government solution is still to be agreed re mitigation. Part of our job is to make a case regarding mitigation. However there are other social implications if we don’t build housing units – schools afford etc.

Q. Can we say in Warfield that we have good sites where we are maintaining open spaces which have significant value for wildlife & that these should continue to be maintained. A. Of Course.

Q. Why won't government give us money for hospital? A. ………….

Q. Do some of sites in map have pp? A. Yes.

Q. Why haven't we included site access and yield? A. Yes, would be helpful.

Q. May 1 - show GB boundaries, can we say not affected? A. No - GB national design. But not like European design in Bovis because policy allows exceptional development. Can't stop people making applications.

Q. Sust. Whitegrove and Quelm Park only 3 rd rated. 42 sites above this, why alloc? A. Because other sites don't give us 11,000 houses.#

Q. But if need schools/health need to provide pop - if build new schools will immediately oversubscribe then with new housing. We are planners so why can't we plan for new hospital? A. W ehave to plan for 11,000 houses. We are trying to find best way of planning those comms and get critical means that deliver the facilities we need.

Q. But North Bracknell not planned properly - imposed on BFB - given 2 months to negotiate - not 12-18 needed.

Q. Met Office - concern over school.

Q. How do we oppose the development? A. Make reps on forms provided. E-mail. Next take account of forms, further analysis, and will move towards a submission document and further consultation.

Q. Post Chairman of Warfield Parish Council - some cynicism in planning process. In 1994 - pols have 3 been incorporated in this plan - re open land and development EN7, EN9, EN8. A. Pols quoted are in consultation document. Not taken into Adopted Plan. In CS are taking forward those principles. But if protect …………. pressure on other areas.

Q. Why?

Q. Are they in - yes or no? A. Pols in BFBLP are those we are reviewing - if think should be carried forward then tell us - if want Cabbage Hill then tell us.

Q. What can this community do to make sure the deficiencies in exist.? Comm are not repeated again. A. Need to think about what makes a community. Are there things that can make this community better - we have to build as existing community - new and old. Prefer to plan it in rather than be told by someone else.

Q. How to build it in? To list in document what we need. Our job is to look at whole of Borough and decide on most sustainable location - 75% in settlements plus Amen Corner. PC - Borough Councillors make decisions not officers.

Q. What have been nice for our MP to arrive. Not here to represent people. A. Not invited.

Q. When planning for XX houses, what stats are driving that re populations etc?

A. All live longer, ………. in population, ………. in divorce, ………household size. Social changes - need for more houses.

Q. Need more care homes, elderly? A. CS sets out a broad policy direction.

Q. Doesn't say anything about village of Warfield - happen to develop Warfield but not link to Bracknell.

Q. Village of Warfield not mentioned.

Q. Can we clarify No. 54? A. Dots show location not extent. A d'…. has put whole stretch for to look at.

Q. Can we clarify what is extent of development how much, how far? A. Not there yet - next stage to look at more detail. Need to look at eg protecting, especially 2,500 houses.

Q. But say 2,500 houses? A. No, this is what we need, still considering other sites etc and doing assessments before can confirm numbers - long complex process.

Q. Sites 12 and 129 are Cabbage Hill area. Said need large patch to accommodate infrastructure. Piece of landscape which protects from Binfield (Cabbage Hill) we could develop those 2 sites and put in all housing easily - concerned will do this. A. Not doing this plan for my interests here to find best way to plan - since it is imp. to protect Cabbage Hill. Need to look at area in an entirety.

Of 11,000 houses, what is population of development on Binfield land?

Q. Barn - have 10 years to ……. this development. Outright opposition without qualification could lead to existing situation. Suggests set up group to come together to determine what is right and proper in this area so community-led. Challenge where we can.

Q. As building on RAF site - could we move Sandhurst elsewhere in county - many other sites to look at?

Q. Q r identification of sites in flood plains. Why considering them? A. Spots don't show extent of sites - part in flood plain, part not. Under flood risk assessment.

Q. - ……….. to ………… because of vanguard.

Q. To provide 2,500 houses - what density? A. Not done work yet - min 30 dph Government - but if increase needs less land, needs balance.

Q. What calling it - is it 'urban'? A. Yes, calling it that because explaining a level of development related to urban facilities and densities.

Q. Ground nesting birds have significant proportion of the Borough - can't we move them? A. European Court's ruling that must take closer regard to relevant legislation. Government trying to take a balance.

Q. People must take precedence over birds. What about other Crown Land? A. Can't in this instance.

Q. Asking us to make allowances - but birds have freedom to fly anywhere.

Q. Has this area been examined ecologically? A. Yes.

Q. Asks for commitment that BC come back in July without being invited. Also, can we find a way to communicate better with community? A. Yes will come back. This is useful forum but is effective for us to talk to people individually as hard to get into detail.

Keep talking to us about spec issues.

Q. If developing on Peacock Lane - lots of open fields - can't put more there? A. Been fairly even distribution of development over Borough in past - have looked elsewhere.

Q. Pg 18 SA1 - flexible site allocation. A. Break period up to 5 year periods so have r year plan in effect. Important that sites are available - flexible time periods.

Q. Where is Winkfield Triangle - is in current plan? A. Winkfield was in early consultation version, not adopted version. Now other sites have come forward which is better.

Q. What if another issues like SPA comes forward? A. BC has to be sure has package together that can take forward 11,000 houses or won't be able to defend in front of Inspector.

Q. What accommodation has been made for roads in area? A. Preparing transport models at the moment, looking at road capacity etc, looking at better links with BTC, looking at junctions, Warfield Street.

Q. Do you have to put roads in before houses? A. No, not if can demonstrate roads are adequate up to a certain point.

Q. When considering area of BFBC and property that is GB and SPA - would you say that allocation is disproportion to residual area and that those who allocated took account of constraints. A. But still areas without constraints, compared to eg Slough who have no area w/o constraints.

Q. For next consultation can we have much better maps and simpler reporting?

Appendix 16 - Schedule of comments in response to Reg. 26 Pre-submission public participation (to follow, paper separately going to Executive).

Appendix 17- Consultation responses on the Draft SA Report

Respondent Ref. Changes made as a result Specific comments on site 3 – 86 Locks Ride: • The scoring for objective 1 provides a ‘+’ for those sites which provide affordable housing either by size of site (i.e. > 1 ha) or the number of houses at the minimum density requirements (i.e. more than 25 houses). This is not cumulative therefore a score of ‘++’ has not been included. • The site is not within the top ten IMD areas for Income or Living Environment, therefore a score of 0 has been recorded. • The accessibility of the site has been reassessed to include other 12-14 Folgate modes of travel following the collection of further accessibility Ltd. c/o Boyer DSA/14 information; this is presented in a technical appendix. This provides Planning separate information for objectives 8 and 15, which removes the element of ‘double-counting’. • The location of the site in relation to leisure facilities and open space has been reassessed in the light of additional information collected. • The negative score for objective 16 has been amended in the light of comments. • The sustainability appraisal is at a broad-brush level, therefore a site specific soil survey has not been carried out for every proposed site. This will be assessed in more detail during an EIA if necessary. • Objective 13 has been amended in the light of comments to read, “To conserve and enhance the Borough’s biodiversity, and maximise opportunities for building-in biodiversity features”. • The monitoring framework is detailed in section 5.3 (page Error! Bookmark not defined. ) and includes an indicator on biodiversity. Berks, Bucks This is in line with the core output indicators for the AMR and some and Oxon DSA/12 contextual indicators proposed by the TVERC. Wildlife Trust • Where sites are within 5km of the SPA, this has been noted as having a significant impact. • An SPA Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy now supports the Core Strategy DPD detailing how the requirements of the Habitats Directive are being met. Berkshire • It has been clarified that a high scoring in the appraisal does not DSA/33 Archaeology relate to the equivalent of an outline planning permission on the site. • Specific comments on site 4 – Land between The Pines & Newlands, Longhill Rd, Chavey Down: - Although the site is not in a flood risk area, the Environment Agency still recommends that the loss of a drainage ditch would have negative impacts. Brown & Co. DSA/20 - The accessibility of the site has been reassessed following the collection of further accessibility information. - The site is currently green field in a non-urban area, therefore the negative score for urban renaissance has not been amended. • The scorings for objective 4 for sites to the east of Bracknell have not been changed as they relate to the Living Environment Chavey Down DSA/3 component of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation. This area has Association been identified as one of the areas where social and private housing is in poor condition. The exact area is presented in the baseline

Respondent Ref. Changes made as a result data. • According to the School Organisation Plan there is no predicted capacity at Garth and the appraisal has been amended accordingly. Croudace Strategic • The Final SA Report has amended its structure to minimise the need Limited c/o to cross-refer between sections and the individual scorings of each Charles DSA/25 site are included within the Final SA Report and Technical Planning Document D. Associates Ltd. • The terms: SPA, the SPA and SSSI have been clarified and expanded upon and a consistent approach to referencing has been adopted. • A review of the Habitats Regulations has been included in Technical Document A. • The Core Strategy will be subject to Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations. • The appraisal criteria for the site specific appraisal have been updated to include reference to site’s distance from the SPA. • The difference between the significant impacts of development types (e.g. residential and employment) has been noted. • The Delivery Plan and related mitigation standards have not been English Nature DSA/31 referred to because of their current draft form. • The appraisal of Core Strategy policies has been amended to include reference to the SPA. A comprehensive Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy provides full details of how all significant effect from the Core Strategy will be addressed. • Consistency of assessment has been clarified. In the appraisal a note is made if the site in within 2km of a SSSI but this only impacts on scoring when it is within 500m. • The distance band of the site from the SPA has been expanded upon. • In the site specific appraisal tables the specific names of the SSSI impacted upon has been noted. • Buffer zones are required 5 metres from river banks to allow for natural processes and character, biodiversity benefits, provision of a ‘wildlife corridor’, over-shadowing and polluting run-off. The appraisal of sites has been reassessed to include this 5m buffer. Environment DSA/34 • A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment has now been undertaken and Agency the results informed the appraisal of sites. • No additional information on contaminated land was available. • Site specific constraints have been included in the appraisal of each site. Additional transport studies have been carried out as part of the Highways background work on the DPDs to cover issues around the trunk road DSA/19 Agency network in and adjacent to Bracknell Forest. This is not included in the SA Report as it is not related to any of the SA objectives. Larkfield Specific comments on site 87 – Land at Larkfield Farm, Chavey Down Developments Road, Winkfield: c/o DSA/15 • Objective 5 has not been re-scored because the local primary Development schools do not have the ability to extend even with contributions Land and from the developers.

Respondent Ref. Changes made as a result Planning • All greenfield sites have been scored in a consistent way with Consultants greenfield sites isolated from settlement scoring lowest. • A neutral effect has been recorded for objective 13 (biodiversity), which is reliant upon the site providing avoidance and mitigation measures in line with the Council’s SPA Strategy. Specific comments relating to site 33 – Crowthorne Business Estate: • Objective 5 – amended to take into consideration the provision of a primary school but still no provision of secondary. • Objective 7 – Additional gaps work identified this area as a strategic gap. • Objective 8 – the scoring has been changed as a result of the provision of on-site provision of services and facilities. • Objective 9 – the scoring has been changed to include the provision of a major new area of open space. • The benefits of allocating additional strategic greenspace for mitigation purposes for the SPA are being tested through an SPA Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy. • The transport and accessibility aspects of the site specific appraisal have been expanded to include public transport in addition to access by foot. This is following additional accessibility modelling undertaken to inform the appraisal. Legal and • Limitations and problems encountered are covered in section 1.5 DSA/32 General (page 12) and section 2.2 (page 17) of the Draft SA Report (January 2006), on page Error! Bookmark not defined. of this Final SA Report and at various stages throughout the document (i.e. under specific sections on baseline data or cumulative impact assessment). • The presentation of information in the technical appendices in the Final SA Report has been amended. • Less restrictive criteria have not been included, such as those in Annex G of the 1998 Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan Inspectors Report, due to their subjective nature which would lead to a less rigorous and appraisal. Where the criteria in Annex G are within the scope of sustainability they have been covered within the SA objectives, however where the criteria do not relate to sustainability they will be considered within the DPD (e.g. ‘Deliverability’ and ‘Effects on road congestion’). • The employment sites in the Employment Potential Study have not been subjected to SA because at the time of the appraisal no sites had been identified (see page Error! Bookmark not defined. ). Longdown Lodge Estate Support the broad objectives and have no detailed comments, DSA/11 Residents therefore no changes have been made. Association Specific comments on site 132 – Land north of Temple Way: • The appraisal for objective 2 has been amended to a neutral scoring Luff in the light of comments received, although negative effects on Developments water quality could remain (objective 18). c/o Mark DSA/9 • A more detailed study of gaps and green wedges has been carried Leedale out and the sites re-appraised accordingly. Planning • Accessibility is already given a high weighting in the SA scoring system so no further change has been made.

Respondent Ref. Changes made as a result • A further assessment of the proposed provision of low energy housing has not been carried out at a site specific level because this is a requirement of policies in the Core Strategy document. All proposed sites should meet this criterion irrespective of location. Specific comments on site 11 – Land at Oaklands Farm and site 84 – Land at Nestings: - Each site is assessed individually and would not be sufficient to Martin Collins provide a new school. As part of a larger strategic site this may be Enterprises possible, but this smaller site has been assessed independently. c/o Cliff DSA/27 - The accessibility of the site has been reassessed in the light of Walsingham & additional modelling information. Co. - The majority of site 11 is not previously developed so the scoring has not been changed. - The scoring for objective 16 for site 11 has been amended in the light of comments. Specific comments on site 122 – Land at Dolyhir and Fern Lodge, London Road, Bracknell: - The School Organisation Plan 2005-2010 indicates a deficit in both primary and secondary, therefore the scoring has not been amended. Mr A Bowyer - The scoring for objective 7 has been amended in the light of c/o Cliff comments. DSA/28 Walsingham & - The accessibility of the site has been reassessed in the light of Co. additional modelling information. - Half the site is PDL outside of settlement (a ‘0’ rating). The large proportion of the site within settlement is not PDL because the curtilage of Dolyhir makes up a very small proportion of the site (also providing a ‘0’ rating). Therefore the overall rating remains ‘0’. Mr William • The amendments to policy letters on pages 38 and 39 have been DSA/24 Dowling made. N M Specific comments on site 89 – Land of Forest Road, opposite Ascot Rothschild & Stud Farm, North Ascot: Sons Ltd c/o - The scoring for objective 7 has been amended in light of comments DSA/29 Cliff as site was not designated as a gap in a recent study. Walsingham & - The accessibility of the site has been reassessed in the light of Co. additional modelling information. Specific comments relating to site 6 – Land fronting Jigs Lane North and Strawberry Hill: • If a proportion of the site is within a flood risk area this has been considered a negative impact, therefore the scoring for objective 2 has not been changed. • Only sites which are identified as improving areas within the Indices of Multiple Deprivation have been scored positively for objective 4. Network Legal DSA/8 • The scoring for objective 7 has been amended as the site forms an extension to an existing settlement. • The accessibility of the site has been reassessed using new modelling data. • Part of the site is PDL, although part remains greenfield. • Development in proximity to a river corridor could potentially negatively impact on the water course. • Specific comments relating to site 78 – The Brackens: Pieda - The properties and curtilage are previously developed land, DSA/30 Consulting however the site covers significantly more than this area, therefore this component is classified as green field.

Respondent Ref. Changes made as a result - The proximity of the site to public transport links will be included at the next stage of appraisal. Specific comments on site 2 – Land west of Prince Albert Drive, Ascot: Pomas • The comments regarding the accessibility of the site to public Establishment transport and services have been taken on board and subsequently c/o the site has been reassessed using more detailed baseline data. Development DSA/17 • All greenfield sites within the green belt have been scored in a Land and consistent way so this scoring has not been changed. Planning Consultants • The site is on significant land between settlements, therefore the scoring for objective 7 has not been amended. Specific comments on site 86 – Land at Cedar Lodge, Wokingham Road, Crowthorne: • Objective 5 has not been re-scored because the local primary schools do not have the ability to extend even with contributions from the development and the site alone does not provide a new Profitable primary school. Plots c/o • The comments regarding the accessibility of the site to public Development transport and services have been taken on board and subsequently DSA/16 Land and the site has been reassessed using more detailed baseline data. Planning • All greenfield sites have been scored in a consistent way with Consultants greenfield sites isolated from settlement scoring lowest. • A negative score has not been given in relation to the Special Protection Area (objective 13 - biodiversity), assuming the site’s developers provide avoidance and mitigation measures in line with the Council’s SPA Strategy. The site still scores negatively because of the impacts on a Biodiversity Action Plan habitat. • Reference is now made to the targets in the South East Plan in the SA Framework table. • In the Site Appraisal Criterion 1 reference has been made to urban sites which may achieve higher densities leading to the provision of affordable housing. Queensmere • A settlement-level SA has identified Bracknell as the most Properties c/o sustainable settlement within the Borough therefore the urban The Bell DSA/26 extensions were focussed on this settlement. Cornwell Specific comments on site 93 – Land between Forest Road, Foxley Partnership Lane and Roughgrove Copse, Binfield: • The appraisal has been amended to indicate the location of the site adjoining settlement. • The School Organisation Plan 2005-2010 indicates a substantial deficit in places in the future at the local primary school, therefore the scoring has not been amended. South East England DSA/1 No changes as a result of comments Regional Assembly • The impacts of crime on economic activity have been noted. • The appraisal of QL4 has been expanded to include the positive sustainability impacts that robust crime prevention can have, Thames DSA/2 including a reduction in graffiti and street cleaning and the Valley Police enhancement of reputation and commercial viability of areas. There may also be health benefits if it is perceived to be safer to walk. • The information in the site specific appraisal table has been

Respondent Ref. Changes made as a result expanded. • The baseline data has been expanded upon to include site specific crime prevention information. • The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment broadens the areas identified which are risk of flooding and accepts that flooding could occur away from the flood plain from sewers where appropriate infrastructure is not in place (this is included in PPS25 para. 14). Thames Water DSA/7 • Additional information has been requested from Thames Water to inform how the sites may be drained, served with water or have their sewage treated. Until the water companies provide this information this cannot be included as part of the assessment. • Site 8 has been renamed as Land north of Lawrence Hill and County Thomas Lane, Warfield, North Bracknell. Lawrence & • The weighting of objectives 1, 21 and 22 have not been amended. Sons The high importance of these issues at a national and local level is (Bracknell) c/o recognised, however the delivery is more dependant upon policy DSA/13 Barton rather than site specific allocations therefore this remains a medium Wilmore priority for this DPD . Planning • The appraisal for objective 7 has been reassessed following the Partnership collection of additional information on strategic gaps between settlements. Waitrose DSA/18 No changes necessary as a result of comments made. Specific comments on site 76 – Broadmoor Hospital: • The site is within 400 metres of the SPA which is currently an area West London deemed not to be suitable for avoidance or mitigation measures by Mental Health the provision of semi-natural open space. This is because the close DSA/21 Trust c/o D&M proximity will lead to other impacts such as cat ownership, dumping Planning of garden waste and vandalism. • The net gain in recreational facilities has been noted and the scoring changed accordingly. Specific comments on site 70 – The Rough: West Waddy • The negative scorings have been correctly applied in accordance ADP with the site specific appraisal criteria, which were used to ensure an (Architects DSA/10 equitable approach. The site is a greenfield site within the green belt and Town and characteristic countryside covering an area of mineral deposits. Planners) Therefore the scoring has not been amended. • Additional information has been included on the implications arising Wokingham from the Wokingham Local Plan and the Berkshire Structure Plan. District DSA/4 • Additional work has been carried out on the secondary education Council strategies from neighbouring districts to ensure the SA fully addresses this objective.