(ITEM 9)

TO: THE EXECUTIVE 20 DECEMBER 2005

BRACKNELL FOREST BOROUGH LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK -ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (Director of Environment and Leisure)

1 PURPOSE OF DECISION

1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires every local planning authority to produce an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) which will form part of the Local Development Framework for the area. The AMR is to cover the period 1 April to 31 March each year and is to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of the following December.

1.2 The first AMR, which is attached as an appendix to this report, covers the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 and is to be submitted to the Secretary of State via the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) by the end of December 2005. It must then be made available to local communities both in hard copy and electronically on the Council’s web site. The purpose of this report is to seek authorisation to submit the report to GOSE and subsequently make it available to the public.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the Bracknell Forest Borough Annual Monitoring Report (Appendix 1), including the Joint Mineral and Waste Annual Monitoring Report (Appendix 2), be approved for submission to the Government Office for the South East and subsequent publication;

2.2 That the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Scheme, December 2005 (Appendix 3), be approved for submission to the Government Office for the South East and subsequent publication; and,

2.3 That authority be delegated to the Executive Member for Planning and Transportation to make any necessary minor amendments to the Annual Monitoring Reports or Local Development Scheme prior to submission.

3 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 The enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the Act) implemented the Government’s reform of the planning system. As a result, the Council must produce a Local Development Framework (LDF) which will contain documents providing the framework for delivering the spatial planning strategy for the area. The AMR will be one of the portfolio of documents.

3.2 The first AMR must assess the implementation of ‘saved’ policies in the Berkshire Structure Plan, Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and the Minerals and Waste Local Plans. As a Joint Minerals and Waste LDF is being produced with the other unitary authorities of Berkshire, it has been decided to produce a joint minerals and waste monitoring document which should be read in conjunction with the Bracknell Forest document in order to give a comprehensive view of spatial planning within the Borough. The reports must include a section on the local development schemes and progress in meeting the milestones contained within the schemes.

In order to qualify for an element of Planning Delivery Grant, the document must be submitted by 31 December 2005. There is also to be a check on progress on plan making against the milestones set out in the local development schemes.

4 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The production of an AMR is a statutory requirement. The failure to submit an AMR by 31 December 2005 might jeopardise an element of the pay that could be awarded through the Planning Delivery Grant. The Government believes that the AMR should be the means of assessing how an Authority is working to deliver outcomes.

5 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Content of the AMR

5.1 The Government published a Good Practice Guide on monitoring the Local Development Framework in March 2005. The latter gives information on what should be included in an AMR. It should:

• review actual progress in terms of local development document preparation against the timetable and milestones in the Local Development Scheme (LDS); • assess the extent to which policies in local development documents are being implemented; • where policies are not being implemented, explain why and set out what steps are to be taken to ensure that the policy is implemented; or, whether the policy is to be amended or replaced; • identify the significant effects of implementing policies in local development documents and whether they are as intended; and, • set out whether policies are to be amended or replaced.

The first AMR

5.2 The Government recognises that only limited progress will have been made in preparing development plan documents at this stage. The Good Practice Guide therefore suggests that the first AMR should look at the implementation of (‘saved’) policies i.e. policies and proposals of adopted plans saved under the transitional arrangements of the new planning system. This task is undertaken by drawing upon core output indicators that have been set by the Government. Some contextual indicators have also been included which measure change in the wider, social, economic and environmental environment.

5.3 The Good Practice Guide also asks authorities to highlight any problems encountered in meeting the requirements of the Act. Whilst the topics of housing, employment, transport and the environment are dealt with in the Bracknell Forest document (see Appendix 1), the topics of minerals and waste are dealt with in a Joint Minerals and Waste AMR (see Appendix 2). Together, the documents also cover progress on implementing the Bracknell Forest LDS (Appendix 3) and the Joint Minerals and Waste LDS.

Future AMR’s

5.4 An integrated monitoring framework is being developed as work on the development plan documents progresses. As the spatial vision and objectives become more clearly defined and the drafting of policies is undertaken, contextual indicators, significant effects indicators, output indicators (both national and local) and related targets can be developed in conjunction with key stakeholders. Ultimately, it is also hoped that a joint approach to monitoring will be developed encompassing other strategies/plans aimed at contributing to the delivery of sustainable development. An example is the Community Plan which is likely to use a similar evidence base in respect of certain issues.

5.5 Whilst the first AMR focuses on the Government’s core output indicators, future reports will increasingly draw upon the new monitoring framework.

Future Risks

5.6 Chapter 2 of the AMR relates to progress being made against milestones in the Bracknell Forest Borough LDS. This part of the AMR is specifically noted for members as it highlights the serious concern officers have relating to the delivery of future milestones.

5.7 Whilst we have delivered all milestones to date, significant concerns over the progress of the South East Plan and more recently the potential implications arising from consideration of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), mean future milestones may be in jeopardy. Whilst the Council is involved heavily in discussions and debates around both topics, their impacts are beyond our direct control.

5.8 We have suggested some minor changes in milestones due to delays in Government Guidance coming through (e.g. review of the Limiting the Impact of Development SPD). At this point we are not recommending significant changes relative to our Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Documents (DPD’s), but are highlighting the possibility that without significant progress on these two issues, more delays are likely to result.

5.9 A revised LDS (December 2005) is attached as Appendix 3 for the Executive to approve for submission to the Government Office for the South East.

6 ADVICE RECEIVED FROM STATUTORY AND OTHER OFFICERS

Borough Solicitor

6.1 The requirement for an AMR is set out in Section 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This is further developed in Regulation 48 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

Borough Treasurer

6.2 The AMR forms part of the LDF process.

6.3 The preparation of the constituent documents of the LDF is now a continuous process. There is revenue budget provision in 2005/2006.

6.4 The 2006/2007 budget setting process has identified a commitment budget projection which represents the work in preparing the LDF as part of a continuous rolling programme. The budget proposals will be out for public consultation from the 20 December for a period of six weeks.

6.5 When a Local Development Document is taken to inquiry significant costs can arise, specifically Planning Inspectorate costs and Counsel fees. Because of the uncertainty of whether an inquiry will take place and if it does, the timing, it is proposed that an earmarked reserve of £200k will be set aside in the 2006/2007 budget.

Impact Assessment

6.6 Whilst the report does highlight issues that may warrant further investigation, it is essentially a factual document. Some of these issues concern the collection of data which may have an impact on individuals and systems. Others involve policy approaches. However, any change in policy stance would need to be dealt with through the SCI/LDS/DPD process, which would consider social impacts.

6.7 The necessary Equalities Impact Assessment for this report is attached as Appendix 4.

7 CONSULTATION

Principal Groups Consulted

7.1 The production of the document has involved the collection and analysis of various sets of data. The majority of the information collated has come from sections within Environment and Leisure.

Method of Consultation

7.2 There is no requirement for formal consultation.

Background Papers The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 Local Development Framework Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide (March 2005)

Contact for further information Sue Scott, Environment and Leisure Department – 01344 352575 [email protected]

Bev Hindle, Environment & Leisure Department – 01344 351902 [email protected]

Doc. Ref 09 Annual Monitoring Report

APPENDIX 1

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report

2004-2005

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Executive Summary

Background

This is the first AMR for Bracknell Forest which reports on the period 1 April 2004- 31 March 2005. It looks at whether or not certain ‘saved’ policies in the Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016 (adopted July 2005) and the Bracknell Forest Borough Plan 1991-2006 (adopted January 2002) are being implemented successfully. The ‘saved’ policies in the E Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire (Incorporating Alterations) and the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire are looked at in a Joint Minerals and Waste AMR collated by the X Joint Strategic Planning Unit on behalf of the Unitary Authorities of Berkshire. E

The AMR looks at the implementation of key policies by focusing on the national core C output indicators identified in ODPM’s Local Development Framework Monitoring Good U Practice Guide published in March 2005 and subsequently updated in October 2005. T As a minimum, the report establishes a baseline. Whilst it is far too early in the monitoring I process to draw any firm conclusions about trends, a brief review of the main findings of this year’s AMR is provided below, including a paragraph on the Local Development V Scheme. E

Findings S U Local Development Scheme M

In respect of the Development Plan, a minor alteration to the adopted Bracknell Forest M Borough Local Plan was adopted on 30th November 2005. Good progress is being made A towards the preparation of a Local Development Framework, with all milestones for the monitoring year met. For the future, the AMR proposes small amendments to the R timetables for the preparation of two Supplementary Planning Documents to accommodate Y a delay in the issue of Government guidance, and the loss of a skilled staffing resource. Risks associated with the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, the South East Plan and internal resources are also flagged up, in particular that they may impact upon future timetables for the preparation of the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Documents. In fact, a change is already proposed to the Development Management DPD timetable to accommodate these risks.

Housing

The Berkshire Structure Plan requires 1,950 net dwellings (or 390 net dwellings per annum) to be completed between 2001 and 2006. By March 2005, 1,342 net dwellings had been built leaving a requirement for a further 608 to be completed during 2005/06. The under-delivery of housing in Bracknell Forest has been primarily due to delays in the implementation of two large sites allocated in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan. The Council has been working closely with GOSE to produce a joint action plan for the delivery of housing and some progress is now being made on the implementation of

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

permissions relating to the two sites referred to. Projections of completions show a significant rise from around 2006-07 onwards.

The proportion of new and converted dwellings provided on previously developed land has been increasing over the last few years. 97% of new and converted dwellings were provided on previously developed land during 2004-05.

Densities are increasing. 61% of dwellings on wholly completed sites were provided at a density of more than 30 dwellings per hectare during 2004-05. E X The planning system has contributed 62 net affordable dwellings to the stock of affordable housing during 2004-05. E C In support of the Government’s emphasis on smaller units, almost 60% of new dwellings U that were completed during 2004-05 were 1 and 2 bed units and just over 50% were flats. T Almost all dwellings on wholly completed sites were located on sites within settlement I boundaries. V E Employment

21,248m² gross of business, industrial and storage and distribution floorspace was S completed during 2004-05. This represents a low level of activity compared with previous U years. The majority of completed floorspace was for business purposes and related to two large sites. 1,381m² or 6% of the total completed floorspace was on the defined M employment areas. M

All employment floorspace that was completed during 2004-05 was on sites involving A previously developed land. R

36.25 ha of land had planning permission for business, industrial and distribution purposes Y at March 2005 (excludes sites accepted in principle or BFBLP outstanding allocations). Almost all of the supply of employment land relates to sites in and around Bracknell and is committed for business purposes. It should also be noted that schemes on some of the land forming part of the land supply are either likely to be superseded by the Town Centre proposals, if permitted, or are being re-negotiated for alternative uses.

There were no losses of employment land to completed non-employment schemes, including those involving residential uses during 2004-05. However, a number of schemes are being negotiated or have recently been permitted for residential use.

Whilst the majority of completed employment development has taken place outside settlement boundaries, most of it has been on ‘major’ employment sites as defined in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan (TRL and Syngenta).

897m² gross of retail and leisure floorspace was completed during 2004-05 and of this 39.1% was in Bracknell Town Centre.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Transport

Almost all wholly completed residential sites were within 30 minutes public transport time of a GP, a primary school, a secondary school, areas of employment and retail centres. 82% were within 30 minutes public transport time of a hospital.

Environment E Nearly half the Borough’s open space is managed to Green Flag Award standard. X

The Borough has 1SPA, 1 SAC (both were still proposed at March 2005), 9 SSSI’s and 79 E WHS’s, totalling over 5,600ha. 99% of SSSI’s are in favourable or unfavourable but C recovering condition. U Actions For The Future T

Comprehensive data is not available for all ODPM’s core output indicators and further I work is required on addressing some of these issues. Some of the data has been collated V manually at the end of the monitoring year and further work needs to be done on trying to E automate data collection as developments are permitted.

Furthermore, as existing policies are reviewed and new policies are formulated as part of the LDF process, it is likely that it will be necessary to reconsider the contextual indicators S and develop additional local output indicators. This process will involve consultation with U various stakeholders. M On the basis of the work undertaken in connection with the production of this AMR, the M following points are highlighted: A Housing R Y Progress Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs to ensure an adequate supply of land for housing following the principles set out in the BSP and emerging RSS.

Pursue a Housing Market Assessment to help compile a sound evidence base on which to base policies on affordable housing and dwelling size and type. Look at collecting data on these topics on a more regular automated basis.

Consider analysing the density of development by size of site and re-visit the definition given in the Good Practice Guide relating to core output indicator 2c (Density) which implies that any site upon which a completion is registered should be included in the analysis. Look at collecting data on a more regular automated basis.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Employment

With reference to the results of the EPS, examine the needs of the local economy for employment land and buildings and ensure that appropriate provision is made through the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs. As part of this process, look at the definition and extent of defined employment areas and the scope for change of use of employment sites.

Further discuss the need for gross internal employment floorspace figures with SEERA and GOSE to ensure a regionally consistent approach. E X Transport E C Set up a system for the monitoring of parking spaces provided on permitted non-residential development within Use Class Orders A, B and D. U T Progress parking standards DPD. I Look at incorporating the expanded definitions relating to core output indicator 3b V (Accessibility) that were published by ODPM in October 2005, particularly those relating to major retail centres and areas of employment. Take greater account of facilities beyond E the Borough boundary. Further discuss whether the accessibility analysis should be expanded to relate to any residential site where a completion was registered in the monitoring year as opposed to wholly completed sites. S U Environment M

Liaise with GOSE/SEERA over problems of monitoring the management of open space. M A Liaise with TVERC to ensure progress is made on gathering data in respect of core output indicator 8 (Biodiversity) and discuss data needs in respect of local indicators. R Y Look at setting up a formal means of monitoring facilities capable of generating energy from renewable sources.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Contents

Page

C Executive Summary 2 O N Contents 6 T Abbreviations 7 E N Chapter 1 Introduction 8 T Chapter 2 Review of the Development Plan System 15 S

Chapter 3 The Borough and Its People 27

Chapter 4 Housing 33

Chapter 5 Employment 51

Chapter 6 Transport 78

Chapter 7 Environment 85

Appendices 103

Data Sources and References

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Abbreviations

AAP Area Action Plan AMR Annual Monitoring Report ASHE Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings BAP Biodiveristy Action Plan BIDS Business Industrial Distribution Storage A BFBLDS Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Scheme B BFBC Bracknell Forest Borough Council BFBLP Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan B BRP Bracknell Regeneration Partnership R BSP Berkshire Structure Plan BTC Bracknell Town Centre E BVPI Best Value Performance Indicators V DPD Development Plan Document

EA Environment Agency I EPS Employment Potential Study A GOSE Government Office for the South East T HMAA Housing Market Area Assessment JMW Joint Minerals and Waste I JSPU Joint Strategic Planning Unit O LDD Local Development Document LDF Local Development Framework N LDS Local Development Scheme S LID Limiting the Impact of Development LTP Local Transport Plan ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister PDG Planning Delivery Grant PDL Previously Developed Land PINS Planning Inspectorate PPG Planning Policy Guidance PPS Planning Policy Statement RMLP Replacement Minerals Local Plan RPG Regional Planning Guidance RSS Regional Spatial Strategy RSL Registered Social Landlord SA Sustainability Appraisal SAC Special Area of Conservation SCI Statement of Community Involvement SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEERA South East England Regional Assembly SEP South East Plan SPA Special Protection Area SPD Supplementary Planning Documents SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest TRL Transport Research Laboratory TVERC Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre UA Unitary Authority UKBAP UK Biodiveristy Action Plan UPS Urban Potential Study WHS Wildlife Heritage Site WLP Waste Local Plan

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report

2004-2005

C H A P T E CHAPTER 1 R

1

Introduction

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Introduction

Why do we need to produce an Annual Monitoring Report?

1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 changed many aspects of the planning system, including the replacement of local plans with a system of LDFs which are to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development. Monitoring is seen as a means of measuring progress in the achievement of this aim. Section 35 of the Act requires every local planning authority to produce an AMR. This is further developed in Regulation 48 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. The Report is to cover the period 1st April to 31st March each year and is to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of the following December. C 1.2 Further advice is set out in PPS 12: LDF (paras. 4.45-4.52) and LDF Monitoring: A H Good Practice Guide. The latter states (at para. 3.2) that the AMR should: • Review actual progress in terms of local development document preparation A against the timetable and milestones in the local development scheme; P • Assess the extent to which policies in local development documents are being implemented; T • Where policies are not being implemented, explain why and set out what steps are E to be taken to ensure that the policy is implemented; or, whether the policy is to be amended or replaced; R • Identify the significant effects of implementing policies in local development documents and whether they are as intended; and, 1 • Set out whether policies are to be amended or replaced.

What are we monitoring?

1.3 As the 1st AMR is required to cover the period 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2005, since the commencement of the Act, it is recognised that only limited progress will have been made on preparing local development frameworks. Consequently, the Good Practice Guide suggests that the analysis of data associated with the indicators should look at the implementation of existing (‘saved’) policies i.e. policies and proposals of adopted plans saved under the transitional arrangements of the new planning system (see para 6.2 of the Bracknell Forest Borough LDS (March 2005).

1.4 The Development Plan for Bracknell Forest comprises: • RPG for the South East (RPG9), March 2001 • BSP, July 2005 • BFBLP, January 2002 • The RMLP for Berkshire, Incorporating Alterations adopted in December 1997 and May 2001, and, • The WLP for Berkshire, December 1998.

1.5 RPG9 was approved by Government in March 2001. The regional planning body, namely the SEERA is responsible for monitoring the policies in this plan and the emerging RSS. The Government also requires regional planning bodies to publish

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

AMRs. It is hoped that data collected for the Bracknell Forest report will feed into the regional reports resulting in a streamlined approach to interpretation and analysis.

1.6 Although the BSP 1991-2006 was the adopted structure plan for this area during the period covered by this report, the replacement plan covering the period 2001-2016 carried considerable weight by this stage, having been subjected to an Examination in Public in 2003 and subsequently amended. As a UA, Bracknell Forest is charged with the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of policies in this plan in this area. For the purposes of this report, the policies in the new BSP 2001-2016 (adopted July 2005) have been examined.

1.7 Whilst work is currently being carried out on the first stages of producing a LDF for Bracknell Forest, the BFBLP is currently the adopted local plan and its policies remain saved for at least 3 years, until the new Local DPDs are adopted. This report therefore endeavours to monitor the implementation of policies in the BFBLP. C

1.8 Similarly, the policies in the RMLP, and, the WLP for Berkshire have been saved. H The implementation of these policies is covered in a joint report for Berkshire, co- A ordinated by the JSPU. P Links with other strategies T

1.9 The Government is keen to encourage an integrated approach to monitoring, there E being a number of other policy documents which interact with local development R documents. An example is community strategies which share the same task of delivering sustainable development and potentially require the setting of communal targets and collection of similar data. 1

1.10 Bracknell Forest has a community plan called ‘Shaping Tomorrow Together’ which sets out 5 ambitions including developing sustainable communities. This plan is currently under review and an updated plan is being developed. It is hoped to use common indicators and targets where applicable.

1.11 There is also a degree of overlap with the LTP and the BVPIs. The possibilities of setting up a corporate monitoring system are to be investigated.

The use of indicators

1.12 The Good Practice Guide advocates the use of an objectives-policies-targets- indicators led approach. It is suggested that different types of indicators should be developed which would fulfil different purposes in the assessment of the effectiveness of local DPDs.

• Contextual indicators - these are only indirectly related to the policies. They are aimed at providing a better understanding of the wider environment (economic, environmental and demographic background).

• Output indicators – these measure the quantifiable physical activities that are related to the implementation of policies. The Government has published a set of core output indicators that all authorities must use, in the interests of having consistent, comparable data. As the core output indicators may not address the output of all policies, the Government also suggests that it may be appropriate

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

to develop local output indicators to ensure a comprehensive assessment of policy implementation.

• Significant effects – these measure the significant effects of the policies. They are linked to the sustainability appraisal objectives and indicators.

Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment

1.13 The monitoring of local policies will be fully integrated with the monitoring requirements of SAs and SEAs, as the process progresses. The Government’s guidance on SA of RSSs and LDFs (November 2005) states that the significant sustainability effects of implementing any relevant plan or policy should be monitored to identify unforeseen adverse effects and enable remedial action to be taken. Once C a Final SA report has been produced for each LDD, a more detailed monitoring H framework will be proposed and included in future AMRs. A 1.14 To date the SA process has identified and consulted upon 24 local sustainability P objectives which aim to embody the concept of sustainability. The process of scoring each emerging policy against all of these objectives can identify the significant T effects of implementing the policy and emphasises any social, environmental and E economic implications. When determining the significant effects of a policy against each objective, the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects, R including cumulative, secondary and synergistic effects must be considered. The magnitude and spatial extent of the effects need to be balanced against the value 1 and vulnerability of the receiving environment and population. Baseline data has been collected and published in an SA/SEA Scoping Report to guide this assessment of significant sustainability impacts, and information on relevant targets and indicators have also been compiled for this purpose.

1.15 Whilst it is acknowledged that the ‘saved’ policies have not been subject to SA, the policies (through the collected data) have been scored against the sustainability objectives for this AMR to give some idea of the delivery of sustainability. The key positive and negative significant effects of each indicator has been summarised at the end of each indicator. The scoring system and full details of the appraisal are included in Appendix 1.

Limitations of the 1st AMR

1.16 Whilst the objectives-policies-targets-indicators approach will be adopted in the development of policies in the LDDs, the policies in the currently adopted plans pre- date this approach, which makes it difficult to measure progress and relate to specified national indicators or develop appropriate local indicators. In spite of this, considerable effort has been made to attribute ‘saved’ policies to core output indicators and provide some data. In some cases the format of the data is not strictly in accordance with the definitions given in the Good Practice Guide. In such instances, an explanation is given in the text. A limited number of local indicators have also been developed, but more thought will need to be given to these in future.

1.17 The production of this report has also raised a number of issues about the collection and presentation of data which will need to be addressed before embarking on the second report. In some cases this means the collation of additional data from

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

existing sources and in others it means setting up new areas of research. These are highlighted in the commentary. Whilst it has been possible to include some historic data to help assess general trends, this report essentially provides a benchmark against which to assess future performance. The value of the report should therefore increase as data is built up and trends over time can be recorded and analysed.

The preparation of this report

1.18 Bracknell Forest has liaised with the other UAs in Berkshire and the JSPU to secure some consistency in approach, particularly in the interpretation of the core indicators.

1.19 A Berkshire AMR Group was set up during the summer of 2005 and has subsequently met on a number of occasions. The Group has also tried to co-ordinate requests for further advice and specialist data from other bodies, for example from the TVERC. C

1.20 Whilst much of the data has come from BFBC and the planning applications and H commitments system managed by the JSPU, some data has been obtained from A secondary sources. This is particularly the case with the contextual indicators. P Issues facing the Borough T

1.21 The Good Practice Guide requires local planning authorities to highlight any E particular issues that have arisen during the monitoring period. The following issues R have been identified. These present considerable challenges and are looked at further in the relevant chapters: 1 Delivery of housing in view of the lack of progress on the development of 2 large sites released through the BFBLP, namely land at Peacock Farm and the Staff College (see page 39).

Delivery of the regeneration of BTC in view of the fact that the existing centre does not meet the needs of modern retailing or the demand of its catchment population, suffers from a poor mix of uses and no evening economy (see page 74).

1.22 A further Berkshire-wide issue being faced by this Authority and the other UAs is the anticipated level of future waste arising. Further details of this issue are contained within the JMW AMR which is available to download from www.berks-jsu.gov.uk.

Service Improvements

Pendleton Score

1.23 As part of its ambition to improve efficiency and make it easier for the community to engage in planning processes, the Council has invested considerable resources in services that are available online, for example, the ability to make a planning application online, including the payment of fees, through the Planning Portal website and the ability to view, track and make comments on existing planning applications, appeals and related documents/plans.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

1.24 This accords with ODPM’s vision of achieving a ‘world class e-planning service’. To assess progress on achieving this vision, in 2004, ODPM commissioned Peter Pendleton & Associates to carry out a remote survey of the e-planning services offered on the websites of all authorities in England and Wales. 21 criteria were used and the survey included looking at the development control process and policy.

ODPM used the data to inform decisions on the distribution of PDG funding. C 1.25 BFBC signed up to the Planning Portal in May 2005 and was one of only 3 Local Authorities who attained the maximum score of 21 points. H A Planning obligations P T 1.26 In certain cases, the Council may negotiate agreements in association with applications for development to overcome certain obstacles to the grant of planning E permission, for example, facilities for the benefit of future occupiers/users of the R proposed development. Due to increasing concern that the negotiation of agreements after resolution was delaying the determination of applications, the Council has revised its procedures. Whilst the range of matters that can be dealt with 1 by planning obligations outlined in the Council's SPG LID (October 2001), which is available on the Council’s website, applicants are encouraged to come and discuss possible requirements at pre-application stage so that matters can be determined in advance. Furthermore, following receipt of a planning application, if obligations are required, negotiations and the drafting of agreements take place at an earlier stage in the planning application process with all being made aware of various deadlines. The Council has also produced a template that can be used where unilateral undertakings are appropriate, in order to prevent uneccessary delay.

Structure of report

1.27 This report is divided into 2 sections. The first part describes progress in the implementation of the LDS. The second section (Chapters 3-6) looks at progress in the implementation of policies which are divided thematically, following the core indicator topic headings given in the Good Practice Guide.

1.28 Each of the chapters in the second section begins with the contextual indicators. These are followed by core and local output indicators which include a comment on significant sustainability impacts. The core indicators are referenced in the same way as in the Good Practice Guide. As indicated above, it has been necessary to look at the implementation of the ‘saved’ policies. Each output indicator is therefore followed by an objective taken from the BFBLP and the relevant policies. Similarly, the policies in the BSP have been related to the indicators. An indication of progress towards policy implementation (as suggested by the data stemming from the indicator) is given by the use of the traffic light symbol. The colours should be interpreted as follows:

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report

2004-2005

Red – improvements required C

H A

P T E

Amber – partial implementation, but on track R

1

Green – implemented

1.29 However, due to the data limitations already referred to, it would be dangerous to come to any early conclusions.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report

2004-2005

CHAPTER 2

Review of the Development Plan System

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Section 1: Progress under the former Development Plan System

Introduction

2.1 The documents for which BFBC was responsible in part or whole under the former Development Plan system include the BSP, the RMLP, the WLP and the BFBLP. C The preparation and review of the BSP, the RMLP and the WLP have been undertaken on behalf of the 6 Berkshire UAs by the JSPU. Review and monitoring H of progress against these is reported separately in the JMW AMR. A

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan P T 2.2 The BFBLP was adopted in January 2002. The Borough Council has been taking forward a Local Plan Alteration to make a modest change to the settlement boundary E at Amen Corner. Progress against the milestones for the delivery of this Alteration R for the monitoring year 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005 is set out in Table 2.1 below.

Amen Corner Local Plan Alteration: LPA001 2 Dates Milestones anticipated Actual dates Commentary April 04–March 05 in LDS August– 19 July–30 Sept Milestone met First Deposit period September 2004 2004 ☺ November– Milestone met SEA Screening December 10 Nov 2004 2004 ☺ Milestone partially met Small delay occurred to January– Second Deposit 17 Feb– 31 Mar incorporate additional February period 2005 Executive process. No 2005 adverse impact on timetable as Local Plan Inquiry took place in July 2005 as scheduled.

Table 2.1: Progress against the milestones for the delivery of the Amen Corner Local Plan Alteration, for the period 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005

Future risks

2.3 As at 31 December 2005, there are no identifiable risks that may jeopardise the future attainment of milestones for the completion of this Local Plan Alteration. The Council adopted the Alteration on 30th November. It is subject to a legal challenge period ending on 12th January 2006.

Recommendation

2.4 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Amen Corner Local Plan Alteration, no amendment is required to the LDS.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Progress towards a LDF for Bracknell Forest Borough

LDF

2.5 The Bracknell Forest Borough LDF will comprise a series of documents that together contain policies and proposals to guide future development in the Borough. These documents are known as LDDs. C H LDS A

2.6 The Bracknell Forest Borough LDS sets out the work programme for, and resources P required to prepare, the first phase of LDDs that will form part of the LDF. The T current LDS was brought into effect in March 2005, and covers the period December 2004 to December 2007. Amongst other things, the LDS specifies: E R • The LDDs to be commenced at any point during this period; • The timetable for, and milestones in, the preparation of these LDDs. 2 LDDs

2.7 During this first phase of the LDF (December 2004 – December 2007) the Borough Council has begun, or will undertake, work on the preparation of the following documents:

A. DPDs (planning documents that are subject to independent examination, and hence carry considerable weight in the determination of planning applications)

• A Core Strategy • Site Allocations • Proposals Map • Development Management • Amen Corner AAP

B. SPDs (planning documents that hold less weight than a DPD in the determination of planning applications. They supplement policies and proposals in DPDs)

• Parking Standards • Designing for Accessibility in Bracknell Forest • LID

C. Bracknell Forest Borough SCI; setting out:

• Who will be consulted on planning matters • When and how to get involved; and • The resources for carrying out consultation

D. Minerals and Waste LDDs

2.8 With regard to minerals and waste planning, the 6 UAs in Berkshire have decided to produce a JMW LDF, which will be complementary to their individual LDFs.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Progress on the Preparation of LDDs

2.9 For the purpose of this AMR, which considers the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, progress against the milestones set out in the LDS is reported in the tables below. C A. DPDs H Core Strategy A

Bracknell Forest Borough Core Strategy: LDD101 P Milestones April 04 – Dates Actual dates Commentary T March 05 anticipated in LDS E Commencement of August 2004 30 August 2004 Milestone met R document preparation ☺ Preparation of SA August 2004 – 6 September Milestone met 2 Scoping Report March 2005 2004 – 29 October 2004 ☺ Consultation on SA August 2004 – 8 November Milestone met Scoping Report March 2005 2004 – 12 December ☺ 2004 Preparation of and August 2004 – 30 August 2004 Milestone met consultation on Issues July 2005 – 31 August and Options and Initial 2005 ☺ SA (Regulation 25) Small extension to consultation period to allow for more extensive consultation. Table 2.2: Progress against the milestones for the delivery of the Bracknell Forest Borough Core Strategy, for the period 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005

Future Risks

2.10 BFBC has shown a strong commitment to delivering the Core Strategy DPD according to the agreed milestones. However, there are several risks which, unless resolved within the next few months, will cause the Borough Council to re-think this strategy:

1. Thames Basin Heaths SPA

The 11 affected authorities are currently working with English Nature, GOSE and ODPM to develop a robust and realistic Delivery Plan to which future development can refer to ensure protection and effective mitigation arises. However, progress has been slow and more recently, despite steps from GOSE and PINS to redress the problems presented by the Delivery Plan, the impact on current development proposals has not been cleared up. This casts great doubt on the ability to plan for current levels of housing allocation, let alone for large amounts of new housing

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

projected through the RSS process. This doubt is based on the lack of clarity on what constitutes an effective

“Delivery Plan” and how any development can show no adverse impact on the SPA either in isolation or in combination.

This risk is heightened further by the recent European Court of Justice ruling which will require further guidance to be developed by ODPM to ensure development plans C are fully assessed against the Habitats Directive and its regulations. All DPDs at H BFBC are being assessed currently against this Directive, but there is concern that the emerging SEP has not been properly assessed. Until such time as the guidance A has been produced, the assessment has taken place and then considered in P examination, it may be premature to advance a local Core Strategy which may or may not be in line with the RSS. T E Locally, in the absence of a realistic tool for judging an appropriate assessment of R potential impacts, almost all of the developable area of the Borough is at risk of not being viably developed. This could have a tremendous impact on the delivery of sustainable development for the Borough. Unless a suitable implementation 2 strategy is in place and is proven to meet the legal requirements of the European Habitats Directive regulations, the Core Strategy could not be defended. Furthermore, until the RSS has been properly assessed against the Habitats Directive, any submission of a local Core Strategy may be premature. Therefore, unless an implementation strategy is agreed and in place by Spring 2006, and a proper assessment of the SEP is in place which confirms the agreed housing distribution is compliant with the Habitats Directive regulations, it will be necessary to delay the submission of the Core Strategy.

2. SEP

The SEP will contain the housing allocations which all principal authorities must deliver between 2006 and 2026. The Council has built a Core Strategy which will guide delivery of an agreed housing figure as of 13 December 2005. Whilst effort has been made to include a flexible strategy for future growth, any higher allocation imposed by Government may mean the Borough Council will need to re-think its Core Strategy and vision. As it remains unclear what Government’s intentions are for reviewing and confirming regional and sub-regional housing allocations, consideration of our Core Strategy by Government and subsequently at an examination in early 2007 may be considered premature. Unless further guidance is given by Spring 2006, this will cause unwanted, but necessary, delay in the programme.

3 Resources

The Council has made every effort to resource properly the development of its Core Strategy. However, guidance and advice emerging during early consultation on initial DPDs suggests there is a heavy expectation for detailed studies to be undertaken (eg traffic modelling). Therefore, whilst every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure internal resources are directed at delivering the milestones in the BFBLDS, additional requirements and other resource pressures (eg dealing

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

with town centre regeneration, housing delivery, environmental assessment) mean that adequate resources are not always available to address fully every task required to achieve those milestones.

Recommendation

2.11 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Core Strategy DPD, notwithstanding the future risks identified above, as at 31 December 2005, it is not C considered that any changes are required to the timetable for the preparation of the H Core Strategy. However, it should be clear that if resolution of the implications which have arisen in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA has not come forward, and A if Government has not made its intentions clear on any changes to the level and P distribution of housing allocation by Spring 2006, BFBC will re-submit the BFBLDS to GOSE in early Spring (ie April) for review and approval of a set of revised T milestones. E

For example, it may be necessary to delay the Core Strategy by at least one year R until the Panel Report on the SEP has been received. 2 Site Allocations

Bracknell Forest Site Allocations Development Plan Document: LDD102 Milestones April 04 – Dates Actual dates Commentary March 05 anticipated in LDS Commencement of August 2004 30 August 2004 Milestone met document preparation ☺ Preparation of SA August 2004 – 15 November Milestone met Scoping Report March 2005 2004 – 31 December ☺ 2004 Consultation on SA August 2004 – 10 January 2005 – Milestone met Scoping Report March 2005 14 February 2005 ☺ Preparation of and August 2004 – 30 August 2004 – Milestone met consultation on Issues July 2005 31 August 2005 and Options and Initial ☺ SA (Regulation 25) Small extension to consultation period to allow for more extensive consultation.

Table 2.3: Progress against the milestones for the delivery of the Bracknell Forest Borough Site Allocations DPD, for the period 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Future risks

2.12 It should be noted that the title of the DPD has been amended from Allocated Sites to Site Allocations. It was felt that the latter might have misled stakeholders into thinking that sites had actually been allocated for development early in the document preparation process.

2.13 BFBC is committed to moving forward to deliver the Site Allocations DPD according to the agreed milestones. However, there are several risks which may cause the Borough Council to re-think its timetable for the preparation of this DPD: C 1. Thames Basin Heaths SPA H The 11 affected authorities are currently working with English Nature, GOSE and A ODPM to develop a robust and realistic Delivery Plan to which future development can refer to ensure protection and effective mitigation arises. In the absence of a P realistic tool for judging an appropriate assessment of potential impacts, almost all of T the developable area of the Borough is at risk of not being viably developed. This could have a tremendous impact on the delivery of sustainable development for the E Borough and could cause the Borough Council to re-think its Core Strategy and one R of the delivery mechanisms for this: the Site Allocations DPD.

2. SEP 2

The SEP will contain the housing allocations which all principal authorities must deliver between 2006 and 2026. The Borough Council has built a Core Strategy which will guide delivery of an agreed housing figure as of 13 December 2005. Whilst effort has been made to make this a flexible document, any higher allocation imposed by Government may mean the Borough Council will need to re-think its Core Strategy and one of the delivery mechanisms for this: the Site Allocations DPD. This could cause unwanted but necessary delay in the programme.

3. Resources

The Council has made every effort to resource properly the development of its Site Allocations DPD. However, guidance and advice emerging during early consultation on initial DPDs suggests there is a heavy expectation for detailed studies to be undertaken. Therefore, whilst every reasonable effort has been taken to ensure internal resources are directed at delivering the milestones in the BFBLDS, additional requirements and other resource pressures (eg dealing with town centre regeneration, housing delivery, environmental assessment) mean that adequate resources are not always available to address fully every task required to achieve those milestones.

Recommendation

2.14 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, notwithstanding the future risks identified above, as at 31 December 2005, it is not considered that any changes are required to the timetable for the

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

preparation of the Site Allocations DPD. Hence, no amendment is required currently to the LDS in this respect. However, when the LDS is reviewed for any other reason, the opportunity should be taken to update the title of this DPD.

Proposals Map

2.15 The Proposals Map graphically illustrates the policies and proposals set out in the BFBLP. As the review of the Local Plan progresses, with the gradual replacement of policies and proposals by those contained in DPDs, the Proposals Map will require updating. Commencement of this process will not be needed until February 2006. Hence, there are no milestones on which to report for the current monitoring year of 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005. However, should the risks highlighted in 2.10 and C 2.13 above not be addressed, further changes may be necessary. H Future Risks A P 2.16 As at 31 December 2005, there are no identifiable risks that may jeopardise the future attainment of milestones for the preparation of the Proposals Map. T E Recommendation R 2.17 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Proposals Map, no amendment is required to the LDS. 2 Development Management

2.18 The Development Management DPD will provide a more detailed policy framework for development control purposes to ensure that the broad policy framework set out in the Core Strategy is delivered. Commencement of the preparation of this DPD is not due until October 2006, hence there are no milestones on which to report for the current monitoring year of 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005.

Future Risks

2.19 Given the uncertainty raised in paragraphs 2.10 and 2.13 above, it is anticipated that resources will be needed to dedicate more time to developing robust technical information and policy support for the Core Strategy and Site Allocation DPDs. As there is no pressing policy issue for moving the Development Management DPD forward, we feel it could be delayed to allow reallocation of resources to a greater need.

Recommendation

2.20 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Development Management DPD, it is recommended that the commencement of this DPD is delayed by a year until October 2007. The consequence of this will be that pre-submission public consultation as required by Regulation 25 will take place during 2008, with consultation on Preferred Options in April and May 2009 and submission of the DPD to the Secretary of State in November 2009. It is anticipated that the Examination will commence in June 2010, with receipt of the Inspector’s Report in November 2010. Adoption is expected in February 2011.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Amen Corner AAP

2.21 The Amen Corner AAP will provide detailed policies to guide and deliver future development of land at Amen Corner. Commencement of the preparation of this DPD is not due until March 2007, hence there are no milestones on which to report for the current monitoring year of 1 April 2004 - 31 March 2005.

Future Risks C

2.22 As at 31 December 2005, there are no identifiable risks that may jeopardise the H future attainment of milestones for the preparation of the Amen Corner AAP. A P Recommendation T 2.23 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Amen Corner AAP, no E amendment is required to the LDS. However, should the risks highlighted in 2.10 and 2.13 above not be addressed, further changes may be necessary. R

B. SPDs 2

Parking Standards

Residential and Non-Residential Parking Standards: LDD201 Milestones April 04 – Dates Actual dates Commentary March 05 anticipated in LDS Commencement of January 2005 4 January Milestone met document preparation 2005 ☺ Table 2.4: Progress against the milestones for the delivery of the Residential and Non-Residential Parking Standards SPD, for the period 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005

Future Risks

2.24 The Borough Council has commenced this SPD, and has just completed an issues and options consultation with key stakeholders. Recent and concurrent consultations on the SEP housing distribution, the Core Strategy/Site Allocations DPDs, the SCI and the LTP, have meant that the Borough Council has needed to spend more time than anticipated on capturing and analysing the results. This, coupled with the loss of the Officer leading on the preparation of the Parking Standards SPD to a different employer, means that it will be difficult to continue to meet the milestones for the preparation of this SPD in the short term. Therefore, whilst it may be possible to meet the next key milestone of consultation on a draft SPD in February 2006, to do so may mean a less robust and therefore less effective draft for consideration.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Recommendation

2.25 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Residential and Non- Residential Parking Standards SPD, it is recommended that a delay in the draft SPD consultation milestone from February 2006 to June 2006 is necessary. This would result in Executive approval of the SPD in October 2006 rather than May 2006.

Designing for Accessibility C Designing for Accessibility in Bracknell Forest: LDD202 H Milestones Dates Actual dates Commentary April 04 – anticipated A March 05 in LDS P Commence- January 4 January Milestone met ment of 2005 2005 T document ☺ E preparation Produce and March – May 10 January Milestone met R consult on SA 2005 2005 – Scoping 14 February ☺ Report 2005 Guidance issued in April 2005 2 advises that LPAs can prepare a single Scoping Report when consulting on the scope of a number of LDDs at the same time. Table 2.5: Progress against the milestones for the delivery of Designing for Accessibility in Bracknell Forest SPD, for the period 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005

Future Risks

2.26 As at 31 December 2005, there are no identifiable risks that may jeopardise the future attainment of milestones for the preparation of the Designing for Accessibility in Bracknell Forest SPD. However, it should be noted that the title of this SPD has been amended from Designing for Accessibility in Berkshire to Designing for Accessibility in Bracknell Forest. This is due to the fact that current guidance, which has only ever been advisory, was prepared jointly with the other 6 UAs in Berkshire. In preparing this SPD, the opportunity is being taken to make changes to reflect policies specific to Bracknell Forest Borough; hence the amendment to the title of the SPD to reflect this.

Recommendation

2.27 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Designing for Accessibility in Bracknell Forest SPD, no amendment is required to the LDS. However, when the LDS is reviewed for any other reason, the opportunity should be taken to update the title of this SPD.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

LID

6.28 The LID SPD will set out the infrastructure and community facilities sought in association with new development in the Borough. It will review and update an existing SPD. Commencement of the preparation of this SPD was not due until September 2005, hence there are no milestones on which to report for the current monitoring year of 1 April 2004 - 31 March 2005. C Future Risks H

6.29 In terms of important background material relevant to the preparation of this SPD, A the Government has yet to release the “Good Practice Guide” in support of Circular P 05/05. In addition, there has been a delay in releasing the revised version of PPS3, which may or may not have serious implications for the ways in which T contributions are sought from new development. The implication of these delays is E that a postponement in the production of local guidance on LID is required. Both these key pieces of guidance are anticipated by the end of 2005. To accommodate R this delay will have the effect of delaying key milestones for consultation on a draft SPD by approximately 4 months. 2 Recommendation

2.30 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the LID SPD, it is recommended that the milestone for consultation on a draft version is changed from June 2006 to October 2006. Executive approval of the final SPD will move from November 2006 to March 2007.

C. Bracknell Forest Borough SCI

Bracknell Forest Borough SCI: LDD301 Milestones April 04 – Dates Actual dates Commentary March 05 anticipated in LDS Commencement of August 2004 30 August 2004 Milestone document preparation met ☺ Pre-submission consultation August 2004 – 30 August 2004 Milestone as required by Regulation February 2005 – 28 January met 25 2005 ☺ Preparation of draft SCI December 13 December Milestone 2004 – 2004 – met January 2005 31 January 2005 ☺ Public participation on draft April – May 4 April – 13 May Milestone SCI 2005 2005 met ☺ Table 2.6: Progress against the milestones for the delivery of the Bracknell Forest Borough SCI, for the period 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Future Risks

2.31 As at 31 December 2005, there are no identifiable risks that may jeopardise the future attainment of milestones for the preparation of the Bracknell Forest Borough SCI.

Recommendation

2.32 In respect of the timetable for the preparation of the Bracknell Forest Borough SCI, no amendment is required to the LDS.

D. Minerals and Waste LDDs

2.33 Progress on the preparation of the joint Minerals and Waste LDF is reported C separately in the JMW AMR 2005. H A Additional LDDs P 2.34 In implementing the LDS, consideration has been given to whether any additional T LDDs are needed to supplement those already proposed. As at 31 December 2005, no such need has been identified. E R Recommendation

2.35 In respect of whether there is a requirement to prepare any additional LDDs to form 2 part of the LDF, no such need has been identified. In this context, no amendment is required to the LDS.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Chapter 3

The Borough and Its People

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Contextual Indicators

Indicator: Con B1 Population size

Key Findings

Figure 3.1: The population of Bracknell Forest, 1951 – 2001 C H 120000 109617 A P 100000 95949 T 81225 80000 E 64135 R 60000

43192

Population No 40000 3 23408 20000

0 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 Census Year

Commentary

In 1949 land in and around Bracknell was designated for development as a New Town. The 1952 Masterplan resulted in the construction of four neighbourhoods which were virtually complete by 1963. As figure 3.1 shows, the population of Bracknell Forest grew from 23,408 in 1951 to 43,192 in 1961 ie by 85%. During the 1960s it was decided to increase the designated area of Bracknell New Town by expanding to the south. Between 1961 and 1971, the population grew by a further 48%. Since then the population has continued to grow, primarily due to the release of extensive areas of land for residential development (see Indicator CON B1 in Chapter 3).

At 2001,109,617 people lived in the Borough. Whilst the population of Bracknell Forest is lower than the population of the other UAs in Berkshire, it is more densely populated than West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham. At 2001, it was calculated that there were 10 people per hectare in Bracknell Forest.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con B2 Age structure

Key Findings

Figure 3.2: Age structure of population of Bracknell Forest and England, 2001 C

30% H A 25% P 20% T

% 15% E R 10%

5% 3 0%

4 4 7 9 4 9 4 4 er - 9 1 1 1 2 2 44 59 6 -7 v - : 15 ------5 o : 0 - 0 6 8 0 ed & 1 1 1 : 2 : 25 : 30 : 60 d: 6 d: 75-84 Ag d e e 90 Aged Aged: 5 -Aged: 7 8 ed: ed: ed: ed ed ed Ag Ag Aged: 85-89 Ag Ag Ag Ag Ag Age Aged: 45Ag ed: g A Age Group

Bracknell Forest England

Source: Census 2001; Table KS02 Age Structure; Crown Copyright 2003

NB: 'Age' is age at last birthday

Commentary

Figure 3.2 shows that the population of Bracknell Forest tends to be younger than that for the country as a whole. The mean age of the population at 2001 was 35.4 years compared with 38.7 nationally. Similarly, the population of Bracknell Forest is younger than that of the population of the other UAs in Berkshire with the exception of Slough Borough where the mean age is slightly lower (34.8).

Bracknell Forest also had the smallest proportion of people aged 65+ (10.8%) across Berkshire at 2001. The highest proportion of people in this age group was in Windsor and Maidenhead (15.4%). The bias towards a younger age structure is possibly due to the type of housing that has been constructed over the past few years, namely family units.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con B3 Educational attainment

C Key Findings H Figure 3.3: Percentage of people aged 16-74 meeting specified educational standards, A 2001 P Educational standard Bracknell Forest South East T Without any qualifications 20.3 23.9 E R Level 1 qualification 18.7 17.1

Level 2 qualification 22.8 21.2 3

Level 3 qualification 8.8 9.2

Level 4/5 qualification 23.2 21.8

Other qualification, but 6.2 6.8 level unknown

Source: 2001 Census, Table KS013

Level 1: 1+ ‘O’ level passes; 1+ CSE/GCSE any grades; NVQ level 1; Foundation GNVQ Level 2: 5+ ‘O’ level passes; 5+ CSE (grade 1’s), 5+ GCSE’s (grades A --C); School Certificate; 1+ ‘A’ levels/’AS’ levels; NVQ level 2; Intermediate GNVQ Level 3: 2+ ‘A’ levels; 4+’AS’ levels; Higher School Certificate; NVQ level 3; Advanced GNVQ Level 4/5; First degree; Higher degree; NVQ levels 4 & 5; HND Qualified Teacher Status; Qualified Doctor; Qualified Dentist; Qualified Nurse; Midwife; Health Visitor

Commentary

Bracknell Forest offers a labour force with a range of educational achievement levels. At 2001, 30% of people aged 16-74 had level 3-5 qualifications. This is the same as the regional average. As far as those with few or no qualifications are concerned, the proportion is just below the regional average. Employers need to be able to access individuals with a range of skills, knowledge and attitudes.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con B4 Weekly earnings

Key Findings

Figure 3.4: Residence-based gross weekly earnings in Bracknell Forest, 2002-2004 C H £600.00 A

£500.00 P T £400.00 E Bracknell Forest £300.00 R England & Wales £200.00 3 £100.00

£0.00 Residence-Based Average Gross Weekly Payof Full Time Workers 2002 2003 2004

Source: National Statistics - Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) 2002 - 2004

NB The Residence based data was only included in the ASHE from 2002 and the data has not yet been compiled for 2005.

Commentary

On average Bracknell Forest residents earn more than the average pay of residents in the South East and the nation as a whole.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con B5 Health C H Key Findings A

Figure 3.5: Percentage of people with a long-term limiting illness in Bracknell Forest P T 20 E 18 16 R 14 12 Bracknell Forest 3 % 10 South East 8 England & Wales 6 4 2 0 1991 2001 Census Year

Source: National Statistics; Census 1991 & 2001

Commentary

Health and wellbeing are essential to quality of life. There are a range of statistics that cover this topic and which together provide an assessment of the health of the population. It is therefore recognised that the statistics given in figure 3.5 gives a very limited insight.

As can be seen from figure 3.5, a smaller proportion of Bracknell Forest’s population suffers from a limiting long-term illness than across the region. In support of the general indication that the health of people living in the Borough is good, it is noted that the 2001 Census reveals that only 5.6% of the local population claimed that their health was poor. Once again this is below the regional proportion of 7.1%.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con B6 Levels of crime

Key Findings

Figure 3.6: Notifiable offences recorded by the police per 1,000 population in C Bracknell Forest and England & Wales, 2003-2004 H 18.4 20.0 A 18.0 P 16.0 14.0 T 11.3 10.2 11.5 12.0 E 10.0 7.7 R 8.0 4.0 5.6 6.0 3.5 4.0 0.6 1.9 3

Rate per 1,000 population 1,000 per Rate 2.0 0.0 Violence against Robbery Burglary from a Theft of a motor Theft from a motor the person dw elling vehicle vehicle Description of offence

Bracknell Forest England and Wales

Source: National Statistics Website - Neighbourhood Statistics

Commentary

Figure 3.6 shows that crime is relatively low in the Borough. Of particular note are the low levels of violent crime when compared with the figures for England and Wales. Theft from motor vehicles appears to be closest to the national average.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Chapter 4

Housing

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Contextual Indicators

Indicator: Con H1 C

Number of dwellings H A Key Findings P

Table 4.1 : Number of dwellings in Bracknell Forest, 2001 T

E Number of dwellings 44,482 R (household spaces)

Source: Crown Copyright 2003 2001 Census Key Statistics Table KS 16 4

Commentary

The rapid growth in the population of the Borough (see Indicator CON B1 in Chapter 3) has

been accompanied by much house building. Large scale releases of land began following the

designation of Bracknell as a New Town in 1949. This resulted in the production of a

Masterplan which led to the development of small self-contained residential neighbourhoods

on land around the Town Centre (for example, Priestwood and Bullbrook) in the 1950s and

1960s.

The designation of Central Berkshire as part of a larger sub-region suitable for major growth in

the 1970s, brought further housing development on land around Bracknell and in the

Sandhurst/Crowthorne area during the 1970s and 1980s.

By 1991, there were 35,700 dwellings in the Borough. Further development of land at North

Bracknell contributed to an increase in stock of 21.5% between 1991 and 2001 resulting in a

figure of 44,482 dwellings.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con H2 Household tenure

Key Findings C

H Figure 4.2: Household tenure in Bracknell Forest A P

4,229 T 10% E

R 7,499 17% Ow ner occupied Socially rented 31,664 4 Privately rented 73%

Source: Crown Copyright 2003, 2001 Census, Key Statistics Table KS 18

Commentary

The majority of dwellings in Bracknell Forest are owner occupied, reflecting the position across Berkshire. The proportion of dwellings that are socially rented is fractionally higher than the Berkshire average. However, the proportion of socially rented dwellings fell between 1991 and 2001 (8,760 dwellings or 25% in 1991 compared with 7,499 dwellings or 17% in 2001). This is due to the Right to Buy Scheme and the relatively small number of properties being built by RSLs.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con H3 Average house prices

Key Findings C

H Figure 4.3: Average house prices, 1999 - 2005 A P £250,000.00 T E £200,000.00 R £150,000.00 Average house prices - Bracknell Forest 4 £100,000.00 Average house prices - England and Wales £50,000.00

£0.00 Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: HM Land Registry

Commentary

The affordability of housing is a major issue in the Borough with those on lower incomes finding it increasingly difficult to gain access to housing, either to buy or rent. (Data on household incomes is given in Indicator Con B4 in Chapter 3.) This results in recruitment and retention problems particularly in some service sectors. Lack of housing that is affordable also encourages longer distance commuting as people are unable to live near their work or in locations close to suitable public transport interchanges.

The graph above shows how house prices have increased in the last 7 years and demonstrates the high cost of housing in this area compared with other parts of the country.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con H4 Dwelling types CC Key Findings HH AA Figure 4.4: Dwelling types in Bracknell Forest, 2001 PP TT EE 818 2% Detached RR 7,306 12,836 16% Semi-detached 29% 14,583 8,939 Terraced 44 33% 20% Flat/apartment/maisonette

Caravan or other mobile/temporary structure

Source: Source Crown Copyright 2003, 2001 Census, Key Statistics Table KS16

Commentary

Information on the existing type and size of housing stock, together with the structure of the existing and projected population is critical to ensuring that the housing provided is appropriate to the needs of the community.

Between 1991 and 2001, the proportion of detached dwellings rose by 14.1%, semi-detached by 10.9% and flats/apartments/maisonettes by 6.2%. The proportion of terraced dwellings fell by 16.1%. A comparison of the 2001 figures for Bracknell Forest with those for Berkshire shows a similar profile, although there is a slightly higher proportion of terraced units and a lower proportion of semi detached dwellings in Bracknell Forest than across Berkshire as a whole.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Output Indicators

Indicator: Cor 2a C Trajectory showing: net additional dwellings over the previous 5 year period; net additional H dwellings for the current year; projected net additional dwellings up to the end of the relevant DPD period; annual net additional dwelling requirements; and, the annual average number of A net additional dwellings needed to meet overall housing requirements, having regard to P previous years performances. T Objectives: E R BSP: Paragraph 3.04 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To provide for residential development, including affordable housing, in accordance with strategic guidelines, and the best principles and practices of sustainable development, in such a way as to maintain the environmental quality of existing settlements, the countryside and the Green Belt. 4

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies PH1.1 The Staff College, Bracknell H2 (Housing distribution and PH1.2 New housing development proposal at Peacock phasing) Farm

Key Findings

Figure 4.5: Housing Trajectory

Total Past Completions

1000

Oct 05 forecast:Total Projected Completions 800

SP06 Plan. Annualised 600 strategic allocation

400 Oct 05: SP06 Manage. Annual requirement taking into account past/projected completions

200 SP2016 Plan: Annualised strategic allocation

0 Oct 05: SP2016 Manage. 4 8 2 2 6 Annual requirement taking /9 /96 9 /00 0 /04 /1 /1 Commentary 93 95 99 03 11 15 into account past/projected 9 9 9 0 2007/8 0 0 The previous1991/92 BSP1 (1991-2006)1 1997/ 1 required2001/ 2 1,3502005/06 (net) dwellings2009/10 2 2013/14to be2 completedcompletions in the Borough

between Source:2001 and JSPU 2006, Planning and Commitments this is taken for onHousing, board series in para from 1991-2005;5.1 of the BSP BFBLP. 1991-2006; The BSPnew 2001-2016BSP (Policy H2) refers to the need to build 1,950 (net) dwellings during the same period (2001-2006) due to the incorporation of a shortfall from the previous period (1996-2001). This equates to an annual requirement of 390 dwellings per annum

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

Between April 2001 and March 2004, a total of 1,082 dwellings had been built leaving a requirement of 868 dwellings, or 434 per annum in the last 2 years up to 2006. In the year April 2004 – March 2005, a total of 242 net dwellings was completed. The under-delivery of housing in the Borough in this and previous years has been due largely to delays in the anticipated implementation of the 2 housing C sites identified in the BFBLP. These sites are identified in Proposals PH1.1 and H PH1.2: A PH1.1 RAF Staff College – identified for at least 680 (gross) new dwellings - P outline permission for 730 (gross) and 606 units (net). T Improve- PH1.2 Peacock Farm – identified for approximately 1,250 dwellings - outline ments permission for 1,500 units (net). E required Paragraph 5.2 (v) of the BFBLP identifies that these sites would contribute 1,826 R net new dwellings before March 2006 to meet the remaining housing requirement. Even though both sites have been granted outline planning permission for a higher number of dwellings than identified in the BFBLP, work has yet to commence on 4 either site. The Borough Council is now working closely with both landowners to try and progress the sites as quickly as possible. Whilst the Borough Council has not yet met its housing requirement, some of the deficit left by these 2 major sites has been met by the delivery of housing on a number of windfall sites at higher densities than originally envisaged.

In order to tackle issues of under-delivery, the Borough Council has worked closely with GOSE to produce a joint Action Plan for Housing Delivery. In addition, the Borough Council has identified the need for a Site Allocations DPD to be prepared as a priority alongside the Core Strategy and has already undertaken a UPS to support this work. The Site Allocations DPD is therefore in preparation in accordance with the timetable and milestones in the LDS (see Chapter 2), and is anticipated to be adopted in October 2007. The Site Allocations DPD will therefore enable an effective strategy for housing delivery to meet the Borough’s housing requirement beyond 2006. In order to meet the housing allocation beyond 2006, the Borough Council has started to prepare a Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD.

Policy Effectiveness The requirement set out in BSP Policy H2 is unlikely to be met by March 2006, however the anticipated shortfall will be a small proportion of the overall requirement for the Borough between 1991 and 2006. As set out below in ‘Looking Ahead’ and indicated in the trajectory above, there is a significant supply of outstanding permissions to be implemented in the coming years.

Looking Ahead As at March 2005 there was a total of 3,922 hard (with planning permission) and soft (identified in the BFBLP or with a Committee resolution to approve subject to a legal agreement) commitments for new dwellings (net). Estimates of future annual completions from these and the results of the UPS (April 2005), indicate (as set out in the trajectory) that there should be a significant increase in completions in the period 2006–2011.

Actions Required • To continue to implement the Action Plan for Housing Delivery, to ensure delivery of key housing sites including the RAF Staff College and Peacock Farm as soon as possible. • To ensure continued preparation of the Site Allocations DPD in line with key milestones. • To continue to work closely with GOSE.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005 To ensure continued preparation of the Site Allocations DPD in line with key milestones.

Significant Sustainability Impacts

An increasing level of development is likely to have greater negative environmental effects, including: an increase in traffic with associated air quality and climatic factors, possible C expansion into greenfield sites, and further pressure on resources such as water and energy. H However, there are significant social and economic benefits to increasing the number of homes because this is more likely to meet local housing needs and provide a workforce with A appropriate skills. P

As Bracknell Forest is currently not performing well on this indicator, the converse is true and T the social and economic benefits will be less, but the policy scores more positively against the E environmental objectives. R Indicator: Cor 2b Percentage of new and converted dwellings on PDL 4

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.05 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To ensure that new development accords with the best principles and practices of ‘sustainable development’, including the promotion of good public transport to serve it.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies H3 (Location of housing development)

Key Findings

Figure 4.6: Percentage of completions on PDL and greenfield sites, 2000-2005

% Gross completions on PDL % Gross completions on greenfield sites

120

97 100 93 87 80 65 62 % 60

38 40 35

20 13 7 3 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Financial Year

Source: JSPU Planning Commitments for Housing, series 2000 – 2005

NB The data in this diagram relates to all dwelling completions through new build, conversions and changes of use.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Key Findings cntd

Figure 4.7: Breakdown of completions on PDL, 2004-2005

1 0% 11 C 4% H 288 96% A P T E R

New Build Conversions Changes of Use 4

Source: JSPU Planning Commitments for Housing, 2004-2005

NB Figures represent gross dwelling completions. All conversion and change of use completions were on PDL.

Trend Commentary

Recent figures based on the annual housing commitments exercise indicate a high proportion of the Borough’s new housing (97%) being provided on previously developed land in the year 2004–2005.

Analysis of past figures indicates that the proportion of new dwellings being provided on PDL and through the use of buildings has steadily increased, reflecting the implementation of PPG Note 3 – Housing (PPG3) in planning decisions. The high proportion achieved this year is largely due to the fact that the majority of new

housing has been provided through the intensification of existing previously Imple- developed sites, for example, the replacement of one or more houses with higher mented density development.

Policy Effectiveness

Whilst neither the BFBLP nor the BSP contain specific targets for the level of new housing to be achieved on previously developed land and buildings, the national target of 60% of new housing development to be provided on previously developed land or buildings has been exceeded over the last 5 years.

BSP Policy H3 seeks to locate housing development in the first instance, on previously developed land and buildings in urban areas, and the provisions of this Policy have therefore been met during this year.

Looking Ahead

The housing commitments as at March 2005 show a total of 1,751 hard and soft commitments on greenfield sites. This is 45% of the total outstanding commitments. A large proportion of the outstanding greenfield commitment is on an existing Local

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary

Plan site. It is likely therefore, that the proportion of new housing being provided on

greenfield sites will increase in future years, however it is anticipated that the Government’s target of 60% or more of new homes on PDL will continue to be met in the short-term.

Action Required

• Ensure that the development of the spatial strategy and the identification of C sites in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation DPDs reflect the priority to be given to PDL. H • Develop a local target. A P Significant Sustainability Impacts T Development on PDL may provide better access to services, existing public transport links and E employment opportunities where it is within existing settlements. In principle, this reduces the usage of the private car, which eases congestion on the roads, improves local air quality and R limits the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to traffic. Any development on PDL will put less pressure on the countryside. However, there may be additional pressure on existing services and there is also the potential for the character of settlements (eg building type or 4

open space provision) to be lost.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Cor 2c Percentage of new dwellings completed at less than 30 dph, 30 – 50 dph and above 50 dph

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.04 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To ensure that new development accords with the best principles and practices of ‘sustainable development’, including the promotion of good public transport to serve it. C H BFBLP Policies BSP Policies A H6 (Residential density and dwelling mix) P T Key Findings E R Figure 4.8: Density of completed residential sites, 2004-05 4

38% 39% Less than 30dph 23% 30-50 dph Above 50 dph

Source: JSPU Planning Commitments for Housing at March 2005

NB Data relates to large, medium and small residential sites that were wholly completed in 2004-2005.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

In order to make efficient use of land and promote urban renaissance, the Government encourages local planning authorities to avoid developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare (PPG3). C 61% of new housing on sites which were wholly completed during 2004-2005 were provided at a density of more than 30 dwellings per hectare. This analysis includes H all developments including one-for-one replacements in a range of settings, A including larger grounds. In addition, it includes the completion of a large site P granted permission prior to PPG3. Notably almost 40% of housing was provided at Imple- a density of 50 dwellings per hectare or above, reflecting the increase in flatted T mented developments. E

Policy Effectiveness R

Policy H6 of the BSP seeks to encourage the efficient use of land and reflects Government Guidance, as set out above. Development is being achieved in 4 accordance with this policy.

The BFBLP does not contain a specific policy on density but in the light of national and strategic policy, the density of all planning applications involving residential development is assessed and the results are a material consideration in the decision making process

Looking Ahead

The density of outstanding permissions has yet to be analysed. However, we expect this will show that post PPG3 decisions are providing a higher average density.

Action Required

• Analyse densities by site size in order to assess whether there are any specific areas which need more detailed guidance. • Develop a local target. • Through the preparation of LDDs, the need for more detailed policies on density will be considered.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Providing a mix of housing density is more likely to meet housing needs and create vibrant and diverse communities and provide a workforce with a range of skills. This policy on its own will not have significant environmental impacts.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Cor 2d Affordable housing completions

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.04 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To provide and maintain a mix and balance of house types, sizes and tenures to cater for the range of housing needs in the Borough. The Borough Council will seek to ensure the provision of affordable housing to meet those needs where appropriate. C H BFBLP Policies BSP Policies A H8 (Affordable housing) H5 (Affordable housing) P Affordable Housing SPG T E Key Findings R

Figure 4.9: Private and affordable housing completions, 2004-2005 4

62 (21%) Gross affordable housing completions

238 Gross private dw elling (79%) completions

Source: JSPU Planning Commitments for Housing at March 2005: BFBC, data from planning applications

Figure 4.10: Gross and net affordable housing completions, 2000-2005

140 133 133

120

100 86 80 71 Gross affordable housing completions 58 58 62 62 60 49 49 Net affordable housing 40 completions

20

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Source: BFBC, data from planning applications

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

Policy H5 of the BSP seeks to ensure that a proportion of the housing allocation will C be for affordable housing. Policy H8 of the BFBLP seeks to achieve affordable housing on sites of over 1 hectare or on schemes proposing 25 or more net H additional dwellings. A

SPG produced in September 2003 states that the Borough Council will seek P provision of 23% affordable and 15% key worker housing on such sites. T

E Imple- Contextual Indicator Con H3 identifies that the affordability of housing is a mented significant issue in the Borough with average house prices being significantly higher R than the national average. This has been recognised by the Borough Council through the Local Plan policy and more recently through the adoption of SPG referred to above. 4

In the last year, 62 affordable housing units were provided through the implementation of local plan policies. This includes completion of a wholly affordable scheme of 25 units at Bay Road. All have contributed to the housing needs of the Borough.

Many of the schemes currently being completed were negotiated prior to adoption of SPG so the contribution from qualifying schemes should increase as units are delivered.

Policy Effectiveness

Whilst existing policies and SPG have been effective in delivering affordable housing, a growing cause for concern has been developers avoiding triggering the affordable housing threshold by submitting schemes of 24 net units.

Delays in the implementation of Peacock Farm and RAF Staff College have also impacted on the delivery of affordable and key worker housing.

Looking Ahead

Local Plan policies and the SPG will continue to generate a supply of affordable and key worker housing.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

Action Required

• Ensure that the Core Strategy DPD continues to set a framework for the future provision of affordable and key worker housing. • Consider the impact of the Planning Obligations Circular 5/05, and the expected PPS3 on future policies on affordable housing. • Pursue the preparation of a HMAA as referred to in Local Indicator Loc 2a below, and consider the implications on the revision of existing policies. C • Develop a local target. H A P Significant Sustainability Impacts T E Bracknell Forest Borough Council performed quite well against this indicator which leads to some positive social impacts, in particular meeting local housing needs, reducing social R exclusion and creating diverse communities. There are no significant environmental impacts of this as a stand-alone policy. 4

Indicator: LOC2a Dwelling types and sizes

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.04 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To provide and maintain a mix and balance of house types, sizes and tenures to cater for the range of housing needs in the Borough. The Borough Council will see to ensure the provision of affordable housing to meet those needs where appropriate.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies H7 (Dwelling types) H6 (Residential density and dwelling mix)

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Key Findings

Figure 4.11: Dwelling sizes, 2004-2005 Figure 4.12: Dwelling types, 2004-2005

1 100% 9 100% 28 C 90% 90% 68 32 H 80% 80% Mobility Unit A 70% 70% 74 P 47 Detached/Bung 60% 5 B ed 60% alow T 4 Bed Semi Detached 50% 3 Bed 50% E 2 Bed 40% 1 B e d 40% Terraced R 12 8

% Gross Completions % Gross 30% Completions % Gross 30% 16 0 Flat 4 20% 20%

10% 10% 43 0% 0%

Source: BFBC, planning applications data

NB Data on mobile homes has not been included.

Trend Commentary

Policy H7 of the BFBLP seeks to achieve a variety of dwelling types within individual residential developments, including for small households, the elderly and people with disabilities. Information on existing type of housing in the Borough is shown in Indicator Con H4.

As indicated in Figures 4.11 and 4.12 above, a varied mix of dwelling types and sizes was built in the last year. More recent applications have proposed higher

Imple- density flatted developments on existing residential sites. This is reflected in the mented proportion of smaller units with almost 60% of new dwellings being one and two bed dwellings, and over 50% of new dwellings being flats.

Policy Effectiveness A varied mix of dwellings has been achieved in accordance with BFBLP Policy H7 and BSP Policy H6.

Looking Ahead Recent permissions and schemes currently under construction continue to see a high proportion of one and two bed dwellings, and a significant proportion of flatted developments. It is anticipated that in the short term the overall proportion of smaller units will remain high.

There has been some concern in certain settlements in the Borough that the number of new flatted developments has resulted in a change in the character of the area and in increased pressure on existing infrastructure.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

Action Required • A robust evidence base is required to inform the development of future policies relating to the appropriate mix of dwellings to be sought on new developments. The Borough Council is pursuing the preparation of a HMA C which will help to provide evidence on future mix. • To ensure that the development of the Core Strategy and Site Allocations H DPDs create an appropriate strategy to deliver a suitable mix of dwellings. A • Develop a local target. P T Significant Sustainability Impacts E BFBC performed quite well against this indicator which leads to some positive social impacts, in particular meeting local housing needs, reducing social exclusion and creating diverse R communities. There are no significant environmental impacts of this as a stand-alone policy. 4

Indicator: Loc 2b Percentage of completed residential development inside settlement boundaries

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.05 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To maintain the distinction between urban and rural areas, to prevent the coalescence of existing settlements. To resist pressure on areas not allocated for development by containing such pressure within settlement boundaries. The Borough Council will to seek to ensure that small scale development on suitable sites within defined settlements has no adverse impact on its surroundings.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies H1 (New residential development); DP1 (Spatial Strategy); DP6 H5 (New dwellings outside settlements; (Land outside settlements) EN8 (Development on land outside settlements)

Key Findings

Table 4.13: Percentage of dwellings on wholly completed sites inside and outside settlement boundaries, 2004-2005

% of dwellings on wholly completed sites (gross), 2004-2005

Inside settlement 99.6 boundaries

Outside settlement 0.4 boundaries

Source: JSPU Planning Commitments for Housing at March 2005; BFBC, planning applications data

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

Policies EN8 and H5 of the BFBLP, and Policies DP1 and DP6 of the BSP seek to protect the undeveloped character of the countryside, and to limit new dwellings outside settlements to those which meet very limited criteria. Policy H1 contains a presumption in favour of residential development within settlements. C

99% of new dwellings on sites which were wholly completed this year were H within the identified settlement boundaries of the BFBLP. A

Policy Effectiveness P

Imple T mented Very limited residential development has taken place outside the settlement E boundary and Policies H1, H5 and EN8 of the BFBLP and DP1 and DP6 of the BSP are therefore providing effective support. R

Looking Ahead 34 The location of outstanding permissions has not been analysed to date.

Actions Required

• To ensure that the strategy and policies to be developed through the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs continue to provide effective protection from inappropriate residential development outside settlements in order to secure a sustainable approach to development. • Develop a local target

Significant Sustainability Impacts

Locating development within existing settlement boundaries provides better access to services, existing public transport links and employment opportunities. In principle this will reduce usage of the private car, which will ease congestion on the roads, improve local air quality and limit the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to traffic. It also puts less pressure on the countryside which is characteristic of the area or has particular conservation or historic importance. However, pressure on land within settlements is high and there is additional pressure on existing services. There is also the potential for the character of settlements (eg building type or open space provision) to be lost.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Chapter 5

Employment

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Contextual Indicators

Indicator: Con E1 Employment floorspace stock C Key Findings H A Figure 5.1: Employment floorspace stock by Use Class, 1995-2005 P

T 800,000 E

700,000 R

600,000 5 500,000

m² 400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Financial Year Professional and Financial Services, Business and Industry (A2, B1-7) Warehousing (B8)

Source: JSPU; Planning Commitments for Employment Uses at March 2005

NB: The definition for completed floorspace changed in 2002 to include unoccupied floorspace.

Commentary

The attractive environment, facilities and good communication links have made Bracknell Forest a popular place for businesses to locate. The local economy is characterised by high technology industries and the Borough is recognised as having one of the largest concentrations of knowledge-based companies in the country. Businesses include 3M, Hewlett Packard, Fujitsu, BMW, Panasonic and Siemens Nixdorf. Institutions of international repute such as Sandhurst Royal Military Academy, Broadmoor Hospital and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory are also based in the Borough.

Bracknell is the focus of employment within the Borough with concentrations of floorspace in the Town Centre, and on the Eastern, Western, and Southern employment areas. Amen Corner, to the west of Bracknell, has also recently become an important location for employment. Other locations in the Borough, such as Wellington Business Park in Crowthorne, add to the variety of premises available.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

In this document, the word ‘employment’ is taken to cover business (including offices), industrial and distribution and storage (BIDS) floorspace. Figure 5.1 gives details of C employment floorspace stock in Bracknell Forest. Unfortunately, it is not possible to break the data down into its constituent use classes. Furthermore, floorspace falling within the A2 H Use Class is included in the data, although it represents a small element of the stock. A P The graph shows that there has been a steady growth in A2 and B1-7 floorspace since the mid 1990s. Data from the monitoring of employment commitments suggests that this T increase in floorspace has primarily been due to the large amount of B1 floorspace built – a E total of 171,117 m² net of B1 floorspace was completed between April 1994 and March 2005 (See Appendix 3). R

Some of this growth has arisen as a result of the redevelopment and intensification of the use of sites formerly used for industrial (B2-7) purposes. During the same period, there 5 was a net loss of 38,978m² of general industrial (B2) floorspace. The amount of warehousing in the Borough has remained fairly steady over the last few years.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con E2 Local services floorspace stock. C Key Findings H A Figure 5.2: Local services floorspace stock P 70,000 T 60,000 E

50,000 R Shops (A1) 40,000 m² 5 30,000 Financial & Professional Services (A2) 20,000

10,000

0 Bracknell Crowthorne Bracknell Crowthorne Town Centre Town Centre

2000 2002

Source: ODPM website/Town Centre Boundaries data

N.B. Financial & Professional Services (A2) data was not available for Crowthorne. Assembly and Leisure (D2) was not available for either Bracknell Town Centre or Crowthorne.

Commentary

In this document, the phrase ‘local services’ is taken to cover retail, financial and professional services and leisure development – Use Classes A1, A2 and D2. Whilst the national core output indicators 4a and 4b also give the option of including offices, these are dealt with under employment development.

Due to lack of data at this stage, it has only been possible to provide limited statistics on A1 floorspace.

Bracknell is the focus of most retail activities in the Borough. Much of the Town Centre was built in the 1960s as part of the New Town project. The amount of floorspace increased during the 1980s with the construction of the indoor shopping centre known as Princess Square (18,600m² of retail floorspace). A further improvement came with the construction of the Peel Centre Retail Park at Skimped Hill, on the edge of the Town Centre. A market also operates on Friday and Saturday in Bracknell Town Centre.

The Town Centre’s shopping catchment area overlaps with the catchment areas of neighbouring centres such as Camberley, Windsor, Wokingham and Maidenhead. It also falls within the larger area served by Reading.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

In spite of the improvements that have occurred over the last 50 years or so, it is felt that the Town Centre fails to serve the local population well in terms of shopping and leisure facilities. 75% of Bracknell residents do not do their main non-food shopping in Bracknell Town Centre. This aspect is dealt with in more detail under national core output Indicator Cor 4b. C

The smaller town centres of Sandhurst and Crowthorne lie to the south of Bracknell and H provide a variety of shops that essentially cater for the daily needs of local residents and A provide a focus for local communities. In addition, there is the M&S/Tesco superstore at The Meadows in College Town and various other smaller neighbourhood shopping centres (some P containing supermarkets) and local parades serving residential areas around the Borough. T

The Council has been successful in restraining the number of out of town non-food retail E warehouses, there being two in Bracknell (Homebase and Wickes) and one (Homebase) straddling the southern boundary of the Borough with Surrey Heath. R

Indicator: Con E3 5 Number of VAT registered businesses.

Key Findings

Figure 5.3: Number of VAT registered businesses, 1999 - 2003

f 8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000 Financial Year 2,000

1,000

Stock of VAT Registrations at end o end at Registrations VAT of Stock 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Financial Year

Bracknell Forest Reading Slough Windsor & Maidenhead West Berkshire Wokingham

Source: National Statistics; Nomis - VAT Registration Reports 1999 - 2003

Commentary

Figure 5.3 shows that there has been an increase in the number of VAT registered businesses in Bracknell Forest from 3,295 to 3,425 between 1999 and 2003, representing a growth of 6.8%. The rate of growth has been higher in Bracknell Forest than in any other UA in Berkshire, reflecting the culture of enterprise and innovation in the area. Entrepreneurs are attracted by the fact that the Borough has a highly skilled pool of labour, good transport links with other areas and offers high quality housing and services such as education and health.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con E3 Distribution of employment by occupation.

Key Findings

Figure 5.4: Work based employment by occupation sector, 2002 C H 35 A

30 P t T 25 E 20 R

15 5 10

% Distribution of Employmen 5

0 Manufacturing Construction Services: Services: Services: Services: Public Other Service Distribution, Transport & Finance, IT, admin, hotels & communications other business education & restaurants activities Health Sector Bracknell Forest South East GB

Source: National Statistics; Annual Business Inquiry; Employee Analysis (2002)

Commentary

The nature of employment in the Borough has changed over the last few years, there having been a marked decline in manufacturing and growth in finance, IT and other business activities. Almost 90% of employment in the Borough is now in the service sector. This compares with 84% in the South East and 80% in GB. This shift in economic activity has had an impact on the location, amount and type of premises required.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con E4 Unemployment benefit claimants

Key Findings C Figure 5.5: Percentage of working age population claiming unemployment benefit, H 2001-2005 A P 3.0 T

2.5 E R 2.0

Bracknell Forest 5 1.5 England & Wales

1.0

Unemployment Benefit Unemployment 0.5

% of Working Age Population Claiming Claiming Population Age of% Working 0.0 April 2001 April 2002 April 2003 April 2004 April 2005

Source: National Statistics; Nomis - Claimant Count Reports 2001–2005

NB The proportions for 2004 onwards are calculated using the 2003 resident working age population

Commentary

Figure 5.5 illustrates the low levels of unemployment that the Borough benefits from, particularly when compared with those for England and Wales. Whilst numbers peaked in 2003 (possibly due to the contraction of the IT sector), they were still below national levels. Overall, levels have remained fairly steady which suggests ‘full’ levels of employment. Indeed, businesses in the Borough have experienced labour supply problems for particular skills at various times.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con E5 Workplace based earnings

Key Findings

Figure 5.6: Work-based gross weekly earnings, 2000-2004

£600.00 C H £500.00 A £400.00 P Bracknell Forest £300.00 T England & Wales E £200.00 R £100.00 Pay of Full of Time Workers Pay £0.00 5

Work-Based Average Gross Weekly 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: National Statistics - Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) 2000 - 2004

Commentary

Whereas Con B4 presents data on the average earnings of people who live in Bracknell Forest, Con E5 presents data on the average earnings of people who work but who do not necessarily live in Bracknell Forest. As can be seen, those working in Bracknell Forest earn considerably more than the South East average. They also earn more than those living in Bracknell Forest.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Output Indicators

Indicator: COR1a Amount of floorspace developed for employment by type C Objectives H BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage a diverse employment base and to resist the loss of industrial premises A P BFBLP Policies BSP Policies T E1 (Development in Bracknell Town Centre); E2 (Development E1 (Location of employment in defined employment areas); E3 (Development in settlements development); E3 (Diversity E but outside defined employment areas and Bracknell Town of employment) R Centre); E12 (Identified major employment sites) Key Findings 5

Figure 5.7: Amount of completed employment floorspace, 2004-2005

12000

10000

8000

m² 6000

4000

2000

0 Business, Offices (B1a) Research & Light Industrial General Warehousing General Development (B1c) Industrial (B2) (B8) Industrial and (B1b) Warehousing (B1-B8 Mix) Us e Clas s

Source: JSPU, data from Planning Applications and Commitments System

NB Gross external floorspace figures given, as internal floorspace figures are not available. The first column of the graph relates to flexible permissions that cannot be broken down into the individual uses.

Trend Commentary The amount of employment development completed over the last year (21,248m² gross of BIDS) has been fairly low, reflecting the low level of demand for premises. The majority of floorspace completed has been at 2 sites, namely the TRL, Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne and Syngenta at Jealotts Hill, Warfield. The TRL development was permitted in 2002 and involves offices, research and development and warehousing. The majority of the development at Syngenta was permitted in 2003 and involves the redevelopment of some existing buildings and the improvement of facilities for research and development purposes. Other completions involved small extensions to existing premises and changes of use to allow greater Imple- flexibility of use within the B1 – B8 Use Classes, thus resulting in more marketable mented premises.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd Although Figure 5.7 gives gross floorspace figures, if account is taken of the demolition of floorspace, it can be seen that the there has been a continuation in the trend of a net loss in B2 floorspace (-998m²). Whilst there has been a net gain in both B1 and B8 floorspace, the B1 figure is slightly below the annual average for the last 11 years (see Indicator Con E1 of this chapter and Appendix 3). C

Policy Effectiveness H Policy E1 of the BSP directs major office development to the Major Towns, including Bracknell and A states that other employment areas within settlements may also be acceptable locations for employment development. Policy E3 seeks to provide a variety of accommodation, including P opportunities for small and medium enterprises. T

Whilst 4 of the completed developments are located on defined employment areas, the others are E not and are dealt with more specifically below. Whist all schemes add to the stock of B1 and B8 R floorspace, the general trend of a decline in B2 floorspace due to the re-structuring of the economy continues, reflecting the national position. 5 The BFBLP employment policies relate to specific locations. Policy E2 relates to defined employment areas (as shown on the BFBLP Proposals Map) and generally permits development within the B1, B2 and B8 Use Classes. As indicated above, four of the completed developments are located on defined employment areas, namely the Southern Industrial Estate and Old Bracknell Lane. The schemes involve changes of use within the employment development use classes and extensions to existing premises. All comply with policy.

The other completed schemes relate to sites outside settlement boundaries. However, these sites are all established employment sites. Policy E12 relates to TRL. This policy permits changes of use, infilling or redevelopment as long as certain design criteria are met.

The other 2 sites fall within the Green Belt and it is therefore necessary to refer to Green Belt policies. Syngenta is covered by Policy GB5 which recognises that there may be a need for some development in connection with the existing use. The completed development involves the renewal of existing facilities and structures essential to the success of the operation and additional floorspace due to the relocation of some staff from premises in Switzerland. The other completed development in the Green Belt involves a change of use within the employment use classes and complies with Policy GB4.

Looking ahead Figures for the amount of employment floorspace under construction at March 2005 suggest that the low level of completions is likely to continue, at least in the short term. Furthermore, figures for the amount of employment floorspace outstanding (with planning permission and accepted in principle) are also lower than in recent years. However, the economy appears to be fairly buoyant and it is felt that the concept of ‘smart’ growth could be playing an important role.

Action required • With reference to the results of the EPS, examine the needs of the local economy for employment land and buildings and ensure that appropriate provision is made in the DPDs. • To further discuss the need for gross internal floorspace figures with SEERA and GOSE to ensure a regionally consistent approach.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Significant Sustainability Impacts

Economic growth and full employment are factors that are essentially in helping to sustain an area. This has to be balanced with the ‘footprint’ that such growth entails. Where possible, smart growth should be encouraged. Smart growth aims to achieve economic growth by maximising energy efficiency, sustainable transport and reduce the amount of floorspace needed for business to expand.

Indicator: Cor 1b C Amount of floorspace developed for employment by type, in employment or regeneration areas. H A Objectives: P BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage employment development in appropriate locations having regard to environmental issues T and transport considerations, especially public transport services. E BFBLP Policies BSP Policies R E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre); E1 (Location of employment E2 (Development in defined employment areas) development) 5 Key Findings

Figure 5.8: Amount of completed employment development in employment areas, 2004- 2005

1,000

900

800

700

600

m² 500

400

300

200

100

0 Area Area Centre Western Arlington Southern Amen CornerAmen Vulcan Way Old Bracknell Business Park Lane Industrial Industrial Area Industrial Area Industrial Area Bracknell Town Eastern Industrial

Business, General Industrial and Warehousing (B1-B8 Mix) Offices (B1a) Research & Development (B1b) Light Industrial (B1c) General Industrial (B2) Warehousing (B8)

Source: JSPU, data from Planning Applications and Commitments System

NB Gross external floorspace figures given, as internal floorspace figures are not available

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

Figure 5.8 sets out the amount of employment development completed in the defined employment areas (1,381m² gross). Levels of development in these areas have been very low in the last year, reflecting the general market for employment development.

Policy Effectiveness C Policy E1 of the BSP directs major office development to the Major Towns including H Bracknell and employment development to existing employment areas within A settlements. Policies E1 and E2 of the BFBLP generally permit employment Partial development in Bracknell Town Centre and in the defined employment areas. P implement ation, but Whilst there has been some employment development in these areas, it is clear T on track from Indicator Cor 1 that some development has also occurred outside these areas. E As already indicated, other BFBLP policies allow certain types of employment development elsewhere, particularly on established employment sites. The BFBLP R policies pre-date the adopted BSP which has an increased emphasis on sustainable development and accessibility by means other than the private vehicle, 5 and a number of commitments still exist that were granted permission under the older policy regime.

Looking Ahead

At March 2005, there was 104,608m² of employment floorspace outstanding (with planning permission and accepted in principle). The breakdown by location, suggests that most of this floorspace is confined to sites on the defined employment areas eg Amen Corner, Arlington Square.

Actions Required

• Ensure that emerging policies in the relevant DPDs reflect strategic policies in terms of location and accessibility. • Review defined employment areas. • To further discuss the need for gross internal floorspace figures with SEERA and GOSE to ensure a regionally consistent approach.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Economic growth and full employment are factors that are essential in helping to sustain an area. This is especially true in areas of deprivation where unemployment might be higher. This has to be balanced with the ‘footprint’ that such growth entails. Where possible, smart growth should be encouraged. Smart growth aims to achieve economic growth by maximising energy efficiency, sustainable transport and reduce the amount of floorspace needed for business to expand.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Cor 1c Amount of floorspace by employment type, which is on PDL.

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage employment development in appropriate locations having regard to environmental issues C and transport considerations, especially public transport services. H A BFBLP Policies BSP Policies P E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre); E1 (Location of employment E2 (Development in defined employment areas); development) T E3 (Development in settlements but outside defined E employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre) R

Key Findings 5

Figure 5.9: Amount of completed employment development on PDL, 2004-2005

12,000

10,000 9959 8,000 8391

m² 6,000

4,000

2,000

998 460 1440 0 Development Completed on Previously Developed Land

Business, General Industrial and Warehousing (B1-B8 Mix) Offices (B1a) Research & Development (B1b) Light Industrial (B1c) General Industrial (B2) Warehousing (B8)

Source: JSPU, data from Planning Applications and Commitments System

NB: The completed employment development shown in this chart represents 100% of completed employment development.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

All completed employment development was built on PDL and therefore contributed to urban regeneration and the protection of the environment.

Policy Effectiveness C H Whilst both RPG9 and the emerging SEP contain policies (Policies Q1 and A RE1 respectively) referring to the need to prioritise the use of PDL neither the BSP nor the BFBLP contain policies that refer specifically to this issue. The P Explanatory Memorandum of the BSP does however refer to the need to re- T Imple- use and intensify existing sites in urban areas (para 7.06) and Policy E1 mented encourages development within the Major Town Centres and within E settlement boundaries where most of the opportunities tend to be on PDL. R

The data shows that all the floorspace completed was on PDL, although a significant proportion was on established employment sites outside settlement 5 boundaries.

Looking Ahead

Whilst figures for the current monitoring year are favourable, the outstanding employment commitments figure (with planning permission and accepted in principle) shows that the proportion of development on PDL may fall slightly. At March 2005, 77% of committed employment development involved PDL, the remainder being on greenfield sites – essentially at Amen Corner and Peacock Farm.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

Actions Required • Ensure that emerging policies and the identification of any sites for employment purposes (in the Site Allocations DPD), take account of the priority to be given to PDL. • Develop a local target. C • To further discuss the need for gross internal floorspace figures with SEERA and GOSE to ensure a regionally consistent approach. H A P Significant Sustainability Impacts Development on PDL is important in that it conserves greenfield land outside the settlement T boundary. Over-intensive use of a site however can cause harmful impacts. This can include E increased air pollution, traffic and harm to urban biodiversity or the character of an area. R

5 Indicator: Cor 1d Employment land available by type

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage employment development in appropriate locations having regard to environmental issues and transport considerations, especially public transport services.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies E1 (Development in Bracknell Town Centre); E2 E1 (Location of employment (Development in defined employment areas); E3 development); E2 (Acceptability of (Development in settlements but outside defined employment development); employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre); E4 E3 (Diversity of employment) (Small businesses)

Key Findings

Outstanding employment land supply at 31st March 2005

Table 5.10: i) Sites defined and allocated in the LDF (or in this instance the BFBLP) that did not have planning permission at 31 March 2005 Proposal ref from Proposal Site area/floorspace figures BFBLP Proposals PE1i and PE1ii Redevelopment of BTC No specific details given Proposal PE6(ii) Swan Corner Site, Sandhurst 700m² gross/500 m² net of Mixed use development B1 floorspace including business development

Source: JSPU, data from Planning Applications and Commitments System

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Key Findings cntd

Table 5.11: ii) Sites for which planning permission has been granted.

24 22 23.74 20 18 16 C 14 H 12 10 A 8 P 6 Gross Site Area (ha) Site Gross 3.54 4 T 0.39 0.11 0.42 2 0 0 E Business, Offices (B1a) Research & Light Industrial General Warehousing R General Development (B1c) Industrial (B2) (B8) Industrial and (B1b) Warehousing (B1-B8 Mix) 5

Source: JSPU, data from Planning Applications and Commitments System

Commentary

As indicated above, ODPM has sub-divided the data into 2 parts.

i) Sites defined and allocated in the LDF (or in this instance the BFBLP) Whilst the majority of proposals involving employment allocations in the BFBLP have either been completed or are the subject of outstanding hard commitments, there are 3 remaining proposals which fall within this category.

Proposals PE1i and PE1ii both relate to the redevelopment of BTC. An outline planning application (04/01129/OUT) was submitted in 2004 and is currently being considered. The application includes redevelopment within the Town Centre for a mix of uses including 51,675 - 66,675m² gross/9,246 – 24,249m² net of business use floorspace.

Proposal PE6(ii) relating to Swan Lane Corner Site is still outstanding, there having been a lack of developer interest in progressing the proposal.

ii) Sites for which planning permission has been granted Almost all the outstanding employment land supply emanates from sites around Bracknell. Furthermore, the majority of the land supply is committed for B1 uses. The only site with an outstanding commitment for warehousing involves a site on the Western Industrial Estate where permission was granted in 2004. There is no land committed for industrial purposes. Whilst sites committed for B1 purposes offer an element of variety within that Use Class, most are destined for office use. It is worth noting that an outline consent for 27,000m² of business floorspace in BTC lapsed during the last year and has had a significant impact on the overall supply. This site now forms part of the Town Centre application. Another site known as Winchester House also lies within the Town Centre application boundary. The site currently contributes 7,992m² net of B1 floorspace to the outstanding commitment. This would be superseded should permission be granted for the Town Centre redevelopment. Other sites that are currently included within the overall figure are also unlikely to be developed for employment purposes eg Ethyl at London Road where part of the site has now got permission for housing and areas of land at Amen Corner. The data also reflects planning permissions that have been issued but, for whatever reason, have not been taken up.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary cntd

Policy Effectiveness Due to the rapid rates of growth that have occurred in Berkshire resulting in employment growth outpacing the growth in the labour force, and associated problems, the BSP takes a cautious approach to new employment development. The BSP recognises that there is still scope for employment growth through existing greenfield commitments and the re-use and intensification of sites within the existing urban areas. Emphasis is given through Policy E2 to looking carefully at the C wider impact of proposed development on the number of jobs and housing H pressures and transport infrastructure. Imple- A mented Apart from any net increase in B1 development arising from the Town Centre P redevelopment, only small allocations of employment land were made in the BFBLP, such as those contributing to the sustainability of the major housing T developments at Peacock Farm and the Staff College. The land supply in terms of E outstanding committed floorspace (rather than hectares of land, for which no comparison is available) is now at its lowest level for some time. R

It would therefore appear that planning policies together with market conditions (including lack of demand, possibly due to factors such as ‘SMART’ growth) and the 5 temporary uncertainty caused by the Town Centre scheme are constraining the supply of land coming forward for employment development.

Policy E4 (BSP) and Policy E3 (BFBLP) relate to provision of a variety of types and sizes (particularly small and medium) premises. The available floorspace data refers only to total floorspace and therefore cannot be used directly to assess the success of this policy.

Looking Ahead

In the short term, opportunities to add to the employment land supply will come primarily from the re-use and intensification of existing sites. However, due to relative land values between uses, particularly employment and residential, it is unlikely that there will be significant additions to the supply. Current policies aimed at protecting employment land will be tested through the planning application and appeal process.

Action required

• With reference to the results of the EPS, examine the needs of the local economy for employment land and buildings and ensure that appropriate provision is made in the DPDs, allocating further land if required. • Ensure that emerging policies are more in line with regional policy and the BSP. • Look at the need for a variety and mix of premises.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Diversification of employment use is important to maintain economic growth and employment use. It is therefore important that the planning system is flexible in ensuring suitable opportunities are available for a diverse employment base whilst ensuring the protection of the environment.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Cor 1e Losses of employment land in (i) employment/regeneration areas and (ii) local authority area

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage employment development in appropriate locations having regard to environmental issues C and transport considerations, especially public transport services. H BFBLP Policies BSP Policies A E4 (Future uses of employment land) P T Key Findings E

Figure 5.12: Losses of employment land in employment/regeneration areas and across R the Borough, 2004-2005 Amount of employment Location 5 land lost (ha)

Within BTC and the defined employment 0 areas

Rest of Borough 0.1

Total 0.1

Source: JSPU, data from Planning Applications and Commitments System

Trend Commentary

There was only 1 minor development that involved the loss of employment land to a completed non-employment use, ie a use falling outside the B1, B2 and B8 Use Classes. The development was located in Crowthorne and involved a change of use from offices to a dental practice.

Policy Effectiveness Due to concerns about the imbalance between jobs and the labour supply, plus the need for land for housing, Policy E4 of the BSP requires an assessment to be made of the suitability of land for employment as against other uses. The BFBLP policies pre-date the BSP and do not currently reflect the spirit of Policy E4 of the Imple- BSP. There has tended to be a general presumption in favour of safeguarding mented employment areas for employment uses in Bracknell Forest in the past.

The indicator relates to completed developments. Due to the time taken to assemble sites and complete developments, the data will tend to reflect the approach taken some time ago, ie on grant of permission. The data would suggest that the historic approach of safeguarding employment land has been effective as very little land has been lost to non-employment uses.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

More recently, the policy approach has changed and outstanding commitments probably give a better indication of whether or not Policy E4 of the BSP is being implemented successfully – see below.

Looking Ahead An analysis of outstanding commitments suggests that pressure to use employment sites for C non-employment purposes is increasing. Whilst many of those in the pipeline are of a fairly minor nature, all involve small losses of B1. The largest loss in terms of floorspace is likely to H come from FSS House, Mount Lane Bracknell where 1,200m² of offices have been demolished A for a residential scheme. A number of proposals involve the change of use of small offices to dental surgeries. P T Actions Required With reference to the results of the EPS, consider the need to protect existing employment sites E or those in particular locations from loss to other non-employment uses and feed into relevant R DPDs. Significant Sustainability Impacts 5 It is important that employment land is safeguarded in areas where there are low levels of employment and high levels of economic deprivation. It will also reduce the distance skilled workers need to travel to find employment.

Indicator: Cor 1f Amount of employment land lost to residential development.

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage employment development in appropriate locations having regard to environmental issues and transport considerations, especially public transport services.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies E4 (Future uses of employment land)

Key Findings

Figure 5.13: Amount of employment land lost to residential development, 2004-2005

Amount of land lost to residential development (ha)

Nil

Source: JSPU, data from Planning Applications and Commitments System

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary There have been no losses of employment land to completed residential development.

Policy Effectiveness As mentioned in the text accompanying indicator Cor 1e, Policy E4 of the BSP C requires Authorities to consider the need of communities for other uses of employment land, particularly housing. H A The same issue applies to the definition of this indicator as Cor 1e, in that it relates to completed developments and therefore tends to reflect the policy approach taken P Imple- a while ago. Consequently, the data suggests that the protective approach towards mented T employment land of the BFBLP has been effectively implemented in that no employment land has been lost to residential development. To gain a better E impression of whether or not the new policy stance advocated in the revision to R PPG3 and Policy E4 of the BSP is now being implemented, it is necessary to analyse the outstanding commitments – see below. 5 The EPS shows a significant supply of employment premises, particularly for offices, and suggests scope for some changes of use on peripheral sites alongside a more protectionist approach for core employment sites.

Looking Ahead The outstanding commitments indicate that the amount of land likely to be lost to completed residential development will increase and that regard is therefore being paid to PPG3 and Policy E4 of the BSP. Three ‘medium’ sized sites are now under construction, one being at FSS House, Mount Lane, Bracknell (involving 68 flats) and a further 2 schemes being in Crowthorne (mixed schemes involving a total of 64 flats). Other sizeable schemes have been negotiated since the end of the reporting year and will eventually feed into the commitments process.

Actions Required • With reference to the results of the EPS, consider the need to protect existing employment sites, alongside the need to allocate land for housing and feed into the relevant DPDs.

Significant Sustainability Impacts It is important that employment opportunities are safeguarded and that new residential development on land previously used for employment can be met by new or existing employment in the area. Failure to ensure adequate employment opportunities in the locality could increase traffic congestion (commute to work elsewhere) or create barriers to employment altogether for the less mobile.

Indicator: Loc 1a Percentage of employment development inside settlement boundaries

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage employment development in appropriate locations having regard to environmental issues and transport considerations, especially public transport services.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies EN8 (Development on land outside DP6 (Land outside settlements); E1 (Location of settlements); E6 (Shopping); E12 (Identified employment development); S1 (Shopping and major employment sites) leisure in centres); S2 (Retail outside centres); S3 (Leisure outside centres)

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Key Findings

Figure 5.14: Percentage of completed employment development inside and outside settlement boundaries, 2004-2005 100 C 90 H 80 70 A 60 P Inside Settlements % 50 Outside Settlements T 40 E 30 20 R 10 0 5 Business (B1a, B1b & General Industry (B2) Warehousing (B8) B1c)

Source: JSPU, Planning Commitments for Employment at March 2005

Trend Commentary Figure 5.14 shows that the majority of employment development in the last year has taken place outside settlement boundaries on 2 sites, namely TRL and Syngenta.

Policy Effectiveness Whilst development has occurred on sites outside settlement boundaries, the majority of floorspace constructed is on defined major employment sites. TRL is identified as a major employment site in the BFBLP and Policy E12 applies. This allows for some infilling or redevelopment as long as various criteria are met. Similarly, Syngenta is defined as a major developed site within the Green Belt and Policy GB5 applies. This also allows for some limited infilling and redevelopment in Imple- certain circumstances. Consequently, it is considered that there is no conflict with mented policies in the BFBLP.

Whilst Policy E1 of the BSP refers to the need to direct employment development to the Major Towns and other existing employment areas, this policy relates to ‘major’ employment development. Furthermore, the schemes referred to above were permitted prior to the adoption of the BSP.

Looking Ahead The majority of the outstanding commitment relates to sites that are located within settlement boundaries.

Actions Required • Ensure that emerging policies and proposals in DPDs give priority to locating development within settlements, with emphasis on Bracknell in respect of major employment development.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Significant Sustainability Impacts Development on PDL is important in that it conserves greenfield land outside the settlement boundary. Over-intensive use of a site however can cause harmful impacts. This can include increased air pollution, traffic and harm to urban biodiversity or the character of an area.

Indicator: Cor 4a C Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development. H A Objectives: P BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage a diverse employment base and to resist the loss of industrial premises. T E BFBLP Policies BSP Policies R E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre); E3 (Diversity of employment); S1 (Major retail E2 (Development in defined employment and leisure development in town centres); areas); E3 (Development in settlements but S2 (Retail development outside major town 5 outside defined employment areas and centres); S3 (Leisure development outside Bracknell Town Centre); E4 (Small major town centres); S4 (Other sport, businesses); E6 (Shopping); R2 (Urban recreation, tourism and leisure uses) recreation)

Key Findings

Figure 5.15: Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development in Bracknell Forest, 2004-2005

500 450 429 400 350 324 300 250 200 14 4 150 100

Gross Floorspace (m²) Floorspace Gross 50 0 Shops (A1) Financial & Professional Assembly and Leisure (D2) Services (A2) Use Class

Source: JSPU, Planning Commitments for Employment at March 2005

NB Gross external floorspace figures given, as internal floorspace figures are not available.

Commentary As noted in ODPM’s definitions accompanying Indicator Cor 4a, Use Class B1(a) (offices) is also captured under ODPM’s business development indicators (1a-1f). This report deals with offices under those indicators rather than the local service indicators 4a and 4b.

Figure 5.15 shows that only a small amount of floorspace falling within Use Classes A1, A2 and D2 was completed during 2004-05.

The only retail floorspace to be completed was in Crowthorne as part of a mixed development. There was no activity in BTC, but this is primarily due to consideration of plans to redevelop the Town Centre.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary cntd

The gains of floorspace in the A2 Use Class resulted from changes of use from A1 and involved small units. The only completions of floorspace for D2 purposes involved extensions to existing premises at Bracknell Sports Centre and a youth activity centre in Binfield. C

Policy Effectiveness H The policies in the BSP dealing with retail and leisure development are primarily A directed at major development. None of the completed schemes fall within that category. P Partial T imple- Policy E1 of the BFBLP deals with development in BTC, encouraging development mentation, which would add to the viability and vitality of the area. Other policies in the Plan E but on track encourage new retail development in the existing shopping centres and parades as R set out in Policy E5, depending on the scale of the proposal.

As indicated above, any development that has been completed is of a minor nature. 5 The retail development that has occurred in Crowthorne is in line with Policies E5 and E6 of the BFBLP. All completed development is considered to have complied with policy.

Looking Ahead The outstanding commitment (with planning permission and accepted in principle) at March 2005, was for 2,15m² net A1 (840m² gross/net relating to a proposed Lidl store in Crowthorne and 865m² gross/net relating to a retrospective application for Tesco at The Meadows, Sandhurst: -162m² A2 and 3,846m² net D2. As a general comment, there is little floorspace in the pipeline.

Actions Required • Progress proposals to regenerate BTC • Consider the need for further development within these use classes through the LDF process

Significant Sustainability Impacts A variety of employment opportunities can help sustain a community. It encourages cohesive, defined centres, and reduces travelling time to employment, leisure and services. Encouraging mixed use development can help ensure the right balance of uses is achieved.

Indicator: Cor 4b Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development in town centres

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage the improvement of shopping and related facilities in Bracknell Town Centre in accordance with strategic guidelines.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre); E1 (Location of employment development); E5 (Hierarchy of shopping centres); S1 (Major retail and leisure development in E6 (Shopping) town centres); S2 (Retail development outside major town centres)

Key Findings

Figure 5.16: Amount and percentage of completed retail, office and leisure development in BTC, 2004-2005 C 35 H 30 32 A 25 P 20 % T 15 E 10 R 5 0 0 0 Shops (A1) Financial & Professional Assembly and Leisure (D2) 5 Services (A2) Use Class

Source: JSPU, Planning Commitments for Employment at March 2005

Commentary The only floorspace to have been completed within BTC was within the A2 Use Class. This involved a change of use from A1 and amounted to 137m² gross/net. Whilst it represents 32% of the completed floorspace within this Use Class, there was only 429m² gross completed across the Borough.

Policy Effectiveness The development referred to related to a unit within the secondary shopping area of BTC and met the requirements of Policy E10 of the BFBLP.

Looking Ahead There is unlikely to be a great deal of activity in BTC until the regeneration scheme has been finalised. The only significant outstanding commitment in BTC relates to Winchester House, Broadway. It includes 1,469m² gross/198m² net of A1 floorspace and 2,416m² gross/net of D2 floorspace. This is slightly misleading as it falls within the regeneration scheme and will ultimately be superseded by the Town Centre proposals, should they be allowed.

BTC Most of BTC was developed as part of the New Town in the 1960s around the principle of an internalised pedestrian area served by an inner and outer ring road surrounded by service yards. The centre is now outdated, does not meet the needs of modern retailing, offers no evening economy and a limited mix of uses. It does not meet the demands of its catchment population or Bracknell’s strategic position in the Thames Valley as a focus for commerce and technology.

The Council is committed to improving the quality and vitality of the Town Centre and has taken the lead in moving the vision forward. A Masterplan (covering approximately 36ha of land), was prepared jointly by officers from the Council and EDAW (Masterplan consultants), and approved as SPG in 2002.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary cntd

During the course of 2004-05, the Council committed considerable resources to working in partnership with the BRP, the principal landowners in the Town Centre. Work focused on preparing an outline planning application which would translate the Masterplan into a scheme with formal planning status.

In November 2004, this culminated in the submission of the outline application for C the major regeneration of the town centre, including over 56,000m² of new retail floorspace, 1,000 dwellings and 45,000m² of new business space together with new H civic and college buildings, a Healthplex and 11,000m² of new leisure space. A Partial imple- The submission of the application represented a key milestone for the Council and P mentation, its partners, working to deliver the town centre which the community of Bracknell but on T Forest have sought for so long. track E The Council’s Strategy and Partnerships Section has continued to lead the R regeneration project within the Council, coordinating a series of workstreams to deliver regeneration (including learning and skills, development agreement, developing the Council's brief for the replacement civic accommodation and 5 procuring a design team, and town centre management). Strategy and Partnerships are also leading on the pan-European RENAISSANCE renewable energy project and the focus over the past 6 months has been defining and procuring an energy services company to provide energy for some 50% of the regenerated town centre.

Actions Required • Continue to progress work on the regeneration of the Town Centre, including consideration of the planning applications.

Significant Sustainability Impacts In recent years development has become refocused on town centres and has become an important strand of the government’s sustainability policy. It helps sustain a ‘central core’ of activity, maximise opportunities to use public transport, reduces crime in the evening by encouraging after-dark activities, encourages mixed-use development and reduces the propensity of new development on greenfield land.

Indicator: Loc 4a Percentage of vacant retail units

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To maintain and enhance the shopping centres and parades in the Borough.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies E8 (Change of use of shop units); E9 (Non-retail uses); E10 (Non-retail uses); E11 (Neighbourhood centres)

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Key Findings

Figure 5.17: Percentage of retail units that are occupied and vacant in Bracknell Forest, February 2005

9% (48) C H Occupied retail units A Vacant retail units P T 91% (516) E R

Source: BFBC Retail Survey, February 2006 (unpublished) 5 Trend Commentary A vacancy survey is carried out each Spring, covering the following centres: • BTC (including Peel Centre) • Crowthorne centre • Sandhurst centre • All other district and neighbourhood centres as defined in the BFBLP (Policy E5).

At February 2005, 48 out of 516 retail units (9%) in the Borough were vacant. The figure includes a number of vacant units in BTC, particularly in the secondary shopping areas, this reflects a certain degree of uncertainty caused by the Imple- regeneration scheme (eg units where tenants have been moved out in the mented expectation of demolition).

Policy Effectiveness Policies E8 – E11 (BFBLP) control changes of use from A1 to other retail uses. In this case the generally permissive nature of the policies acts to reduce vacancies. It is recognised that the change of use to non-retail uses such as cafés, restaurants and takeaways can help maintain the vitality and viability of shopping areas especially where vacancy rates are raised.

Looking Ahead The retail vacancy rate is just one indicator of a centre’s general health, and other factors need to be examined when considering the overall vitality and viability of a centre. However, retail analysts regard a 9% vacancy rate as generally healthy, and the figure is not a cause for concern.

Vacancy levels in BTC are likely to remain high until regeneration proposals are resolved.

Actions Required • Continue to monitor vacancy levels as a factor that feeds into monitoring the health of centres. • Continue to progress work on the regeneration of BTC, including consideration of the planning applications.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Significant Sustainability Impacts Vacant retail outlets are detrimental to an areas growth. It reduces employment and service opportunities in a locality, encourages crime and vandalism and encourages travel to large supermarkets which may be out of town.

Indicator: Loc 4b Percentage of completed retail and leisure development inside settlement boundaries C Objectives: H BSP: Paragraph 3.03 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage employment development in appropriate locations having regard to environmental issues A and transport considerations, especially public transport services. P BFBLP Policies BSP Policies T EN8 (Development on land outside DP6 (Land outside settlements); E1 (Location of E settlements): E6 (Shopping); employment development); S1 (Shopping and leisure E12 (Identified major employment in centres); S2 (Retail outside centres); S3 (Leisure R sites) outside centres) 5 Key Findings

Figure 5.18: Percentage of completed retail, office and leisure development inside and outside of settlement boundaries, 2004 - 2005

100 90 80 70 60 % 50 Inside Settlements 40 30 20 10 0 Shops (A1) Financial & Assembly and Leisure Professional Services (D2) (A2)

Source: JSPU, Planning Commitments for Employment at March 2005

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary All completed retail and financial and professional service development has taken place inside settlements.

Although figure 5.18 shows that only 35% of assembly and leisure development has taken place inside settlement boundaries, the number of sites involved is very small. In fact, only one site was outside the settlement boundary and this involved a small extension to existing facilities at a youth activity centre following the demolition of an existing building. C H Policy Effectiveness Imple- Generally, development has taken place in settlements in accordance with strategic A mented and local policies. P T Commentary cntd E R Looking Ahead The majority of the outstanding commitment relates to sites that are located within settlement boundaries. 5

Actions Required • Ensure that emerging policies and proposals in development plan documents give priority to locating development within settlements.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Leisure and retail sites within settlement boundaries mean that they are closer to the people they serve, can reduce the propensity of the need to travel and are not developed on greenfield land.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Chapter 6

Transport

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Contextual Indicators

Indicator: Con T1 Car ownership

Key Findings C

Table 6.1: Car ownership by percentage of households H A Bracknell Forest South East England and Wales P

Ownership of T 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 cars and vans E R Households with 18 15 31 19 32 27 0 cars/vans 6 Households with 43 40 43 43 44 44 1 car or van

Households with 2 or more cars 39 45 26 38 24 29 or vans Source: Crown Copyright SWS103 Census 2001 and Crown Copyright S82 Travel to work & SEG Census 91

Commentary Multiple car ownership increased by 6% in Bracknell Forest between 1991 and 2001. This was due to households that had previously had no vehicles, acquiring a vehicle and households which had previously had 1 vehicle acquiring another vehicle. At 2001, a much higher proportion of households in Bracknell Forest had 2 or more vehicles than at a regional or national level. Whilst only 15% of households in Bracknell Forest did not have a vehicle, 27% of households in England and Wales were without a vehicle.

A high level of car ownership is encouraged by the Borough’s excellent access to the A329(M)/M4 to the west and M3/M25 to the east. A series of primary and principal roads pass through the Borough linking it to the motorways. In spite of this, the Borough does have a good network of footpaths and cycleways. The proposals for the redevelopment of BTC include measures to improve the integration of different modes of transport and achieve a modal shift away from the car. For example, a new bus station is included.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con T2 Mode of travel to work

Key Findings

Table 6.2: Mode of travel to work South East England and Wales

Bracknell Forest ) (%) (%) Mode of C Travel 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 H Standard 1,400 2,133 14 4 6 7.4 A Rail (3.07%) (3.93%) 80 53 Not Not Not P Other Rail 3 (0.18%) (0.10%) Known known known T 1910 1,565 Bus/Coach 7 3 9 2.8 (4.18%) (2.88%) E 31,600 39,462 Car Driver 57 65 62 61.4 (69.19%) (72.66%) R Car 3,200 3,344 Not Not Not Not known Passenger (7.01%) (6.16%) known known known 790 603 Not Not 6 Motorcycle 1 1 (1.73%) (1.11%) known Known 1770 1,672 Bicycle 3 1 3 1 (3.88%) (3.08%) 4,770 5,420 On Foot 10 10 12 10 (10.44%) (9.65%) 240 236 Not Not Not Other Not Known (0.53%) (0.43%) known known Known Source: Crown Copyright SWS103 Census 2001 and Crown Copyright S82 Travel to work & SEG Census 91

Additional Findings

Change in cycle flow at key points on network: 15% (2001/02). 24% (2005/06). 60% (2006/07)

Percentage of children using non-car methods to primary school: 49% (2001/02), 50% (2005/06), 75% (2006/07)

Percentage of children using non-car methods to secondary school: 49% (2001/02), 69% (2005/06), 82% (2006/07)

Commentary As is suggested by the high levels of car ownership, the most popular mode of travel to work is by car. Although this trend reflects the regional and national picture, a higher proportion of households use the car as a means of travel to work in Bracknell Forest. Furthermore, the proportion of households using a car rose in Bracknell Forest between 1991 and 2001, both in real terms and as a proportion at the expense of bus/coach usage in particular. During the same period, rail usage rose slightly, but is still only about 4%. Whilst 2 strategic rail corridors pass through the Borough, the Reading to Waterloo Line and the North Downs (Reading to Gatwick) line, both services are fairly slow and the nearest major rail hub interchange is Reading.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con T3 Travel to work

Key Findings

Table 6.3: People living and working in Bracknell Forest, 1991 and 2001 1991 2001 Number of people in employment living and working in 24,310 30,841 Bracknell Forest C Number of people in employment working outside 24,000 28,958 H Bracknell Forest but living in Bracknell Forest Number of people in employment working in Bracknell A 30,742 Forest but living outside Bracknell Forest P Source: Crown Copyright SWS103 Census 2001 and Crown Copyright S82 Travel to work & SEG Census 91 T E Commentary R

The proportion of the population living and working in the Borough did not change significantly between 1991 and 2001, nor did the proportion of people living in Bracknell Forest but 6 commuting to work outside the Borough boundaries. At 2001, 1,784 more people commuted into Bracknell Forest than commuted out, ie there was a net inflow of people. It is likely that a high proportion of these work journeys both out and into the Borough are undertaken by car, resulting in the major routes carrying high volumes of peak hour traffic.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Output Indicators

Indicator: Cor 3a Amount of completed non-residential development within Use Class Orders A, B & D complying with car parking standards as set out in the local development framework

Objectives: BSP: Para 3.07 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To reduce the reliance on the private motor car by providing people with the choice of using viable C and attractive alternatives. H BFBLP Policies BSP Policies A M9 (Vehicle and cycle parking) T1 (Transport Strategy) T5 (Car Parking) P T Commentary E R Data and Looking Ahead: No analysis of completed development falling within the specified Use Classes has been possible as the number of parking spaces provided within permitted development is not 6 currently recorded. The possibilities of including a further field within the UNIFORM system and then inserting the data for the 2005-2006 monitoring year will be investigated.

The Council’s non-residential parking standards were approved in 2000 and are currently being reviewed. An accessibility model approach is being used to ascertain the location of poor and good public transport provision. A new zonal approach will then be produced to ensure that parking provision for both residential and non-residential developments is appropriately provided depending on the level of accessibility. The revised parking standards are being progressed in the form of a SPD.

Action Required: • Set up a system for the monitoring of the number of parking spaces provided on new development involving floorspace falling within Use Classes A, B and D, once permission has been granted. Input theoretical requirement according to adopted parking standards and calculate balance. Analyse results in terms of completed developments and possibly outstanding commitments, the latter giving a more recent indication of the effectiveness of policy implementation. • Try to progress work on the Residential and Non-Residential Parking Standards SPD.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Parking standards help ensure that other modes of travel to work are encouraged when available. The Borough appears to have been successful in encouraging developments to adopt these. Car travel to work has increased over the last census period however, so it is important to ensure a coordinated approach whereby parking standards are enforced alongside improved public transport.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Cor 3b Amount of completed new residential development within 30 minutes public transport time of a GP; a hospital; a primary school; a secondary school; areas of employment and a major retail centre(s)

Objectives: BSP: Paras 3.05 & 3.06 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To realise the aims of sustainable development by reducing the need to travel through the integration of transport and land use planning. C BFBLP Policies BSP Policies H H1 (New residential development) M4 (Highway H3 (Location of housing development); T1 measures associated with new development); (Transport Strategy) A M6 (Cycling and walking); M8 (Public transport) P T Key Findings E R See the following inserted maps:

Map 6.5 Percentage of completed new residential development within 30 minutes' public transport time of a GP. 6

Map 6.6 Percentage of completed new residential development within 30 minutes' public transport time of a hospital.

Map 6.7 Percentage of completed new residential development within 30 minutes' public transport time of a primary school.

Map 6.8 Percentage of completed new residential development within 30 minutes' public transport time of a secondary school.

Map 6.9 Percentage of completed new residential development within 30 minutes' public transport time of an employment centre.

Map 6.10 Percentage of completed new residential development within 30 minutes' public transport time of a major retail centre.

Trend Commentary The analysis of the accessibility maps conclude that 100% of the new dwellings were within 30 minutes' total travel time (walking to public transport and public transport to destination) of GPs, primary and secondary schools, and major retail centres. 99% were within 30-minutes' travel time of major employment. The only anomaly is with regard to access to hospitals with 82% of new dwellings within a 30 minutes' total travel time.

It should be noted that the analysis took account of destinations within the Borough with the exception of hospitals.

Imple- Policy Effectiveness: mented Policy H1 in the BFBLP and H3 in the BSP both seek to site development near or within existing settlements. It also wishes to ensure that new development is sited near existing services or has the capacity to create new services.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

Policies M4, M6 and M8 are concerned with provision and the consideration of the infrastructure needs of new development. Although monies have been sought from developers for the transport implications of new development, there is still a growing amount of car usage in the Borough.

Looking Ahead: The Borough Council is developing an accessibility strategy which will put in place an implementation plan to improve access to services, in particular health and education. This will be monitored through the LTP through a number of access-specific targets. C H Action Required: A • Develop the Accessibility Strategy and monitor via the LTP. P T Significant Sustainability Impacts E Sustainable development should ensure that new development is well serviced by new or R existing facilities. Schools are perhaps the most widely travelled to facilities for those with children. It is therefore important to ensure that there is capacity for children in the nearest school. The figures suggest that there are a large proportion of pupils having to travel 30 6 minutes or more to reach a primary or secondary school. The further a development is from a school, the more likely cars will be used to get there.

It is important also that there is access to healthcare providers. This will ensure that overall sustainability objectives such as a healthy community are met.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report

2004-2005

Chapter 7

Environment

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Contextual Indicators

Indicator: Con EN1 Land available for recreational use

Key Findings

Figure 7.1: Breakdown of land available for recreational use in Bracknell Forest, 2005 C Landowner/manager Area (ha) Percentage (%) H BBOWT (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and 63.36 3.9 A Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust) P BFBC – Environment and 278.24 17.0 Leisure T

BFBC – Leisure/Crown Estate 25.02 1.5 E R BFBC – Leisure/Freetime 19.38 1.2 Leisure 7 Binfield Parish Council 6.40 0.4

Bracknell Town Council 91.81 5.6

Charitable Trust/Community 6.50 0.5 Association

Crown Estate 927.48 56.8

Crowthorne Parish Council 1.64 0.1

Forestry Commission 165.11 10.1

National Trust 4.97 0.3

Sandhurst Town Council 29.27 1.8

Warfield Parish Council 1.84 0.1

Winkfield Parish Council 12.13 0.7

Total 1,633.15 100.0

Source: BFBC records NB These figures do not include land with built recreational facilities.

Commentary A range of parks, open space and semi-natural open space is available for informal recreation in the Borough both within and beyond the settlement boundaries. The table gives an indication of the scale of space available and shows that responsibility for its provision is divided between a number of agencies, many of whom organise special events and activities. In addition to the above, a range of built facilities such as Bracknell Leisure Centre and Edgbarrow Sports Centre are available for more formal recreational activities.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Con EN2 Extent of flood plain

Key Findings C Map 7.2: Bracknell Forest flood plains – to be inserted Source: BFBC records H A Commentary P The EA produces flood maps showing the area that would be affected by flooding if a river rises T above its banks. Two different kinds of area are shown on the flood map. E 1) The area that could be affected by flooding, from a river by a flood that has a R 1% (1 in 100) or greater chance of happening each year (Flood Zone 3). 2) The area that could be affected by an extreme flood from a river. These outlying areas are likely to be affected by a major flood, with up to a 0.1% (1 in 1,000) chance 7 of occurring each year (Flood Zone 2).

Only small areas of the Borough are at risk of flooding. This is due to the River Blackwater which runs along the south western boundary of the Borough and The Cut which flows through the northern parishes of the Borough. The map above shows the extent of land that could be affected in the event of either of the instances outlined above.

Indicator: Con EN3 Sites designated as important for nature conservation at international, national and local level.

Key Findings

Table 7.4: Number and extent of sites designated as important for nature conservation in Bracknell Forest, 2005 Number of % land Total area Designation sites in the coverage of Name/location (ha) Borough Borough SPA (Proposed status at 1 1,357 12.4 Thames Basin Heaths SPA March 2005) SAC (Special Area of Conservation) 1 255 2.33 Windsor Forest and Great Park (Candidate status at March 2005) Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heaths Windsor Forest and Great Park Swinley Park Brick Pits Wildmoor Heath SSSI 9 1,825 16.7 Englemere Pond Blackwater Valley (Shepherd Meadows) Chawridge Bourne Wellington College Bog Wykery Copse

WHS 79 2,325 21.3 Various

Source: TVERC

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary

The Borough has a range of sites designated for their local, national and international conservation importance which contribute to the high quality environment. It is important that these assets are protected from any loss and damage and that those that are in a poor condition are improved. Whilst the type, number and extent of designated areas are outlined above, the C designations are further explained below: H SPA A As a member of the European Union, the UK Government is required under EC Directive 9/409 on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the ‘Birds Directive’) to take special measures to conserve P the habitats of rare and migratory birds. Those species of bird requiring special conservation T measures are listed in Annex I of the Directive. The Government is required to designate the E most suitable areas of such habitats as SPAs. SPAs are designated by the Government, following advice from English Nature, and consultation with owners, occupiers, local authorities R and a range of bodies having interests in the area of land concerned.

Parts of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA lie within Bracknell Forest Borough and support 7 nationally important populations of birds such as the Dartford Warbler, Nightjar and Woodlark. The SPA was not confirmed until the Summer of 2005; consequently, it was still ‘proposed’ during the 2004-05 monitoring year.

SAC The EC Directive 92/43 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive) requires the UK Government to identify SACs to protect the habitats of those species listed in Annex II of the Directive. The Windsor Forest and Great Park Special Area of Conservation, parts of which lie within Bracknell Forest Borough, supports the violet click beetle, an extremely rare species throughout the European range, found at only 2 locations in the UK. The area is one of only 4 locations in the UK containing dry oak dominated woodland on acid sandy soils, which are of high value for their saproxylic invertebrates and lichens. The SAC was not confirmed until the Summer of 2005; consequently, it was still a ‘candidate’ during the 2004-05 monitoring year.

SSSI These are areas of special interest by reason of their flora, fauna, geological or physiological features, and are selected and monitored by English Nature. SSSI’s are afforded special protection from development, and landowners require the prior consent of English Nature before undertaking any potentially damaging operations on the sites.

WHS WHSs are designated in recognition of their high nature conservation value in a regional or local context. The majority are privately owned and managed. The level of protection conferred by the designation cannot prevent destruction or damage through mismanagement or neglect by landowners. It should be noted, however, that the majority of private landowners of WHSs in the Borough support the designation and avoid causing damage to sites through their management. In addition, a number of owners actively manage sites for their conservation benefits.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Output Indicators

Indicator: Cor 4c Amount of eligible open spaces managed to Green Flag Award standard C Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.10 (see Appendix 2) H BFBLP: To provide for a wide and well balanced range of recreation facilities that are accessible to all and meet the needs of new and existing residents and tourists without prejudicing the environmental and transport objectives of this A plan. P BFBLP Policies BSP Policies T R1 (Loss of Open Space of Public Value); S4 (Other Sport, Recreation, Tourism E R4 (Provision of Open Space of Public Value); and Leisure Uses) R R5 (Publicly usable open space for small sites)

Key Findings 7

Map 7.5: Recreational open space in Bracknell Forest showing both Green Flag awarded sites and those managed to Green Flag standard.

Source: BFBC records

Trend Commentary The Green Flag Award is the national standard for parks and green spaces in England and Wales. The scheme aims to recognise and reward the best green spaces in the country. It is also seen as a way of encouraging others to achieve the same high environmental standards, creating a benchmark of excellence in recreational green areas and helping to address concerns about the declining quality of urban parks and lack of attention given to rural green spaces. Three parks in the Borough currently have Green Flag Awards. They are Pope’s Imple- Meadow on the edge of Binfield, Sandhurst Memorial Park and Shepherd Meadows mented and Westmorland Park which lies to the north east of Bracknell (see map above).

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

PPG 17 (Planning for Open Space Sport and Recreation) refers to the need to undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, amongst other matters. In 2005, Strategic Leisure audited 1,554 ha of space owned by: C BFBC Parish and Town Councils H Crown Estate A Forestry Commission and National Trus.t P T The audit found that 49% of sites audited (including those that had Green Flag Status) were rated as very good or above and would therefore qualify for Green Flag status in terms of E maintenance. In terms of hectares this equates to 1,256 ha (80%) of the total audit of 1,554 ha R rated as being very good. The location of the areas that qualified is shown on the map. Although based primarily on a maintenance audit, the findings of the study are very encouraging. 7

Policy Effectiveness The indicator relates to the quality/management of areas of open space whereas the BSP and BFBLP policies relate to new provision and the retention of existing areas of open space. Policies R4 and R5 refer to the need for open space/recreational facilities in connection with new housing developments. Whilst small developments might be required to contribute to improved facilities on existing sites, large developments are expected to provide additional active and passive space as part of the development. It is important to ensure that such areas are carefully designed and constructed so that they contribute to the pool of high quality, well maintained, accessible space. Due to delays in the implementation of large allocated sites, there have been no significant additions to the stock of open space in the last year.

Looking Ahead It is recognised that well planned and managed open spaces can contribute to the quality of life experienced by the local population. As indicated above, it is important to ensure that recreational facilities are provided in connection with new residential development. Contributions must therefore continue to be sought and land secured as open space, where appropriate. The results of the PPG25 audit also need to analysed and decisions taken on whether any amendments to standards of provision are required.

Actions required • Examine standards of open space provision and related policies in the light of the PPG25 audit. Feed into LDF process.

• Continue to support the Green Flag Award Scheme and look at ways of monitoring the maintenance of open space. It will not be possible to carry out a full audit every year.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Open space is an important part of sustainability. It improves the visual environment of a location, encourages recreation activity, thereby improving health and wellbeing and helps encourage urban biodiversity. Good quality open space managed to Green Flag status can only improve these factors.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: COR7 Number of planning permissions granted contrary to the advice of the EA on either flood defence grounds or water quality C Objectives: H BSP: Paragraph 3.09 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To promote improvements to the quality of groundwater throughout the Borough. A P T BFBLP Policies BSP Policies E EN13 (Water quality); EN6 (Prevention of flooding); EN14 (River Corridors) EN7 (Development and water resources) R

7 Key Findings

Table 7.6: Planning permissions granted during 2004-2005 contrary to the advice of the EA

Land at rear of 270-274 Yorktown Road, College Town, Sandhurst, Site Details Berkshire: Erection of 2no. three bedroom houses (amendment to a previous permission)

Date of 04/02/2005 Determination

The site is at high risk of flooding, defined as an annual probability of 1% (1 in Summary of 100) or greater. As submitted, the proposed development will be at direct risk of Environment flooding, may increase the flood risk to people and property on the site and in Agency the surrounding area and will increase the number of people at risk from flooding Objection by introducing additional households into the flood plain.

Source: BFBC

Trend Commentary Only one application was granted permission contrary to the advice of the EA during 2004-05. This involved a small residential proposal in Sandhurst. In this instance, the EA was consulted but failed to respond within 21 days (paragraph 64 of PPG25 states that ‘Government expects the Environment Agency and any other bodies referred to in paragraph 63 to respond to consultations on the flooding aspects of planning applications within 21 days'). As a result, the application was determined prior to the receipt of comments. Furthermore, the principle of residential development had been agreed in an earlier application.

Policy Effectiveness Imple- mented As indicated in contextual indicator Con EN2, only a small area of the Borough is at risk of flooding. However, the Council has consulted the EA on any applications in areas at risk and has had regard to comments made where received within the timescale.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Commentary cntd

Looking Ahead The Council will continue to consult the EA where appropriate and will have regard to flooding constraints in the site allocations process as part of the LDF. C Actions Required • Look at setting up a more formal means of monitoring applications where the EA has H been consulted. A P • Have regard to national policy in reviewing policies and allocating sites in the LDF T Significant Sustainability Impacts E Development on flood plains is unsustainable in the long term. Climate change is likely to R bring heavier and longer precipitation, warmer, wetter winters and drier summers. Flash floods could also become more common. Bracknell Forest is in the South of England which is experiencing a process called glacial rebound where the North of England and Scotland are 7 rising and the South of England is sinking at a rate of 1-1.5mm a year. This is a result of the land re-adjusting after the last Ice Age when the north was weighed down by glaciers.

Indicator: COR8(i) Change in priority habitats and species (by type)

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.27 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage the conservation and enhancement of those areas and features contributing to the quality of the built heritage and the natural environment.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies EN3 (Nature conservation); EN4 (Local Nature EN3 (Biodiversity) Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites)

Key Findings

Priority habitats in Bracknell Forest

No data is currently available in respect of this indicator

Table 7.7: Priority species in Bracknell Forest

English name Scientific name Plants Marsh Clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata Pillwort Pilularia globulifera Invertebrates A solitary wasp Cerceris quinquefasciata

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Key Findings cntd

Table 7.7: Priority species in Bracknell Forest cntd English name Scientific name Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus Silver-studded Blue Plebejus argus C Reptiles and

Amphibians H Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus A Birds P Bittern Botaurus stellaris Common Scoter Melanitta nigra T Grey Partridge Perdix perdix E Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur R Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus Wryneck Jynx torquilla Woodlark Lullula arborea 7 Skylark Alauda arvensis Song Thrush Turdus philomelos Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata Tree Sparrow Passer montanus Linnet Carduelis cannabina Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus Corn Bunting Miliaria calandra Mammals Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Brown Hare Lepus capensis Water Vole Arvicola terrestris Source: TVERC

Trend Commentary As indicated, there is no data available for priority habitats. Baseline data is provided for priority species derived from the national list of species which have Species Action Plans in conjunction with the TVERC Recorder database. It is intended to look at the presence/absence of these species from year to year.

Policy Effectiveness N/A

Looking Ahead Priority habitats Cannot Measures are currently being taken to acquire the necessary data through reach any undertaking a Berkshire-wide digital habitat and land use mapping project. This conclusions work is being managed by TVERC and results from the project are expected in mid as no data is to late Summer 2006. available Priority species Data collected in future years will allow a calculation of change. However, this indicator is dependent on species data being received from Recorders and steps need to be taken to improve links with Recorders.

Actions Required • Liaise with TVERC over progress on collecting data.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: COR8(ii) Change in areas designated for their intrinsic environmental value including sites of international, national, regional, sub-regional or local significance

Objectives: C BSP: Paragraph 3.27 (see Appendix 2) H BFBLP: To encourage the conservation and enhancement of those areas and features contributing to the quality of the built heritage and the natural environment. A P BFBLP Policies BSP Policies T EN3 (Nature conservation); EN3 (Biodiversity) E EN4 (Local Nature Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally important R Geological Sites) 7 Key Findings

Table 7.8: Changes in areas designated for their intrinsic environmental value in Bracknell Forest

Type of Protected Number of Approximate area of Area sites sites (ha)

SSSIs 9 1,825

SACs 1 331

SPAs 1 1,159

WHS 79 2,325

Source: Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

Indicator Con EN3 gives details of the number and extent of designated areas during 2004-05. At this stage, the baseline data is repeated in this indicator, however, in future years data on any change in the extent of those areas will be recorded here. The position will therefore be reviewed in the next AMR. C

Policy Effectiveness H The BSP and BFBLP policies are aimed at protecting designated areas from A development. Whilst this indicator will highlight any losses or gains in designated P Cannot areas, these may not be directly attributable to development. A further analysis of reach planning applications would need to be undertaken to assess how effective the T any policies were. E conclusi ons as Looking Ahead R no data There is an ongoing requirement for up to date SSSI boundary data from English Nature. The accuracy of WHS data is improving as sites are surveyed (each site is is 7 available reviewed on a 10-year rolling programme). In future, the extent of all areas will be reviewed annually.

Actions Required • Begin to review data annually and investigate the monitoring of planning applications against designations in order to assess how effectively policies are being implemented.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Bracknell has a significant number of highly protected areas. These areas have been designated as such because they contain unique habitats. Sustainable development, however, will be development that takes account not just of the physical area of these habitats, but also respects the periphery of these sites. Poorly planned development nearby could cause extra traffic, visual intrusion or damage to biodiversity even if not located on the protected site itself.

Indicator: COR 9 Renewable energy capacity installed by type.

Objective: BSP: Para. 3.09 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To promote energy generation from renewable sources, and the efficient use of energy, in order to enhance the environment of the Borough

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies EN26 (Energy) EN8 (Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation)

Key Findings

Installations No large scale facilities were installed that were capable of generating electricity from renewable sources during 2004/2005.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary Whilst no large scale facilities were installed during the monitoring period, there may have been a number of domestic installations incorporating renewable energy sources. For example, these might include solar water heating system, ground source heat pumps and photovoltaics. However, data on such installations is not currently collected. C

Policy Effectiveness H The BSP and BFBLP policies both encourage the generation of energy from A renewable resources. However, due to a lack of significant proposals requiring P Cannot permission, they have not been tested. reach T any Looking Ahead E conclusi The planning application for the redevelopment of BTC includes a CHP plant which ons as would be co-housed with a sub-station. The proposed CHP plant would have an R no data electrical output of 3Mwe and 10MW thermal output. This corresponds to a fuel input of 16MW, which would be provided in the longer term by the combustion of is 7 available 45,000 wet tonnes of wood chip, supplied from a local energy forestry scheme. The latter would replace all combusted wood with re-growth trees on a crop-rotational basis.

Actions Required • Look at ways of capturing data on all new renewable energy installations through the building control process.

• Encourage the incorporation of some kind of renewable energy development in the BTC scheme.

Indicator: Loc 1 Condition of SSSIs

Objective: BSP: Paragraph 3.27 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage the conservation and enhancement of those areas and features contributing to the quality of the built heritage and the natural environment.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies EN3 (Nature conservation); EN4 (Local Nature EN3 (Biodiversity) Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites)

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Key Findings

Table 7.7: Condition of SSSIs in Bracknell Forest Description of % of land designated as SSSIs condition in Borough C Favourable 11 H

Unfavourable 1 A declining P Unfavourable 0 T no change E Unfavourable 88 recovering R

Total 100 7 Source: BFBC/TVERC/English Nature records

Trend Commentary English Nature has recorded a significant increase in the percentage of SSSIs either in favourable or unfavourable recovering condition. 99% of the land designated as SSSI’s in Bracknell Forest is now in either of these two categories. This demonstrates that the management of these important habitats has drastically improved in the last year. The improvement has primarily been brought about by work to improve the management of heathland and woodland such as the Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heaths SSSI.

Policy Effectiveness The strategic and local policies relate to protection of SSSIs from development rather Imple- than management issues. During the last year no development has been completed mented that directly impacts on an SSSI.

Looking Ahead No analysis has been carried out to establish whether or not there are any outstanding commitments that effect SSSIs.

Actions Required • Ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact upon SSSIs, particularly in respect of the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Protecting farmland bird habitats is in line with broader sustainability goals including the protection of WHSs and SSSIs.

Indicator: Loc 2 Distribution and status of farmland birds

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Objective: BSP: Paragraph 3.27 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: BFBLP: To encourage the conservation and enhancement of those areas and features contributing to the quality of the built heritage and the natural environment.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies C EN3 (Nature conservation); EN4 (Local Nature Reserves, EN3 (Biodiversity) Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally important H Geological Sites) A Key Findings P T Table 7.9: Distribution and status of farmland birds in Bracknell Forest. E Average number of birds found within a

kilometre square R

Species of bird 2002 2003 2004 7 Corn Bunting 0.0 0.0 0.0

Goldfinch 1.4 2.1 2.7

Greenfinch 2.6 6.2 6.1

Grey Partridge 0.0 0.0 0.0

Jackdaw 5.0 6.2 5.3

Kestrel 0.3 0.6 0.4

Lapwing 1.3 1.5 4.2

Linnet 3.7 0.9 0.8

Reed bunting 0.6 0.5 0.1

Rook 6.1 5.5 2.8

Skylark 1.9 1.6 1.8

Starling 6.5 11.1 9.2

Stock Dove 1.0 1.3 0.2

Tree Sparrow 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turtle Dove 0.5 0.3 0.0

Whitethroat 2.6 3.0 1.4

Wood Pigeon 21.6 23.5 25.3

Yellow Wagtail 0.0 0.0 0.0

Yellowhammer 1.1 1.2 0.9 Index of change (Total suite density of survey year compared with total; suite density of 0.4 0.5 0.5 baseline year 1991)/ the baseline year (1994) total suite density) Source: Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre/British Trust for Ornithology

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

This data is derived from the British Trust for Ornithology which has undertaken a farmland bird survey over the last 12 years. The methodology is based on 2 surveying a number of 1km across Berkshire, usually randomly chosen, and as such some UA areas can suffer from poor coverage. The statistical validity of the figures provided is therefore quite poor, but the data does give a general idea of trends in farmland birds.

The index quoted has been calculated by looking at the variation in numbers of birds from the 1994 baseline index figure. The baseline index figure is 1.0 - any Partial figure above this indicates a positive change in the density of the population, whilst imple- below 1.0 indicates a negative change. mentation

but on Policy Effectiveness track The data suggests that there may have been a reduction in the number of farmland birds in the area, although there is a large degree of variance depending on the species. This reflects the general trend of declining bird numbers in the UK due to a range of factors such as increased urbanisation.

Looking Ahead TVERC is currently developing a more comprehensive monitoring system including the mapping of habitat areas.

Actions Required • Liaise with TVERC over the monitoring of wildlife data.

Significant Sustainability Impacts Protecting farmland bird habitats is in line with broader sustainability goals including the protection of WHSs and SSSIs. The presence of small birds in the borough helps biodiversity and contributes to a sense of wellbeing.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Indicator: Loc 3 C Distribution and status of garden butterflies H A Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.27 (see Appendix 2) P BFBLP: To encourage the conservation and enhancement of those areas and features contributing to the quality of the T built heritage and the natural environment. E R BFBLP Policies BSP Policies EN3 (Nature conservation); EN4 (Local Nature EN3 (Biodiversity) Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally 7 important Geological Sites)

Key Findings

Table 7.10: Distribution and status of butterflies Present in the Species of butterfly Borough? Small skipper y

Essex skipper y

Large skipper y

Brimstone y Large white y

Small white y

Green-veined white y Orange-tip y

Small copper y Common blue y

Holly blue y

Red admiral y Painted lady y

Small tortoiseshell y Peacock y Comma y Average nunber of species per 1km square surveyed 10.2 Source: TVERC/Butterfly Conservation

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

The data is derived from Butterfly Conservation who undertake a garden butterfly survey each year. Twenty species of butterfly were looked at. All species studied are present in the Borough, although it is felt that more could be done to improve the number of butterflies in the Borough.

Policy Effectiveness The policies aim to protect specific habitats from development. Loss of certain habitats to development will have an impact on the butterfly population. Further C data is required in order to identify any trends. H

Partial Looking Ahead A imple- Ensure that development is directed to those areas that will have least impact on P mentation the range and type of habitats. but on T track Actions Required E • Liaise with TVERC over the monitoring of wildlife data. R

Significant Sustainability Impacts Protecting butterfly habitats is in line with broader sustainability goals including the protection of 7 WHSs and SSSIs. The presence of butterflies in the Borough helps biodiversity and contributes to a sense of wellbeing.

Indicator: Loc 4

Distribution and status of water voles

Objectives: BSP: Paragraph 3.27 (see Appendix 2) BFBLP: To encourage the conservation and enhancement of those areas and features contributing to the quality of the built heritage and the natural environment.

BFBLP Policies BSP Policies EN3 (Nature conservation); EN4 (Local Nature Reserves, EN3 (Biodiversity) Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites)

Key Findings

Table 7.11: Distribution and status of water voles Total Key Area hectarage from the 2001 Total Key Area found to be positive baseline data in Bracknell Forest for water voles during the 2003-04 survey in Bracknell Forest (ha)

1,145.5 531.7 Source: TVERC/BBOWT

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Trend Commentary

In 2001, BBOWT’s Water Vole Recovery Project designated a series of key areas

for water voles. These keys areas are monitored by volunteers. In 2003-04,

531.7ha of the key areas were seen to support water vole populations. The

hectarage only gives a broad indication of the areas inhabited as individual animals

move around.

Policy Effectiveness

The policies aim to protect specific habitats from development. Loss of certain

habitats to development will have an impact on the water vole population. Further

data is required in order to identify any trends. C

Partial H imple- Looking Ahead A mentation Ensure that development is directed to those areas that will have least impact on

but on the range and type of habitats. P track

T Actions Required E • Liaise with TVERC over the monitoring of wildlife data. R Significant Sustainability Impacts Protecting water vole habitats is in line with broader sustainability goals including the protection 7 of WHSs and SSSIs. The presence of water voles in the Borough helps biodiversity and contributes to a sense of wellbeing.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Appendices

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Assessing the Significant Sustainability Impacts

Key to scoring policy bundles according to their impact on the sustainability of the Borough Score The policies will have a very positive significant impact on the sustainability + + objective A The policies will have a slightly positive significant impact on the sustainability + objective P The policies will have a negligible or neutral impact on the sustainability objective. P A recorded neutral effect does not necessarily mean there will be no effect at the 0 project level, but shows that at this strategic level there are no identifiable effects. E The policies will have a slightly negative significant impact on the sustainability N objective – D The policies will have a very negative significant impact on the sustainability – – objective I The outcome of the policies could be dependant upon implementation or more detail is required to make an assessment i X The impact of a policy cannot be predicted at this stage ?

1 Draft Bracknell Forest Sustainability Objectives To meet local housing needs by ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live 1 in a decent, sustainably constructed and affordable home 2 To reduce the risk of flooding and harm to people, property and the environment

3 To protect and enhance human health and wellbeing

4 To reduce poverty and social exclusion

5 To raise educational achievement levels

6 To reduce and prevent crime and the fear of crime

7 To create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities

8 To provide accessible essential services and facilities

9 To make opportunities for culture, leisure and recreation readily accessible To encourage urban renaissance by improving efficiency in land use, design and 10 layout 11 To maintain air quality and improve where possible To address the causes of climate change through reducing emissions of 12 greenhouse gases, and ensure Bracknell Forest is prepared for associated impacts 13 To conserve and enhance the Borough’s biodiversity To protect and enhance where possible the Borough’s countryside and its historic 14 environment in urban and rural areas To improve travel choice and accessibility, reduce the need for travel by car and 15 shorten the length and duration of journeys

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

16 To sustainably use and re-use renewable and non-renewable resources

To address the waste hierarchy by: minimising waste as a priority, re-use, then by 17 recycling, composting or energy recovery To maintain and improve water quality in the Borough’s water courses and to 18 achieve sustainable water resource management 19 To maintain and improve soil quality To increase energy efficiency, and the proportion of energy generated from 20 renewable sources in the Borough 21 To ensure high and stable levels of employment

22 To sustain economic growth and competitiveness of the Borough

23 To encourage ‘smart’ economic growth To develop and maintain a skilled workforce by developing the opportunities for 24 everyone to acquire the skills needed to find work

Assessment of Significant Sustainability Impacts

HOUSING POLICIES

Draft Bracknell Forest

Sustainability ) Objectives

H5 (New dwellings outside EN8 (Development on land PH1.1 The Staff College, PH1.2 New housing H8 (Affordable housing) Affordable Housing SPG H7 (Dwelling types) H1(New residential DP6 (Land outside settlements) H2 (Housing distribution and H3 (Location of housing H6 (Residential density and H5 (Affordable housing) H6 (Residential density and Indicator: Loc 2a Loc Indicator: Indicator: Cor 2a) BFBLP Bracknell BFBLP development proposal at Peacock Farm BSP phasing) ( BSP development) (Indicator: Cor 2b) BSP dwelling mix) (Indicator: Cor 2c) BFBLP BFBLP BSP (Indicator: Cor 2d) BFBLP BSP dwelling mix) ( BFBLP development) BFBLP settlements) BFBLP outside settlements) BSP (Indicator: Loc 2b) + 1 + + + + + + + ? ? 2 -? + / - 0 0 0 + / -

3 + i + / - + + + + / -

4 + i + + + + + + + +

5 ? - 0 0 0 -

6 ? + / - 0 0 0 + / -

7 ? + / - + + + + / - + + 8 ? 0 0 0 + + / - / -

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

HOUSING POLICIES

Draft Bracknell Forest

Sustainability ) Objectives

H5 (New dwellings outside EN8 (Development on land PH1.1 The Staff College, PH1.2 New housing H8 (Affordable housing) Affordable Housing SPG H7 (Dwelling types) H1(New residential DP6 (Land outside settlements) H2 (Housing distribution and H3 (Location of housing H6 (Residential density and H5 (Affordable housing) H6 (Residential density and Indicator: Loc 2a Loc Indicator: Indicator: Cor 2a) BFBLP Bracknell BFBLP development proposal at Peacock Farm BSP phasing) ( BSP development) (Indicator: Cor 2b) BSP dwelling mix) (Indicator: Cor 2c) BFBLP BFBLP BSP (Indicator: Cor 2d) BFBLP BSP dwelling mix) ( BFBLP development) BFBLP settlements) BFBLP outside settlements) BSP (Indicator: Loc 2b) 9 ? + / - 0 0 0 + / -

10 - + + ? ? ? + + - - / 11 - 0 0 0 - - / + + 12 - + + 0 0 0 + +

13 - i + 0 0 0 +

14 - i + / - 0 0 0 + / -

15 - i + + ? ? ? + +

16 ? + i 0 0 0 + i

17 - + i 0 0 0 + i

18 - + / - 0 0 0 + / -

19 0 + 0 0 0 +

20

21 + + + + + +

22 + + + + + +

23 + + + + + + + +

24 ? + 0 0 0 +

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

Draft Bracknell Forest

Sustainability Objectives

)

E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E3 (Development in settlements but outside E12 (Identified major employment sites) E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E3 (Development in settlements but outside E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E3 (Development in settlements but outside E4 (Small businesses)

)

E1 (Location of employment development) E3 (Diversity of employment) E1 (Location of employment development) E1 (Location of employment development) E1 (Location of employment development) E2 (Acceptability of employment development) E3 (Diversity of employment) Indicator: Cor 1c Cor Indicator: BFBLP BFBLP areas) BFBLP defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre) BFBLP BSP BSP (Indicator: Cor 1a) BFBLP BFBLP areas) BSP (Indicator: Cor 1b) BFBLP BFBLP areas) BFBLP defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre BSP ( BFBLP BFBLP areas) BFBLP defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre) BFBLP BSP BSP BSP (Indicator: Cor 1d) 1 + + - -

2 + + - -

3 + + 0 0

4 + + + +

5 0 0 + +

6 0 0 + +

7 0 0 + +

8 0 0 - -

9 + + + +

10 + + + + + +

11 + + - - - -

12 0 0 - -

13 + + + / - + / -

14 + + + +

15 + + + + + +

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

Draft Bracknell Forest Sustainability

Objectives ) E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E3 (Development in settlements but outside E12 (Identified major employment sites) E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E3 (Development in settlements but outside E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E3 (Development in settlements but outside E4 (Small businesses)

)

E1 (Location of employment development) E3 (Diversity of employment) E1 (Location of employment development) E1 (Location of employment development) E1 (Location of employment development) E2 (Acceptability of employment development) E3 (Diversity of employment) Indicator: Cor 1c Cor Indicator: BFBLP BFBLP areas) BFBLP defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre) BFBLP BSP BSP (Indicator: Cor 1a) BFBLP BFBLP areas) BSP (Indicator: Cor 1b) BFBLP BFBLP areas) BFBLP defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre BSP ( BFBLP BFBLP areas) BFBLP defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre) BFBLP BSP BSP BSP (Indicator: Cor 1d) 16 i i i i

17 i i i i

18 + + - -

19 + + + +

20

21 + + + + + + + +

22 + + + + + + + +

23 + + + + + +

24 + + + +

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

Draft

Bracknell Forest

Sustainability Objectives

EN8 (Development on land outside E6 (Shopping) E12 (Identified major employment sites) E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E3 (Development in settlements but outside E4 (Small businesses) E6 (Shopping) R2 (Urban recreation)

E4 (Future uses of employment land) E4 (Future uses of employment land) E4 (Future uses of employment land) DP6 (Land outside settlements) E1 (Location of employment development) S1 (Shopping and leisure in centres) S2 (Retail outside centres) S3 (Leisure outside centres) E3 (Diversity of employment) S1 (Major retail and leisure development in town S2 (Retail development outside major town S3 (Leisure development outside major town S4 (Other sport, recreation, tourism and leisure Indicator: Cor 4a) BSP (Indicator: Cor 1e) BSP (Indicator: Cor 1f) BFBLP settlements) BFBLP BFBLP BSP BSP BSP BSP BSP (Indicator: Loc 1a) BFBLP BFBLP areas) BFBLP defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre) BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BSP BSP centres) BSP centres) BSP centres) BSP uses) (

1 - - + +

2 - - + +

3 0 0 + +

4 + + + +

5 + + 0 0

6 + + 0 0

7 + + 0 0

8 - - 0 0

9 + + + +

10 + + + + + +

11 - - - - + +

12 - - 0 0

+ / + / 13 + + - -

14 + + + +

15 + + + + + +

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

Draft Bracknell

Forest Sustainability Objectives

EN8 (Development on land outside E6 (Shopping) E12 (Identified major employment sites) E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E2 (Development in defined employment E3 (Development in settlements but outside E4 (Small businesses) E6 (Shopping) R2 (Urban recreation)

E4 (Future uses of employment land) E4 (Future uses of employment land) E4 (Future uses of employment land) DP6 (Land outside settlements) E1 (Location of employment development) S1 (Shopping and leisure in centres) S2 (Retail outside centres) S3 (Leisure outside centres) E3 (Diversity of employment) S1 (Major retail and leisure development in town S2 (Retail development outside major town S3 (Leisure development outside major town S4 (Other sport, recreation, tourism and leisure Indicator: Cor 4a) BSP (Indicator: Cor 1e) BSP (Indicator: Cor 1f) BFBLP settlements) BFBLP BFBLP BSP BSP BSP BSP BSP (Indicator: Loc 1a) BFBLP BFBLP areas) BFBLP defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre) BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BSP BSP centres) BSP centres) BSP centres) BSP uses) (

16 i i i i

17 i i i i

18 - - + +

19 + + + +

20

21 + + + + + + + +

22 + + + + + + + +

23 + + + + + +

24 + + + +

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

Draft

Bracknell Forest

Sustainability

Objectives ) E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E5 (Hierarchy of shopping centres) E6 (Shopping)

E8 (Change of use shop units) E9 (Non-retail uses) E10 (Non-retail uses) E11 (Neighbourhood centres) EN8 (Development on land outside E6 (Shopping) E12 (Identified major employment sites) E1 (Location of employment development) S1 (Major retail and leisure development in town S2 (Retail development outside major town DP6 (Land outside settlements) E1 (Location of employment development) S1 (Shopping and leisure in centres) S2 (Retail outside centres) S3 (Leisure outside centres) Indicator: Cor 4b Cor Indicator: BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BSP BSP centres) BSP centres) ( BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP settlements) (Indicator:Loc 4a) BFBLP BFBLP BSP BSP BSP BSP BSP (Indicator: Loc 4b)

1 + + i + i

2 + i + i + i

3 0 0 0

4 + + +

5 0 + +

6 0 0 0

7 - - / + - / +

8 + - -

9 + - -

10 + + +

11 - + +

12 ? ? ?

13 + - -

14 + + +

15 + + + +

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

Draft

Bracknell Forest

Sustainability

Objectives ) E1 (Development in Bracknell Town centre) E5 (Hierarchy of shopping centres) E6 (Shopping)

E8 (Change of use shop units) E9 (Non-retail uses) E10 (Non-retail uses) E11 (Neighbourhood centres) EN8 (Development on land outside E6 (Shopping) E12 (Identified major employment sites) E1 (Location of employment development) S1 (Major retail and leisure development in town S2 (Retail development outside major town DP6 (Land outside settlements) E1 (Location of employment development) S1 (Shopping and leisure in centres) S2 (Retail outside centres) S3 (Leisure outside centres) Indicator: Loc 4b Loc Indicator: BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BSP BSP centres) BSP centres) (Indicator: Cor 4b) BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP settlements) (Indicator:Loc 4a) BFBLP BFBLP BSP BSP BSP BSP BSP (

16 ? ? ?

17 i i i

18 + + +

19 + + +

20

21 + - -

22 + / - - -

23 - / + + +

24 ? ? ?

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

TRANSPORT POLICIES

Draft Bracknell

Forest Sustainability Objectives New residential ( (Transport Strategy) M9 (Vehicle and cycle M9 (Vehicle M4 (Highway measures

M8 (Public transport) M8 (Public H1 M6 (Cycling and walking) H3 (Location of housing T1 Impacts) T5 (Travel T1 (Transport Strategy)

parking) BFBLP BFBLP (Indicator: Cor 3b) BFBLP BSP BSP (Indicator: Cor 3a) development) BFBLP associated with new development) BFBLP BSP development) BSP

1 0 0 / -

2 0 / - 0

3 - +

4 - / + +

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 - +

8 + / - + +

9 + / - ?

10 ? + i

11 - - + +

12 - - + +

13 - + + i

14 - + +

15 + + +

16 + +

17 0 0

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

TRANSPORT POLICIES

Draft Bracknell Forest New residential Sustainability ( (Transport Strategy) M9 (Vehicle and cycle M9 (Vehicle M4 (Highway measures

M8 (Public transport) M8 (Public Objectives H1 M6 (Cycling and walking) H3 (Location of housing T1 Impacts) T5 (Travel T1 (Transport Strategy)

parking) BFBLP BFBLP (Indicator: Cor 3b) BFBLP BSP BSP (Indicator: Cor 3a) development) BFBLP associated with new development) BFBLP BSP development) BSP 18 0 0

19 0 0

20

21 + +

22 + +

23 + + +

24 0 0

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

ENVIRONMENT POLICIES

Draft

Bracknell Forest Sustainability

Objectives

(Urban Recreation) (Loss of Open Space Public (Provision of Open Space of Public

EN26 (Energy) EN26 R1 EN13 (Water quality) EN14 (River Corridors) EN3 (Nature conservation) EN4 (Local Nature Reserves, Wildlife EN3 (Nature conservation) EN4 (Local Nature Reserves, Wildlife EN3 (Nature conservation) EN4 (Local Nature Reserves, Wildlife (Other Sport, Recreation, Tourism EN6 (Prevention of flooding) EN3 (Biodiversity) EN3 (Biodiversity) EN8 (Renewable Energy and Energy EN3 (Biodiversity) EN7 (Development and water resources) (Indicator: Cor 9) (Indicator: Cor 8(i)) Cor (Indicator: 8(ii)) Cor (Indicator: BFBLP Value) BFBLP R2 BFBLP R4 Value) BSP S4 and Leisure Uses) (Indicator: Cor 4c) BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP BFBLP Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites) BFBLP BFBLP Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites) BFBLP BFBLP Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites) 1) Loc (Indicator: BSP BSP (Indicator: Cor 7) BSP BSP BFBLP BSP Conservation) BSP 1 + / - + / - - - - + / -

2 + + + + 0 +

3 + / - + / - + + 0 +

4 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 + i + i + / - + / - 0 + i

8 - i - i + i + i 0 - i

9 + / - + / - + + 0 + / -

10 - - + + / - + + / - +

11 0 0 0 0 + 0

12 - - + + + -

13 - - + + + + 0 -

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

14 - - + + 0 -

15 - i - i + i + i 0 - i

16 0 0 0 0 + + 0

0 0 0 0 + 0 17

18 - - + + 0 -

19 - - + + 0 - i

20

21 0 / - 0 / - + + + -

22 - - + + + -

23 - - + + + -

24 0 0 0 0 + 0

ENVIRONMENT POLICIES

Draft Bracknell Forest Sustainability

Objectives EN3 (Nature conservation) EN4 (Local Nature EN3 (Nature conservation) EN4 (Local Nature EN3 (Nature conservation) EN4 (Local Nature EN3 (Biodiversity) EN3 (Biodiversity) EN3 (Biodiversity) BFBLP BFBLP Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites) 2) Loc (Indicator: BFBLP BFBLP Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites) BFBLP BFBLP Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites and regionally important Geological Sites) BSP BSP (Indicator: Loc 3) BSP (Indicator: Loc 4) 1 + / - + / - + / -

2 + + +

3 + + +

4 0 0 0

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 + i + i + i

8 - i - i - i

9 + / - + / - + / -

10

11 0 0 0

12 - - -

13 - - -

14 - - -

15 - i - i - i

16 0 0 0

0 0 0 17

18 - - -

19 - i - i - i

20

21 - - -

22 - - -

23 - - -

24 0 0 0

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Berkshire Structure Plan Chapter 3: Vision

Economy Paragraph 3.03 Berkshire will be a place where sustainable economic growth of national and international significance is taking place in a natural environment with exceptional attributes. This growth will include existing firms, incoming firms and newly established enterprises. Berkshire will be at the forefront in managing A this growth so that its impacts on the environment are minimised and maximum use is made of P existing resources, including previously-developed land and the local labour supply. It will also be an area where innovative partnerships between businesses and the community deliver environmental P and social benefits. More of the older industrial areas will be regenerated and an increased proportion E of the area’s output will involve activities, which add substantial value per worker. Nevertheless, these changes will not have been at the expense of key business activities, which support the local N economy. These will have been maintained, so as to enable effective operation of the economy, and D also contribute to economic diversity. I Housing X Paragraph 3.04 Berkshire will have a housing stock of good quality and there will be a range of housing to suit all households, including those who are unable to afford suitable market housing and those who have 2 special needs.

Paragraph 3.05 In making additional provision from 2001, maximum use will be made of previously-developed land and buildings within settlements. Particular attention will have been given to encouraging access to services and facilities by sustainable modes of transport, and to promoting mixed communities, regeneration and renewal.

Transport & Accessibility Paragraph 3.06 People will have easy access to work, leisure, education, retail, health and other services, and to each other. The need to travel and the distance that it will be necessary to travel will be less than at present because careful choices will have been made as to the location of commercial, leisure and residential development as well as education and health facilities. In addition, there will be a wider use of information and communications technology, which will reduce the need for some face-to-face contact.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Paragraph 3.07 Berkshire will be a place in which new ways of conducting business and other activities (for example, changes in the hours of working) are employed so as to minimise transport problems. There will be improved integration of different modes of transport and greater choice of means of travel with information about the options. Where suitable alternatives can be provided, the relative role of the private car will be less than at present.

Natural Resources Paragraph 3.09 The quality and quantity of Berkshire’s natural resources (water, air, land, minerals) will be conserved as their use is kept within sustainable levels and, where possible, their quality enhanced. The increased use of environmentally sustainable development techniques will mean levels of waste will drop to sustainable levels as more material and land is routinely re-used. The contribution of secondary/recycled minerals and other materials in construction will be maximised whilst at the same time environmental interests and people’s living conditions will be safeguarded. A commitment to the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet renewable energy targets will be evident through the steady increase in energy efficiency and in the proportion of energy generated and consumed in Berkshire from renewable sources, both through incorporation of energy efficiency and energy conservation principles in development, and power generation from renewable sources.

Quality of Life Paragraph 3.10 In 2016 the towns of Berkshire, including their inner areas, will be attractive and safe places which people choose to live in. The quality of buildings, streets, squares and green open space in towns will be safeguarded and improved. All parts of towns will have a high quality of public services and other facilities. Nobody who lives in the countryside will have to suffer severely restricted opportunities as a result of their location. The diversification of rural economic and social activity will have been encouraged within a framework of self-sustaining private and community-based rural initiatives.

Rural Areas Paragraph 3.27 There will be a much greater understanding of, and protection given to, Berkshire’s historic assets and landscape character, with an increased level of assessment, recording and strategy development. This knowledge and protection will be mirrored in the County’s biodiversity, which will be protected and enhanced for its intrinsic worth.

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Bracknell Forest Annual Monitoring Report 2004-2005

Planning Permissions (Hard Commitments) – net completions in Bracknell Forest (in m²) Year A1 A2 B1 B2-7 B8 Other 1990 22550 0 91380 80 13600 12750 1991 6980 160 25720 -360 1030 10210 1992 6300 860 4500 0 -990 1330 1993 -1460 820 35180 -2590 12720 15970 1994 5200 570 35870 680 1170 -12410 A 1995 7490 -1710 30 -3640 7990 730 P 1996 -290 0 -30310 990 -2750 1680 1997 330 0 8900 -21390 -18000 5210 P 1998 -200 250 38520 8000 7140 -48040 E 1999 -210 0 16380 -12120 7830 3810 2000 -360 130 32110 -250 530 5190 N 2001 -60 -640 11400 -1980 0 2840 D 2002 800 130 13250 330 -5840 5310 2003 1620 0 51340 -8910 -790 9860 I 2004 3600 120 17390 0 2230 3280 2005 -557 235 12107 -998 520 1100 X 1995-05 12163 -1485 171117 -39968 -1140 -9030 Source: Planning Commitments for Employment Uses, BCC Data Updated: On an annual basis 1990 – 1998, JSPU 1998 – 2005) 3

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

APPENDIX 2 The Berkshire Unitary Authorities Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report December 2005

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005 Executive Summary

I. The six Unitary Authorities continue to be a significant producer of minerals and mineral related products that are needed to support the continual economic growth of both the immediate area and also the wider region.

II. In the survey year the total production of primary land won aggregates was 1 million tonnes (National Core Indicator 5A, page 3). This represented just two thirds of the regional apportionment (1.57mta 2004 – 2016) and less than half the 2001 – 2004 apportionment figure of 2.3mta.

III. Unfortunately, no information currently exists in order to provide an estimate of secondary / recycled aggregate provision (National Core Indicator 5B, page 3).

IV. However, Berkshire’s landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel stood at an estimated 8.5 years (paragraph 15, page 11). In addition, only one planning application was received for new extraction and this was in a preferred area (paragraph 11, page 10).

V. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the shortfall between actual production and anticipated demand is being met by a variety factors including an increased use of recycled construction and demolition waste and a reduced utilisation of aggregates in construction generally with greater use of steel and glass.

VI. Consequently, the six Unitary Authorities in Berkshire are meeting the objective of the Regional Mineral Strategy, which seeks to identify and provide a consistent supply of minerals whilst making significantly more efficient use of natural resources.

VII. With regards to waste, as the population of Berkshire grows so does the amount of waste it produces. No substantive planning permissions involving new waste management capacity have been granted in the last year (National Core Indicator 6A, page 4)

VIII. The information provided in relation to National Core Indicator 6B on page 4 and continued on page 5 shows that over the last six years the growth in household waste has been relatively modest. In contrast all the authorities have achieved significant increases in the amounts of household waste that is recycled and or composted.

IX. It is of significant concern that in producing the Annual Monitoring Report to the new standards suggested by ODPM, that it has not been possible to obtain all of the data needed. The reasons for these are numerous (paragraph 8, page 6) not unique to just Berkshire and have already been raised with SEERA, GOSE and ODPM.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

X. It will be a priority to obtain accurate data on mineral and waste activity in order to produce the AMR on a consistent basis in the future. Local initiatives to improve data quality are outlined in section 9 (page 7). However, the Joint Unit along with other mineral planning authorities in the South East will work with SEERA to lobby for the continuation of the National Waste Production Survey, the ODPM/Capita Symonds study and other Environment Agency information and data.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Executive Summary i

Contents iii

Glossary iv

Berkshire Joint Minerals Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005 1 Introduction 1 Challenges and Issues of the Area 1 JMWDF 2 LDS Progress 2 AMR Aims 2 National Core Indicators 5A 3 5B 3 6A 4 6B 4 Issues Arising 6 Future Procedures 7 Appendices Ai Minerals Local Plan Monitoring Report 8 Aii Table 2 of the RMLP Reworked to 31.12.2004 15 Aiii Mineral Operators in Berkshire and Active Sites 16 Bi Waste Local Plan Monitoring Report 19 Bii Waste Management Facilities in Berkshire 37

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Glossary

Acronym Term Explanation

Aggregates Sand, gravel and crushed rock (known as primary aggregates) and other mineral waste such as colliery spoil, industry wastes and recycled materials (known as secondary aggregates). Aggregates are used in the construction industry to produce concrete, mortar, asphalt, etc.

AMR Annual Monitoring Report A report that presents an analysis of existing (‘saved’) policies, progress on the Local Development Scheme (see below) and note if any adjustments to the scheme are needed.

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Areas of land designated under the Beauty National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, where the primary purpose is the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, which includes protecting flora, fauna, geology and landscape features. The Countryside Agency is responsible for formally designated AONBs and advising on policies for their protection. Much of western Berkshire is within North Wessex Downs AONB.

Apportionment Rate The specified rate of extraction of aggregates to be provided for in the mineral landbank

AQMA Air Quality Management Area Area designated (under the Environment Act) by local authorities following local assessment of air quality where individual pollutants are forecast to exceed standards defined in the National Air Quality Strategy.

Biodegradable Waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, and paper and paperboard

BMW Biodegradable Municipal Waste Waste from households, that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, and paper and paperboard

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Acronym Term Explanation BPEO Best Practical Environmental The outcome of a systematic and Option consultative decision making procedure, which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BEPO procedure establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term. – Now replaced by SEA

CAS Civic Amenity Site Supervised facilities where members of the public can bring and discard of a variety of household waste. Civic Amenity Sites typically cater for paper, plastic, metal, glass and bulky waste such as tyres, refrigerators, electronic products, waste from DIY activities and garden waste.

C & I Commercial and Industrial Waste Waste arising from premises used for industry, trade or business, and hence may include a wide range of waste material. – Commercial waste does not include sewage..

C & D Construction and Demolition Waste arising from construction and Waste demolition activity and often referred to as inert. It forms a sub-group of Industrial Waste.

Although often described as inert, that can be misleading as C & D waste may include material such as timber, paper and paint, which need to be separated out if the waste is to be re-used, e.g. as inert fill, or if disposed of at a site licensed only for inert waste.

Conservation Area Area of special architectural or historical interest

CWI Clinical Waste Incinerator A facility that can burn medical waste from hospitals and similar institutions.

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food DEFRA brings together and Rural Affairs environmental responsibilities from the former Ministry of Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and the former Department of the Environment for the Regions.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Acronym Term Explanation EA Environment Agency Public body for protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales

EfW Energy From Waste A facility that recovers heat energy for use in heating schemes from the incineration of waste in large amounts. It can also include the production of waste derived fuel that can be burnt in many conventional boilers and larger combustion units.

EiP Examination in Public An external Panel, appointed by the Planning Inspectorate to hold an Examination into a LDD (see below) in public and write a report on its findings.

ERM Environmental Resource A consultancy firm responsible for Management Ltd updating the model used by SEERA (see below) to project future waste arisings.

EU European Union

Indicator Measurement of change to a system or objective

GOSE Government Office South East The Government Office for the South East represents central Government in the South East, particularly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; the Departments for Education and Skills; Trade and Industry; Transport; Culture, Media and Sport; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Home Office. GOSE works to influence contract and develop government programmes and initiatives at a regional and local level, by working in partnership with relevant organisations to meet local needs.

Inert Chemically inactive

JMWDF Joint Minerals and Waste A collection of LDDs (see below) Development Framework relating to mineral and waste issues for all six Berkshire Unitary Authorities.

JMWLDS Joint Minerals and Waste Local A timetable and project plan for the Development Scheme production of all the LDDs (see below) relating to mineral and waste issues for all six Berkshire Unitary Authorities.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Acronym Term Explanation JSPU Joint Strategic Planning Unit Organisation set up to produce the structure plan and the minerals and waste local plans for the Berkshire area.

Landfill The disposal of waste material by tipping into voids in the ground.

LATS Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme A scheme whereby waste disposal authorities are allocated allowances for the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that can be disposed of to landfill.

LDD Local Development Documents The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states, Local Development Documents will comprise both statutory development plan documents and non-statutory Supplementary Planning Documents. LDDs are likely to include core policies, area action plans, proposal map, site- specific policies and a Statement of Community Involvement.

LDF Local Development Framework A folder containing a number of documents including LDDs setting out a local authority’s policies for meeting the economic, environmental and social aims of its area.

LDS Local Development Scheme A timetable and project plan for the production of all the LDDs relating to a LDF.

MPA Mineral Planning Authorities A local authority with responsibility for processing mineral applications.

MPG Mineral Planning Guidance Guidance issued by ODPM (see below) setting out the Governments policy on mineral planning issues.

MPS Mineral Planning Statements New guidance issued by ODPM, (see below) setting out the Governments policy on mineral planning issues. These will in time replace all MPGs.

MRF Material Recycling Facility A special sorting ‘factory’ where mixed recyclables are separated into individual materials prior to despatch to reprocessors who wash and prepare the materials for manufacturing into new recycled products.

Mt Million Tonnes

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Acronym Term Explanation MSW Municipal Solid Waste More commonly known as rubbish, trash or garbage — consists of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries.

MWMS Municipal Waste Management A strategy produced by local Strategies authorities to deliver more sustainable waste management and break the link between economic growth and the amount of waste produced so that the disposal of waste is the last option for dealing with it.

Objective Statement of what is intended, specifying the desired direction of change

ODPM Office Deputy Prime Minister The job of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is to help create sustainable communities, working with other Government departments, local councils, businesses, the voluntary sector, and communities themselves.

PFI Private Finance Initiative A way of funding major capital investments, without immediate recourse to the public purse. Private consortia, usually involving large construction firms, are contracted to design, build, and in some cases manage new projects. Contracts typically last for 30 years.

PPG Planning Policy Guidance Guidance issued by ODPM, setting out the Governments policy on planning issues.

PPS Planning Policy Statements New guidance issued by ODPM, setting out the Governments policy on planning issues. These will replace PPGs.

Primary Aggregates Naturally occurring sand, gravel and hard rock used for construction purposes

Recycled Materials Aggregate materials that are recovered from construction and demolition processes and from excavation on construction sites.

RMLP Replacement Minerals Local Plan Strategic Minerals Plan for Berkshire covering the period up to the 31st December 2006.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Acronym Term Explanation RPG Regional Planning Guidance Strategic Planning Guidance for the South East (see below) produced by GOSE. The Waste and Minerals part of the plan cover the period from 2001 to 2026.

RWS Regional Waste Strategy Strategic Strategy that sets regional targets for the diversion from landfill to recycling and composting.

SA Sustainability Appraisal A single appraisal tool which provides for the systematic identification and evaluation of the economic, social and environmental impacts of a proposal

SCI Statement of Community The processes by which the Involvement community will be engaged in consultation on each type of LDD and at every stage of its preparation. The SCI will also show how residents will be consulted on major planning applications.

SEA Strategic Environmental A process to ensure that significant Assessment environmental effects arising from policies, plans and programmes are identified, assessed, mitigated, communicated to decision-makers, monitored and that opportunities for public involvement are provided

Secondary Aggregates Mineral wastes and industrial by- products used in the construction industry. E.g. colliery spoil, china clay waste, slate waste, power station.

SEERA South East England Regional A body composed of Assembly representatives from Unitary Authorities and other organisations within the South East (see below). It is charged with the preparation of future regional planning guidance, among other functions.

SERTAB South East Regional Technical A group established to advise Advisory Body SEERA on options and strategies for dealing with Waste Management.

South East The Government Office Region called the South East which covers the geographical counties of Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey and West Sussex.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Acronym Term Explanation SWMA Strategic Waste Management Report from SERTAB to SEERA Assessment setting out policy drivers, targets and obligations for changing waste management in the future.

UA Unitary Authority Administrative Unit of Great Britain. Since 1996 the two-tier structure of local government has ceased to exist in Scotland and Wales, and in some parts of England, and has been replaced by unitary authorities, responsible for all local government services.

Waste Hierarchy A hierarchy of approaches to waste management, with ‘reduction’ the most preferred approach, followed by ‘re-use’; ‘recycling, composting or energy recovery from waste’; and finally ‘disposal’.

WDA Waste Disposal Authorities Local authority responsible for the collection of waste in their administrative boundary and its disposal.

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Aims to prevent the disposal of Equipment Directive electrical and electronic goods and ensure greater levels of recovery and disassembly.

Windfall A site, which becomes available for mineral extraction or is developed as a waste facility, which was not previously identified.

WTS Waste Transfer Station A facility where waste is unloaded in order to permit its preparation for further transport for recovery, treatment or disposal elsewhere.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

1. Introduction

1.1. Following the introduction of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Local Planning Authorities are required1 to monitor and review the progress made with the preparation of Local Development Schemes (LDS) and the extent to which policies in Local Development Documents (LDD) are being successfully implemented. This will be done by means of a published Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), which will assess progress in the context of the timetable and milestones set out in the LDS. This process forms a key part of the Government's 'plan, monitor and manage' approach to the planning system.

1.2. With regard to minerals and waste planning the six Unitary Authorities in Berkshire have decided to produce a Joint Minerals and Waste Development Framework, which will be complementary to their individual Local Development Frameworks (LDF).

1.3. The information contained in this AMR therefore solely relates to issues connected with mineral and waste activity. It should be read in conjunction with the individual AMR’s produced by the six Berkshire Unitary Authorities in order to get a complete picture of spatial activity in the area.

2. Challenges and Issues of the Area

Minerals 2.1. Berkshire is a significant producer of minerals and is underlain by three main types of minerals: sand and gravel and chalk and clay. In the south east there is a large and growing demand for these products. To try and meet this demand the apportionment rate for Berkshire has currently been set as 1.57 million tonnes (mt) per year.2

2.2. Major challenges accompany mineral extraction in Berkshire. The concentration of development in Berkshire where minerals naturally occur and the extent of planning designations aimed at preserving the special character of the countryside all result in pressure on the environment.

2.3. One of the key aims and challenges which mineral extraction in Berkshire will have to address is balancing the local, regional and national need for mineral extraction with the environmental costs to the County as a whole.

Waste 2.4. As the population of Berkshire grows so does the amount of waste it produces. The latest information available suggests the total amount of waste produced will increase substantially by 2016. About 420,000 more tonnes of municipal and commercial/industrial waste is forecast to arise in 2016 than in the base year of 2001/2 (2002/3 for municipal waste)3.

1 Section 35 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (HMSO: May 2004) 2 South East England Regional Assembly Panel Report on Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance South East – Regional Minerals Strategy December 2004 3 The Berkshire Unitary Authorities Joint Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Waste Issues and Options Report. October 2005.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

2.5. In planning for the future approach to waste management a balance needs to be struck between the need for waste management facilities and the need to protect the environment and the amenity of local communities.

3. Joint Minerals and Waste Development Framework (JMWDF)

3.1. The Replacement Minerals Local Plan (RMLP) for Berkshire was adopted in May 2001 and covers the period to the end of 2006.

3.2. The Waste Local Plan for Berkshire was adopted as a statutory Local Plan in December 1998.

3.3. These two documents will be replaced under the JMWDF with a single core strategy for both Minerals and Waste and two further detailed documents outlining the development control policies and preferred areas for both minerals and waste.

4. Local Development Scheme Progress

4.1. The first milestone that the six Unitary Authorities have achieved was the submission of the Joint Minerals and Waste Local Development Scheme (JMLDS) to the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) by the end of March 2005. The JMLDS was submitted in January and received final approval from GOSE in April. The document sets out the timetable for the preparation of minerals and waste development documents and is available from the Joint Unit or can be viewed and downloaded at: http://www.berks- jsu.gov.uk/pdf_files/Berks_M&WLDS_April05.pdf

4.2. Each of the six Unitary Authorities are, in parallel, preparing Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) covering other planning matters such as housing, employment, environment etc. Each of these LDFs requires a document known as a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), and these are required to include reference to Minerals and Waste Plans. In developing the approach to this task it was felt that if a separate SCI for minerals and waste was produced this could lead to confusion and therefore it has been decided that the SCIs prepared by each Unitary Authority will each carry a statement on joint working in relation to Minerals and Waste.. The Government Office of the South East has approved this approach.

5. AMR – Aims

5.1. This Monitoring Report is required to cover the period April 2004 to March 2005, this financial year monitoring period is a recent requirement. Minerals Monitoring has traditionally been based on calendar year periods and as a result information used in this AMR comes from a variety of sources and covers a variety of base dates. Each source is clearly identified.

5.2. The aims of this AMR are:

• to present the latest available statistics relating to the nationally identified Core Output Indicators4; • to highlight any issues arising from these indicators, and; • to outline future monitoring procedures.

4 Table 4.4 Local Development Framework Core Output Indicators by Key Policy Theme, Local Development Framework Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide (HMSO: March 2005)

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

In addition the appendices provide a more detailed analysis of minerals and waste planning in the Berkshire Unitary Authority areas.

6. Minerals

6.1. Information relating to the amount of aggregates extracted in Berkshire relate to the period January to December 2004. At the time of preparing this Monitoring Report there is no information available for production over the period January to March 2005 and it is proposed that this three-month period will be added in to the next report to be issued in 2006.

National Core Indicator 5A Production of primary land won aggregates5

6.2. The following chart shows the annual production of primary land won aggregates in Berkshire compared with the apportionment rates for 2001- 2004 and 2004-2016. The total production of primary land won aggregates for 2003 was 1,000,000 tonnes.

Berkshire Sand and Gravel 4000

2.3 mta (2001-2004 3500 Apportionment) 1.57mta (2004-2016 3000 Apportionment)

2500

2000

'000 Tonnes 1500

1000

500

0 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1983 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

National Core Indicator 5B Production of secondary/recycled aggregates

6.3. No information currently exists in order to monitor this indicator.

5 Table 4.4 Local Development Framework Core Output Indicators by Key Policy Theme, Local Development Framework Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide (HMSO: March 2005)

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

7. Waste

National Core Indicator 6a Capacity of new waste management facilities by type

7.1. Based on information supplied by the Waste Planning Authorities no substantive planning permissions involving new waste management capacity were granted in the 2003-2004 monitoring period. Details of the main waste management facilities within the JMWDF area and their current planning status are provided at Appendix Bii.

7.2. Planning permission was granted in 2003 for the redevelopment of Chalvey waste station in Slough to create a new civic amenity site and new trade waste shed. This created modest additional management capacity, but was primarily focused on improving the facilities for the public using the civic amenity facility.

National Core Indicator 6b Amount of municipal waste arising, and managed by management type, and the percentage each management type represents of the waste managed.

7.3. The table and bar chart below shows the amount of municipal waste collected in the Berkshire area, the amounts recycled or composted, and the amounts disposed of to landfill for the financial year 2003-2004.

Chart 1

Management of Municipal Waste 2003-2004

400,000

350,000 Collection Refuse collection vehicles 300,000 Collection Other household

250,000 Collection Civic amenity 200,000 Collection Non household and 150,000 other R/C Recycled and composted 100,000 Waste disposal method 50,000 Landfilled

0 Total Berkshire

Source: Environment Agency (Using data provided by WCAs)

7.4. The bar chart overleaf shows the amounts of municipal waste recycled/ composted and disposed of to landfill as percentage values.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

7.5. In order to place the year 2003-2004 into context, a further chart is presented, which shows the increase over time in household waste collected, and the increase over time in the proportion recycled and composted. Household waste makes up the majority of municipal waste, and reliable figures for municipal waste are not available for sufficient previous years to provide a useful trend.

Chart 2

Municipal Waste 2003-2004 - Management and Disposal

100 90 80 70 60 % Recycled/composted 50 40 % Landfilled Percent 30 20 10 0 Slough BC Wokingham BC Reading BC RB Windsor and Maidenhead Bracknell Forest BC West Berkshire Council

Source: Environment Agency (Using data provided by WCAs)

Chart 3

Berkshire Household Waste Arisings 1997-2004

500,000

450,000

400,000 Berkshire 350,000 Total

300,000 Tonnage recycled or 250,000 composted

Tonnes 200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04

Source: Environment Agency (Using data provided by WCAs)

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

7.6. As may be seen, growth in household waste arisings has been relatively across the period shown, although there appears to be an increase in arisings in the most recent year at above the trend rate for the previous five year period. When data for 2004-05 becomes available this possible acceleration in household waste growth will need to be examined carefully.

7.7. All the Unitary Authorities have shown significant increases in the rates of household waste recycled/composted. However, continued substantial increases in the future will be needed to meet targets.

7.8. It should be noted that municipal waste accounts for, at most, about 25% of the total amount of waste arising, and therefore accurate data on other waste streams, notably commercial and industrial, and inert construction and demolition waste, is important in planning for future waste management.

7.9. Unfortunately, no reliable figure is currently available of total waste arisings in Berkshire in individual recent years, or for individual waste streams. Current best estimate data are presented in the waste monitoring paper at Appendix Bi.

8. Issues Arising

8.1. It is of significant concern that the information required to complete the national core indicators for the given period is not available. This is partially due to issues surrounding commercial sensitivity of data (particularly the case for minerals data) in relation to new legislation on access to information and partly because the data has not been systematically collected or formally required before – this is primarily the case for waste data.

8.2. It has been found that even household and municipal waste data, collated nationally by Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), appears not to be wholly reliable and errors have been found in the reporting of data for the Berkshire Unitary authorities. Furthermore, there remain inconsistencies in the way that household and municipal wastes are defined and reported, which makes analysis and forecasting less robust.

8.3. With regard to minerals production data the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has noted: ‘MPAs can only be expected to use the best available information when preparing AMRs so it may have to be expected that, for 2004, reporting might be fairly subjective, especially if the main sources of data on primary aggregates are not available for 2004’. (Source: ODPM letter in response to queries raised by Kent County Council concerning absence of reliable data).

8.4. The issue of data integrity is further obscured by the annual monitoring period. As noted earlier, traditionally, minerals monitoring has taken place on a calendar year basis and not financial year, and this means that a correction period is needed so that an extra three months can be added in to the data covering the January to March period.

8.5. These issues are not unique to Berkshire and have been raised with the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) and ODPM, when further guidance/clarification has been issued this will be taken into account and acted on accordingly.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

9. Future Procedures

9.1. A key future priority will be to obtain accurate data in the areas required to address national core indicators, and also to inform the preparation of the forthcoming JMWDF. Again, this priority is not unique to Berkshire, but nevertheless is one that will require concerted effort to address, and investment at national and regional government level.

9.2. The existing policies of both the Minerals and Waste Local Plans do not always lend themselves to effective monitoring in quantitative terms. Most are aimed at addressing the tensions between minerals and waste related development, and environmental protection in its widest sense. As a result, these policies can only be monitored in qualitative terms in relation to the planning decisions reached in the context of the two plans.

9.3. This in turn requires a detailed evaluation of planning decisions, both approvals and refusals, and it is suggested that a record of minerals and waste planning decisions is maintained, by each of the Unitary Authorities. This should not be an onerous requirement, because on an annual basis there are very few planning applications received which need to be so recorded.

9.4. For waste policies identifying Preferred Areas and Preferred Areas of Search there is no specific mechanism at present for monitoring non-waste related planning applications that might affect those areas. Where such applications are refused they may provide information on the effectiveness of safeguarding policies. Where granted, it is necessary to understand how the quantum of land allocated for waste related development may be affected.

9.5. Therefore it is recommended that a formal procedure is put in place for recording planning applications of whatever type, and their outcome, where they affect identified proposed waste management sites, and existing facilities. This could require the identification of formal ‘waste consultation areas’ along similar lines to mineral consultation areas, and is a matter that will be evaluated through preparation of the emerging JMWDF.

9.6. In the case of the quantitative aspect of minerals permissions, and the maintenance of a landbank for aggregates, it is considered that existing monitoring arrangements work well – provided data is available from operators. This is a matter which is outside the control of the minerals planning authorities.

9.7. Future changes in procedure will need to include added focus on monitoring requirements when drafting policies for the emerging JMWDF. In the case of waste it will be desirable to identify measurable capacity needs, for waste management facilities, and to be able to monitor delivery of these over the life of the plan. This in turn will require robust data against which to plan for this capacity – which brings the focus back to the comments in paragraph 9.1 above.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

APPENDIX Ai MINERALS LOCAL PLAN MONITORING REPORT FOR 2004

1. This Monitoring Report on the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire (‘RMLP’) covers events between January 2004 and March 2005. However, extraction figures are given for the period January to December 2003.

2. The RMLP was adopted in May 2001 and covers the period to 31 December 2006. The Plan contains polices which provide a basis for making decisions on future planning applications for mineral extraction in the former Berkshire county area. These include policies about how much sand and gravel, and other minerals, should be dug in Berkshire, and where favoured locations for future extraction should take place.

3. The RMLP includes a commitment to produce annual reports on its operation, to consider the continuing effectiveness and appropriateness of the Plan’s policies regarding: • levels of production • the size of the county’s stock of planning permissions for mineral extraction, • applications and permissions for mineral extraction • the effectiveness of the policy of directing mineral extraction to Preferred Areas.

4. As well as covering these matters, this Report reviews other important events of the year in the field of minerals planning in, or affecting Berkshire.

POLICY ISSUES

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL

5. During 2004 –

• The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act came into force in May 2004, introducing significant changes to the national planning system. Under the new system, regional plans are given greater importance by being included in the definition of ‘the Development Plan’, replacing County Structure Plans, and district-wide Local Plans are to be replaced with ‘Local Development Documents’ (LDDs).

Responsibility for minerals and waste planning will remain with County Councils and bodies such as Berkshire’s Joint Strategic Planning Committee. However policies for minerals would in future be set out in a ‘Minerals Development Framework’ rather than in a Minerals Local Plan.

• In June 2004, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) issued new National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England 2001- 2016. Based on revised forecasts of aggregates demand, and a new assessment of the sources from which this demand might be met, the 2004 guidelines indicate that total provision for extraction of aggregates in England should be 11% per year less than the amount allowed for in the previous (1994), and now superseded, Guidelines. This overall figure assumes a substantial increase in the expected use of alternatives to primary aggregates, notably construction and demolition waste, balanced by a reduction in provision of land-won primary aggregates (sand, gravel and hard rock).

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Regionally, the new National Guidelines show that provision for aggregates supply in the South East over the period 2001-2016 is expected to consist of 212 million tonnes (mt) of land-won sand and gravel, 35mt of crushed rock, 120mt of marine dredged sand and gravel, 118mt of ‘alternative materials’, and 85mt of imports to England. The land-won sand and gravel figure equates to 13.25mt/year. This is a 19.7% reduction on the figure for the same area in the 1994 Guidelines, which was 16.5mt/year.

The new regional figures have to be ‘apportioned’ to individual counties by the relevant regional planning body. In the South East, this is the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). In December 2003 SEERA published a draft Regional Minerals Strategy (RMS), which set out a suggested reduction of the amount of sand and gravel extracted in the South East to 12.67mt per year rather than13.25mt, with the shortfall being compensated for by the use of alternative materials at a rate higher than envisaged in the national guidance (approximately 123mt over the period to 2016 rather than 118mt). This adjustment to the amount of land-won sand and gravel derives from particular circumstances in Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Oxfordshire. Under this draft apportionment Berkshire’s share would be 1.5 mta.

The Draft Regional Minerals Strategy was subject to an ‘Examination in Public’ (EiP) during October 2004. The Panel Report was published in January 2005. The recommendation of the Panel was to return to the figure of 13.25mt/year in the National Guidelines, and for the sub apportionment for Berkshire to be set at 1.57 mt/year.

There is no intention by SEERA or any other party to ‘sub-apportion’ the Berkshire apportionment figure to the individual Unitary Authorities (UAs). This reflects the wishes of the UAs themselves.

The new RMS, including the new apportionment figures, is intended to be incorporated into revised Regional Planning Guidance (RPG9).

• The ODPM is looking to review and simplify the existing system of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Mineral Planning Guidance notes (MPGs). As a result, it is publishing a series of Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Mineral Policy Statements (MPSs) to replace PPGs and MPGs. A draft Minerals Planning Statement 1 was published in November 2004. The final version will replace the Minerals Planning Guidance 1 dated 1996. The main changes in the new document relate to a change of format, with policy set out in bullet point format, and accompanying Good Practice Guidance containing information about implementation of the policy. The Statement aims to provide additional guidance on the implications for minerals planning of the principles of sustainable development.

• The ODPM has published much new guidance on the operation of the new planning system introduced under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) and about the Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA) of development plans.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

BERKSHIRE STRUCTURE PLAN

6. In February 2004, modifications to the Berkshire Structure Plan Deposit Draft proposed as a result of consideration of the Panel’s Report were put ‘on deposit’ – the 6 week statutory public consultation period. Between March and April, approval was given to the changes and the statement of decisions on the Panel’s findings.

7. The Berkshire Structure Plan was recommended to the Berkshire Unitary Authorities for adoption in July 2004.

THE RMLP POLICIES, AND PLANNING PERMISSIONS a) The impact on the RMLP of the new national and regional guidance

8. The revisions to national and regional guidance that took place during 2004 alter some details of national and regional advice, but they do not change its broad thrust, which is the promotion of a more sustainable approach to the provision of aggregates, with reducing reliance on land-won primary aggregates and increased reliance on secondary and recycled materials.

9. Two components of the RMLP are superseded as a result of the new guidance:

Policy 3, as adopted, incorporates the now superseded apportionment figure of 2.3mt/year for Berkshire. But the provisions of the policy are expressly “subject to the outcome of any future reviews of national or regional guidance”. Now that there has been such a review, when applying the Plan in future the new apportionment figure of 1.57mt/year can be immediately substituted in the policy, without the need for any formal alteration to the Plan. Similarly, that figure is now the proper basis for assessing the size of the landbank aimed for under Policy 4.

The new apportionment figure also the calculation in Table 2 of the Plan, and the conclusions of paragraphs 4.17 - 4.17A. (The re-calculated Table 2 in Appendix Aii to this Annex is based on future provision at the new rate of 1.57mt/year).

10. Other sections of the RMLP have to a greater or lesser extent been overtaken as a result of the new guidance. Examples are various statements in paragraphs 2.7, 2.12, 2.15, 2.18, 2.18A, 3.5 - 3.7, and Appendix 2 of the RMLP. It is not proposed to redraft these paragraphs pending the full review of the Plan, but users of the Plan should be aware of the need to treat their detailed content with some caution. If the recent national or regional guidance contradicts these paragraphs (or any other parts of the RMLP) on matters of fact in respect of national or regional policy, then the former documents will prevail. b) Applications and permissions

11. During 2004, the only major mineral quarrying planning application was an application for extraction of 800,000t of sand and gravel on a Green Belt site at Poyle Quarry submitted by RMC. The application site was part of a Preferred Area. The application remained undetermined on 31.12.04.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

12. Several applications for aggregate crushing and recycling facilities were submitted, indicating the growing trend in reuse of reclaimed materials for construction purposes.

13. No new ‘windfall’ permissions – permissions granted even though mineral extraction is not the primary aim of the proposal – were granted during 2004. c) The state of the landbank

14. Each year, a survey is carried out of mineral production and reserves in each county area in the UK. The survey carried out in 2004 covered calendar year 2003, and is known as ‘AM2003’.

15. At the end of 2003, Berkshire’s landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel (based on the county’s new apportionment figure) stood at an estimated 8.5 years. This is above the figure of “at least 7 years” set out in Policy 4 of the Plan.

16. Assuming production of 1.57 mt in 2004, and taking into account that no new permissions were granted or confirmed during the year, it is estimated that permitted reserves of sand and gravel at the end of 2004 totalled just under 12mt, equivalent to 7.6 years production. d) Effectiveness of the Preferred Areas Approach

17. The Plan identifies 12 Preferred Areas for future working of aggregate minerals in Berkshire. With only 3 exceptions, all major applications for new mineral extraction (i.e. those with an estimated yield of 100,000 tonnes or more) that have been submitted since the RMLP was adopted have been within Preferred Areas. The exceptions are 2 ‘windfall’ permissions at Greenham Common and the Jubilee River flood prevention scheme, and an application at Wasing Lower Farm for a new quarry, which was rejected on appeal.

18. Other extraction proposals submitted have been four applications for extensions to existing pits – two at George’s Farm, Crookham Common, one at Sheephouse Farm, Maidenhead, and one at Woolhampton Quarry. In all three cases, the mineral would have been sterilised if it were not extracted at the same time as the existing quarry. All four applications were approved – George’s Farm in 1998 and 2001, Sheephouse Farm in 1998, and Woolhampton Quarry in 2003.

19. It therefore appears that in general the Plan is being effective in focusing the submission of new applications on its Preferred Areas.

PITS AND PRODUCTION a) pits in production

20. AM2003 showed that extraction of sand and gravel took place at 14 pits in Berkshire in 2003. This is one more than in 2002, accounted for by the start of extraction from Sheephouse Farm, Sandhurst and Theale Pit, and the non- production of minerals from Georges Farm, and Field Farm.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

21. Appendix Aiii to this Annex shows the record of the County’s sand and gravel quarries since 1995. b) Production of sand and gravel in 2003

22. Production of sand and gravel in the county area in 2003 totalled 1,000,000 tonnes. This was a reduction of almost 5% over the 2002 figure. There were modest reductions of production at almost every pit in the county. However it should be recognised that Berkshire's production figures are still influenced by supply from the stockpiles produced during the Jubilee River scheme and the restoration of Greenham Common.

23. In general, the relatively low levels of production in Berkshire in recent years are matched by relatively low figures across the region. In the South East region as a whole, production of sand and gravel fell by 7.4% between 2002 and 2003.

Figure 1. Sand and Gravel Production in Berkshire and South East England 1974-2002

30000

SE Sand and Gravel 25000 Berkshire Sand and Gravel ' 0 0 20000 0

T 15000 o n n 10000 e s 5000

0

1974 1976 1978 1983 1987 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year

24. Figure 1 shows of the amounts of sand and gravel that have been produced in Berkshire and in the South East England region (excluding Bedfordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and London, which left the SE region in 2001) annually from 1974, where known.

25. The graph shows a general decline in sand and gravel production overall both within Berkshire and the South East as a whole with the exception of a sharp peak followed by a drop and then a subsequent rise between 1987 and 1995. As a comparison, in 1974 Berkshire produced some 17% of the Region’s sand and gravel; in 2003, the proportion was 9%.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

26. Berkshire’s production in 2003 was around 67% of the county’s new apportionment figure of 1.57 mta. Average production over recent years has been consistently lower than this new apportionment level, except where the three-year figure has been affected by production associated with special projects.

27. A similar picture emerges when considering actual production of aggregates in the Region against the Regional apportionment figure. The new 2003 guidelines suggest that provision from the ‘South East Region should be 13.25mt/year; this figure has been recorded only three times in the last eight years, and not at all since 1999.

28. These declining production figures can be attributed to the following factors:- • a shift towards increased import of materials from outside Berkshire and the South East • increased imports from abroad and of marine dredged sand and gravel • increased use of recycled construction and demolition waste • reduced utilisation of aggregates in construction generally with greater use of steel and glass.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, AND TOTAL AGGREGATES CONSUMPTION

29. The survey which collects data on the import, export and overall consumption of aggregates between different counties and regions is only undertaken every 4 years. There has been no such survey since the last Annual Monitoring Report, so no new data can be presented. The next survey will be in 2005.

30. The AM2001 survey, like the previous detailed four-yearly surveys, collected data about the movement of aggregates between different regions and counties. In the past, these details were published as part of the survey results, and this enabled estimates to be made of total aggregates consumption in each area. However, these details were not published following the AM2001 survey. This means that the latest details of Berkshire’s imports, exports and consumption date from the AM97 survey (that is, the survey covering calendar year 1997). The following paragraphs summarise the key points from this survey, but it must be appreciated that these details may now be significantly out of date.

31. 72% of the sand and gravel dug in Berkshire in 1997 was used within the county. Almost all of the remainder was used in neighbouring counties. All but 7,000 tonnes of Berkshire’s production was used in counties in the South East region; the rest was exported westwards, to Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Somerset.

32. ‘Imports’ of sand and gravel from other South East counties slightly exceeded the levels of ‘exports’ of material dug in Berkshire.

33. These imports and exports to and from Berkshire consisted very largely of short-distance movements of material dug from pits close to (and on either side of) the county boundaries.

34. During 1997, Berkshire used around 200,000 tonnes of hard rock (mostly limestone) brought into the county from outside the region via the two rail

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

depots at Theale, or via depots in other counties. Much of this material came from quarries in South West England, though some was originally quarried in Scotland. A substantial proportion of the material brought into the Theale depots was ‘re-exported’ for use in other counties all around the South East’.

35. Berkshire also used very small amounts of material dredged from the seabed off the South East coast, and imported into Berkshire by road from the coastal wharf where it was landed.

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

APPENDIX Aii TABLE 2 OF THE RMLP REWORKED TO 31 DECEMBER 2004, AND ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT ADEQUACY OF PROVISION IN THE RMLP

NEW PERMISSIONS REQUIRED BEFORE THE END OF 2006 SO AS TO MAINTAIN A SEVEN-YEAR LANDBANK OF PERMITTED RESERVES Permissions required to maintain production at 1.57mt/yr 2004- 2006 3,140,000 Additional permissions required to leave a landbank sufficient to allow production at 1.57mt/yr to the end of 2013 10,990,000 14,130,000 Less Permitted reserves 31 December 2004 12,000,000 INTERIM BALANCE TO FIND 2,130,000 Plus 15% safety margin 319,500 FINAL BALANCE TO FIND 2,449,500 Less Sites awaiting legal agreements 31December 2004 0 Other sites where renewals of permission were pending on 31December 2004 0 Allowance for building sand permissions 600,000 PERMISSIONS NEEDED BEFORE THE END OF 2006 FOR EXTRACTION OF SHARP SAND AND GRAVEL FROM HITHERTO UNIDENTIFIED SITES 1,849,500

ADEQUACY OF THE PROVISION IN THE RMLP Total volume of Preferred Areas identified in the RMLP as adopted (including the 2001 Alterations) 12,076,000 Less Preferred Areas where planning permission has been granted or approved in principle since the list in the current RMLP was drawn up (Preferred Areas 2, 2A, 3 part, 5 part, 7, and 12 part), as at 31.12.03 3,979,000 Preferred Areas remaining in the RMLP 8,097,000

HENCE, CURRENT SURPLUS OF SITE-SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE RMLP 6,247,500

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Appendix Aiii Current Mineral Operators in the Six Unitary Authorities

Site District/Borough Grid Ref Mineral Produced Operator: S Grundon Ltd, Grange Lane, Beenham, Reading, RG7 5PY 1. Old Kiln Farm, Chieveley WBC SU 484726 Building Sand 2. Padworth Quarry (Butts Lake), Aldermaston WBC SU 597668 Sharp sand and gravel 3. Raghill Farm, Aldermaston WBC SU 612645 Sharp sand and gravel 4. Star Works, Knowl Hill WOK SU 815797 Soft sand and clay

Operator: Hanson Aggregates, Whiteladies, Teston Road, Offham West Malling, Kent ME19 5EF

5. Field Farm, Sulhampstead WBC SU 637684 Sharp sand and gravel 6. Theale Pit WBC SU665700 Sharp sand and gravel

Operator: Harleyford Aggregates Ltd, Henley Road, Harleyford, Marlow, Bucks SL7 2DX

7. Harts Hill Copse, Upper Bucklebury WBC SU 531687 Sharp sand and gravel

Operator: Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, Bradgate House, Groby, Leicester, LE6 0FA

8. Woolhampton Quarry WBC SU 570658 Sharp sand and gravel

Operator: Marley Tile Co. Ltd, Grange Lane, Beenham, Reading, RG7 5PU

9. Bath Road, Midgham WBC SU 561666 Sharp sand and gravel

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Site District/Borough Grid Ref Mineral Produced Operator: RMC Aggregates, Greater London, RMC House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire EN8 9SJ 10. Kingsmead Pit, Horton RBWM TQ 010753 Sharp sand and gravel 11. Berkyn Manor Farm, Horton RBWM TQ 023763 Sharp sand and gravel

Operator: RMC Aggregates Southern, RMC House, The Square, Lightwater, Surrey, GU18 5SS 12. Aldermaston Wharf, Aldermaston WBC SU 609670 Sharp sand and gravel 13. Manor Farm, Finchampstead Wok SU 800625 Sharp sand and gravel

Operator: Summerleaze Ltd, 7 Summerleaze Road, Maidenhead, SL6 8SP

14. Sheephouse Farm/Spencers Farm, Maidenhead RBWM SU 890835 Sharp sand and gravel 15. Whistley Court Farm/Lea Farm, Hurst Wok SU 788735 Sharp sand and gravel

Operator: Tarmac Southern Ltd, Churchward House, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2TA

17. Lower Farm, Greenham WBC SU 500664 Sharp sand and gravel

Joint Minerals and Waste Annual Monitoring Report 2005

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

APPENDIX Bi WASTE LOCAL PLAN MONITORING REPORT FOR 2004

Introduction

1 Local Planning Authorities are required to monitor and review the progress made with preparation of Local Development Frameworks, which are the spatial plans that will replace the system of Structure and Local Plans currently in place in England and Wales. This will be implemented by means of a published Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), which will assess progress in the context of the timetable and milestones set out in the LDS. This process forms a key aspect of the Government's 'plan, monitor and manage' approach to the planning system.

2 This Monitoring Report covers the period between March 2003 and April 2004. It aims:

• To present available statistics relating to the waste arisings, treatment and disposal in the Berkshire Unitary Authority areas for the monitoring year; • To give details of relevant international, national, regional and local policy guidance on waste management; • To describe the main proposals for waste-related development in the Berkshire Unitary Authority areas that were the subject of planning applications in the year, and any other relevant proposals on sites identified or safeguarded in the adopted Berkshire Waste Local Plan; • To summarise the activities being undertaken by the Unitary Authorities to secure appropriate management of the wastes for which they are responsible; • In the context of this latest information, to consider the continuing effectiveness and appropriateness of current policies and therefore any implications for the emerging Waste Development Framework.

3 The Waste Local Plan for Berkshire was adopted as a statutory Local Plan in December 1998 and covers the period to the end of 2006. In 2003 work began on the production of a new Waste Local Plan for Berkshire but was put on hold and now the Joint Strategic Planning Unit representing the six Unitary Authorities in the Berkshire area is in the process of preparing a joint Minerals and Waste Development Framework (JMWDF).

4 Until the new JMWDF is adopted (in 2008), the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire remains the adopted planning policy document guiding waste management related development in the former Berkshire area.

Municipal Waste Management Strategies (MWMS)

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

5 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) published its MWMS in 2004 and this sets a framework for the management of municipal waste to 2020. The strategy approach endorses the waste hierarchy and policies and targets set out in the national strategy Waste Strategy 2000, and it is proposed to review the strategy every five years to ensure it remains on course and responds appropriately to changing circumstances. A key element is the target of reducing the rate of growth of household waste to zero by 2010.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

6 The strategy is to let a new integrated waste management contract, in 2005/2006 and is founded on the intention to recycle at, or above, statutory targets and to seek alternative routes to landfill for treatment and disposal of residual waste. It anticipates that the waste management facilities that may be involved in such a contract could include mechanical and biological treatment, anaerobic digestion and energy from waste.

West Berkshire Council

7 West Berkshire Council also published its MWMS in 2004 having developed this intensively over a number of years; the strategy covers the period 2002- 2022. The strategy will be delivered through a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) arrangement with a single contractor to development waste management systems and facilities for the Council. The strategy addresses the requirements of Waste Strategy 2000 in terms of targets, and supports the concept of self-sufficiency where consistent with the BPEO. It states that it will promote the development of new and existing facilities for waste transfer, recycling and composting within West Berkshire. A key element of the strategy is the intention to develop land at Padworth Sidings for an integrated waste management facility.

Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Reading Borough Council and Wokingham Borough Council

8 These three authorities have agreed to work in partnership in developing their MWMS and in the delivery of waste management facilities in Central Berkshire. The partnership is known as ‘re3’. The joint strategy was published in 2004 and the principal objectives are to:

• Strive to lessen the adverse environmental impact of waste management activities; • Work with residents to reduce the amount of waste produced; • Significantly increase the amount of waste recycled, composted or recovered; • Significantly decrease the amount of waste disposed of via landfill.

9 The strategy sets out the way in which the objectives will be achieved through a set of policies and targets. A waste management contract is to be procured jointly through a PFI arrangement, and the strategy acknowledges the need for new waste management facilities, and highlights the role of the BWLP in the way that these will be delivered.

Slough Borough Council

10 The MWMS for Slough was published in March 2002 and sets out the Council’s commitment to meeting the statutory performance standards for recycling and composting, and moving away from landfill to more sustainable methods of waste management. Waste minimisation, education and re-use programmes are to be developed as a priority with the aim of reducing the growth in waste arisings. The Council intends to seek to optimise kerbside collection and bring-bank recycling and green waste composting at its Civic Amenity Site. The remainder of the municipal waste will be diverted from landfill to be treated at an energy from waste (EfW) facility. In the longer term a separate collection for green waste and kitchen organic waste will be implemented.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

The Wider Context

11 There is increasing awareness locally, regionally, nationally and internationally that waste management is a key issue for society to address. The traditional means of disposing of waste in the UK has been to tip it in holes in the ground (‘landfilling’). However, this is not a sustainable long-term solution to getting rid of waste, because there is no limitless supply of holes, and because landfilling of many types of waste creates pollution problems and other hazards.

12 This issue was recognised in the preparation of the BWLP Plan, but the following sections give details of the latest documents issued from various sources, which need to be taken into account in the implementation of the existing BWLP policies and in the development of the new JMWDF.

EU Level

Landfill Directive

13 The Landfill Directive is Key among the legislative changes that was adopted by the UK Government in April 1999 and which therefore partly post-dates preparation of the adopted Berkshire Waste Local Plan (although its content was understood beforehand). This has had, and will continue to have, a major effect on the approach management and disposal of waste in Berkshire, and within the UK at large. The main objectives of the Directive are to ensure high and consistent standards of landfill practice across the European Union, to stimulate the recycling and recovery of value from waste, and to reduce emissions of methane. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that is formed by the decomposition of biodegradable waste in landfill sites.

14 The Directive therefore sets targets for a staged reduction in the amount of biodegradable municipal waste being sent to landfill. These targets are given below and the compliance dates reflect an agreed delay of four years for those countries, of which the UK is one, which have a heavy reliance on landfill as the main method of waste management. The references to 1995 levels are for arisings, and not disposal quantities.

• By 2010 to reduce the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to 75% of 1995 levels; • By 2013 to reduce the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to 50% of 1995 levels; • By 2020 to reduce the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to 35% of 1995 levels.

15 From July 2004 the Directive has also ended the practice of co-disposing of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, and landfill sites must now be classified in terms of the waste that they can accept; hazardous, non- hazardous or inert wastes. This has had a substantial effect on waste management practices in the UK as there has been a significant reduction in the landfill sites licensed to accept hazardous waste, an issue that preparation of the Berkshire MWDF will need to take into account.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

16 The key consequence of the Directive is that landfill must not be relied on as the principal means of waste disposal, as it has been in the past, and the whole thrust of policy is to move away from landfill toward more sustainable methods of waste management which place actual disposal at the foot of the list of priorities, below recycling and re-use.

Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive

17 The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (1994) sets specific targets for recycling and recovery of packaging waste, and encourages the reduction and re-use of packaging. It was introduced in the UK in 1997 and an amendment to the 1997 Packaging Waste Regulations came into force on 1 January 2004, setting targets for 2004-2008 which business must meet.

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive

18 The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (2003) aims to put in place measures to prevent the disposal of electrical and electronic goods and to ensure greater levels of producer responsibility for their recovery and disassembly. The Directive aims to encourage in the first instance, design of equipment that facilitates dismantling and recovery of components.

19 The Directive proposes systems to encourage separate collection of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and systems which will allow the return of WEEE free of charge to the final holder. There would be no mandatory requirement for householders to separate all WEEE but government must instead seek to minimise co-disposal and encourage appropriate behaviour.

20 Under the Directive, retailers are to ensure that WEEE is taken back on a one to one basis when a new, equivalent type product is supplied, but government can provide that retailers make alternative arrangements instead, provided that they are free of charge to the final holder of the WEEE.

21 The Directive sets a target that by 31 December 2006, government must achieve a collection rate of at least 4 kilograms on average per inhabitant per year of waste electrical and electronic equipment from private households. Government must also ensure that all WEEE collected from private households is transported to treatment facilities. Government is to ensure that systems are set up by producers to provide for recovery and re-use of separately collected WEEE according to set recovery, re-use and recycling targets. Targets are set as a proportion of collected WEEE from private households.

22 The cost of recovering ‘Historical’ WEEE produced before the Directive comes into force is expected to be shared proportionately by all producers existing in the market at the time the costs are incurred.

23 The Government now intends to implement the regulations set out in the WEEE Directive in June 2006.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

National level

24 At the national level a range of guidance exists some key elements of which have been introduced since preparation of the adopted BWLP. These include:

• The UK Sustainable Development Strategy – A Better Quality of Life. • The National Waste Strategy 2000 (England and Wales) – known as Waste Strategy 2000. • Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG’s).

A Better Quality of Life

25 The Government’s strategy for sustainable development in the UK, A Better Quality of Life (1999) identifies four broad objectives which must be met if sustainable development is to be achieved:

• Social progress which meets the needs of everyone; • Effective protection of the environment; • Prudent use of natural resources; and • Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

Waste Strategy 2000

26 The objectives of European policy are incorporated into the national waste strategy ‘Waste Strategy 2000’, which sets out the Government’s vision for managing waste in a more sustainable way. Waste Strategy 2000 sets out a number of key waste management principles that should underpin all waste management decisions;

• The Waste Hierarchy • Best Practicable Environmental Option • Proximity Principle • Regional Self Sufficiency

The Waste Hierarchy

27 The waste hierarchy sets out the order of preference for different waste management approaches and highlights the overall objective of reducing the amount of waste that society creates. After waste minimisation at source it stresses that making the best use of waste that does arise is the second priority, thereby reducing the amount requiring eventual disposal. The intention is that, in making decisions about waste management, at all times greater weight should be attributed to those waste management methods that are at the top of the hierarchy:

• Reduction • Re-use • Recovery

- Recycling - Composting - Energy Recovery from Waste Emphasis • Disposal

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

28 It is important to note that while perhaps the most important single area of waste management, waste reduction generally lies outside the remit of land use planning, because it largely depends on society’s attitudes to waste in the way that we buy and use products and services, as opposed to requiring particular waste management facilities.

Best Practicable Environmental Option

29 The Government has previously indicated that a technique termed Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) should be used to guide the decision making process for waste management matters. BPEO has now been replaced in the context of waste planning by plan-level Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

Proximity Principle

30 The Proximity Principle emphasises that waste should be managed as near as possible to its place of production, in order to minimise the environmental impacts which arise from the transportation of waste. This is important in planning for the distribution of facilities, and also may mean that, in some cases, cross-boundary movements of waste, for example into and out of the Berkshire area could be the most sustainable solution. In any such cases this needs to evaluated in the context of self-sufficiency.

Regional Self-Sufficiency

31 The principle of Regional Self Sufficiency emphasises that regions should aim to be self-sufficient in managing the wastes arising within their areas by ensuring the provision of an integrated and adequate network of waste management facilities. Each region should provide for facilities with sufficient capacity to manage the quantity of waste expected to arise in the region for at least ten years. This approach is adopted by the South East Plan.

Targets

32 There are a number of different targets, mostly focused on diversion of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) from landfill, in line with the Landfill Directive. Waste Strategy 2000 identifies national targets for the recycling, composting and recovery of municipal waste. The aim of these targets is to help to ensure that the requirements of the Landfill Directive are met. The national recycling/composting and recovery targets are to:

• Recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005; 30% by 2010 and 33% by 2015; • In addition, recover value from at least 40% of municipal waste by 2005; 45% by 2010 and 67% by 2015.

33 Waste Strategy 2000 has also set the target of reducing the amount of C&I waste sent to landfill in 2005 to 85% of that landfilled in 1998, although no particular mechanism, other than landfill taxation and EU-driven policy in respect of packaging wastes and WEEE, has been developed to implement this objective.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

34 The six Berkshire Unitary Authorities, as Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) also have statutory performance targets for diversion of municipal waste away from landfill, through recycling and composting, introduced under powers set out in the Local Government Act 1999 and applied through the Best Value framework on 1st April 2000. These are actually more challenging than the Waste Strategy 2000 targets.

35 More recently they also have targets set at the local level by the Government under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) which is a scheme whereby waste disposal authorities are allocated allowances for the amount of biodegradable municipal waste they can dispose of to landfill. These allowances are tradable between authorities, within certain limits. The allocations for the six Unitary Authorities are set out in Table 1 overleaf, and the required reduction totalled for the Berkshire area is shown below.

Chart 4

Reduction in Municipal Waste to Landfill Required by LATS

300000

250000

200000

150000 Tonnes 100000

50000

0 2001/02 2005/06 2009/2010 2012/2013 2019/2020

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Table 1 Confirmed LATS allocations for the six Berkshire Unitary Authorities

Year DEFRA Allocation of BMW to Landfill (tonnes) Comments

Bracknell Reading Slough West Windsor Wok’ Total Forest Berks M’head ham Berks

Base Year 40,955 56,249 41,971 51,493 48,746 41,399 280,813 2001/02

2005/06 39,630 54,127 40,428 49,585 47,342 40,239 271,171 Year on year percentage reductions (or increases) of 10/15/20/25/30% of the difference between the base year and the 2009/10 allocation, for the scheme years 2005/06 to 2009/10 respectively.

2009/2010 27,703 35,028 26,542 32,410 34,708 29,804 186,195 A reduction of equal instalments between 2009/10 and 2012/13 2012/2013 18,452 23,331 17,679 21,587 23,118 19,851 124,018 targets. A reduction of equal instalments 2019/2020 12,911 16,326 12,370 15,105 16,176 13,891 86,779 between the 2012/13 and 2019/20 targets. Source: DEFRA February 2005

Planning Policy Statements

PPS 10 - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

36 PPS10, was adopted in July 2005. In this statement the waste hierarchy continues to be placed at the heart of the policy statement while there is increased emphasis on waste as a resource. The concept of communities taking more responsibility for the management of the waste they create is an important theme and although the proximity principle is not mentioned specifically, the need to minimise the transport of wastes for management and disposal is emphasised. Importantly, an earlier requirement for Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) assessments to support waste management proposals has been replaced by Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) at the plan-making stage.

37 While the BWLP continues to reflect the main principles of PPS10, the publication of this new advice emphasises the need for a thorough review of policies and proposals, currently taking place through preparation of the JMWDF.

Regional Level

Regional Planning Guidance 9

38 Regional Planning Guidance is produced for each of the Regions in England by Regional Assemblies made up of representatives of Local Authorities within the region. Berkshire falls within the South East Region. The current guidance for the South East is RPG9, adopted in March 2001. This sets out a regional framework for the preparation of Development Plans for Local Planning Authorities within the Region. Its vision is to encourage economic success throughout the region, to ensure a higher quality of environment and to secure a more sustainable pattern of development.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

39 The Guidance notes that London exports a significant amount of waste for treatment and disposal in the Rest of the South East (ROSE) area. The strategy for waste from London is noted as being to achieve a gradual reduction, but it is acknowledged that there is likely to remain a significant amount of waste exported from the conurbation, at least in the short term. Use of non road-borne modes of transport for waste is noted as an objective, and the need to protect and retain rail freight facilities that may be used for waste is highlighted.

40 Regional Planning Guidance for the South East is currently being reviewed and the new guidance will be called the South East Plan. Under the new planning regime the South East Plan will have greater weight in directing future planning decisions than the RPG had previously, since it will form part of the Development Plan.

Regional Waste Strategy

41 The partial reviews of Regional Planning Guidance Note 9 (RPG9) the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) involves preparation of a Regional Waste Strategy for the region.

42 The draft strategy was published in March 2003 and subject to an Examination in Public in autumn 2004. The report of the EiP Panel was published in early 2005, and proposed changes in response to this were published in August 2005. It is proposed to adopt the strategy in 2006.

43 The proposed RWS sets regional targets for diversion from landfill (Policy W5), recycling and composting (Policy W6), and also seeks to identify sub- regional waste management capacity requirements (Policy W7). Policy W6 generally sets more ambitious targets at the regional level than set nationally.

44 The RWS also sets different figures for recovery, which at 35% in 2005 is lower than the national target of 40%, but thereafter increase rapidly with 52% at 2010 (against 45% national target) and 74% in 2015 (against 67%).

45 All the policies in the Strategy are expressed at regional level apart from W7 which identifies required tonnages to be managed for municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial waste (C&I). The figures in Policy W7 continue to be refined at the time of preparing this Monitoring Report.

46 In advance of adoption the new Regional Waste Strategy, the most up to date detailed guidance on waste planning issues in the South East region (pre- 2001 boundary) continues to be SERPLAN’s Sustainable Waste Strategy for the South East (SERP 160), issued in 1997, and which the adopted BWLP takes account of.

47 Clearly, the adopted BWLP does not address the changed targets emerging in the RWS and therefore the new JMWDF will need to accommodate these targets in its approach to providing for future waste management capacity requirements. However, the BWLP has provided sufficient latitude in its Preferred Areas and Preferred Areas of Search approach to meet demands for increased waste management capacity in the period since 1998.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

South East Regional Waste Management Statement

48 In November 2002 SERTAB (the Regional Technical Advisory Body for the SE, established to inform and advise the regional planning body on regional waste issues) published its South East Regional Waste Management Statement which:

• Sets out the EU, national and regional policy drivers, targets and obligations for changing waste management in the future • Forecasts future wastes to be managed in the region to 2025 • Describes the existing and planned waste management infrastructure • Quantifies the gap between waste management capacity and future capacity and future capacity requirements, and • Provides a sustainability appraisal of the scenarios.

49 The Statement shows that 43% of waste management facilities in the region at present are landfill sites and a further 40% are ‘recycling sites’ which includes materials recovery facilities and some waste transfer stations. It concludes that landfill sites present the largest capacity currently available for waste management in the region (68.2% of all capacity at 2002/3) with just over 20 million tonnes of capacity available. It also concludes that, on the basis of existing and planned waste management capacity, waste arisings in the region will exceed capacity available by 2005.

50 Concerning the export of London’s waste to surrounding areas – a matter already covered by RPG9 (see above) – the statement takes account of the Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management Assessment for London and the Mayor of London’s 2001 draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy. It concludes that, as targets set in Waste Strategy 2000 for the diversion of wastes from landfill are met, the quantities of waste exported from London to surrounding areas will fall from the present figure of over 3 million tonnes, but that a total of nearly 1.7 million tonnes of waste will still be being exported in 2024/25. The scenarios set out in the Strategy assume that only wastes requiring landfill (i.e. residues) will be exported from London and that the South East Region will have no provision for waste management facilities higher up the waste hierarchy to meet London’s needs.

51 The main purpose of the Statement was to inform preparation of the Regional Waste Management Strategy referred to above.

Local Level

52 As well as the BWLP, other documents that are particularly relevant to future planning for waste management in the Berkshire area are:

Berkshire Structure Plan

53 A review of the 1995 Berkshire Structure Plan was initiated in mid-1999 to produce a replacement plan to be known as the ‘Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016’. The new Plan was the subject of an Examination in Public in September 2003, but the Plan’s waste policies were not selected for discussion.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

54 Following receipt of the report of the EiP Panel in December 2003, the Joint Strategic Planning Committee advanced the new Structure Plan and it was adopted in July 2005. Since the waste policies were not reviewed, the BWLP continues to accord with the current Structure Plan.

The Overall Strategy of the Waste Local Plan

55 Work on the preparation of the BWLP began when there was no clear national or wider guidance on the route to be followed in drawing up a waste management strategy. It was therefore to a large extent evolved from ‘first principles’.

56 Since then, the guidance that has emerged at regional, national and EU level has come to very similar conclusions on broad strategic issues to those contained in the BWLP. Thus the key features of the waste management strategy set out in the BWLP are all now reflected in wider guidance to a greater or lesser extent, and to that extent the adopted plan remains synchronised with the evolving wider policy framework.

Targets

57 A common feature of many of the recent advisory or statutory documents is the inclusion of targets for the reduction of the amount of waste to be handled by various dates, and/or the amounts of particular types of waste to be recycled. The charts below compare the targets in the various documents, and also include the latest available ‘actual’ figures for England & Wales, and for Berkshire.

58 Its is not straightforward to compare the targets in the various documents, because different documents express their targets in different terms – for example ‘reduce’ in some targets, ‘recover’ in others, and ‘recycle’ in yet others.

59 The BWLP targets are expressed purely in terms of proportions of different types of waste that are to be recycled, whereas the various targets in the national waste strategy include provision for recycling, composting and Energy from Waste. In practice, this means that the recycling targets in the BWLP are higher than those in national guidance. For example Waste Strategy 2000 proposes to recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005, while the BWLP proposes recycling the same proportion of waste by 2000/01; and while the national target is to recycle or compost 30% of household waste by 2010, Berkshire seeks to recycle a higher proportion of such waste (35%) by an earlier date (2005/06), leaving aside any contribution from composting.

60 The differences between the Berkshire targets and those of national guidance may be subject to review as a result of the Local Development Framework process and in light of the content of revised national and regional guidance. One difficulty faced is some targets set in both Berkshire and national policy documents are not being achieved either in terms of overall waste reduction, or recycling. This is not unique to Berkshire, and is a matter that requires review in the forecasting of future waste management capacity needs, and the types of management capacity being planned for.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Chart 5

Targets for Reduction of Municipal Waste as Percentage of 1995 Levels

80

70

60

50 EU Landfill Directive % Reduction 40 Waste Strategy 2000 % 30 Reduction

20

10 Reduction % as levels of 1995

0 2006 2009 2010 2013 2016 2020 Year

Chart 6

Targets for Municipal Waste Recovery, Recycling

and Composting Waste Strategy 2000 % Recycle or Compost

80 Waste Strategy 2000 % Recov er 70 Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) % 60 Recycle

Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) % 50 Recycle or Compost

South East Regional Waste

% 40 Management Strategy % Recycle and Compost 30

20

10

0 2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Chart 7 Targets for Reuse and Recycling of Municipal, Commercial and Industrial Waste Sustainable Waste Strategy for the South East 70 Municipal, Commercial & 60 Industrial Waste Type B: % Reuse and Recycle 50 40 Sustainable Waste Strategy for the South East % 30 Municipal, Commercial & 20 Industrial Waste Type C: % Reuse and Recycle 10 0 South East Regional Waste Management 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Strategy Commercial & Year Industrial % Recycle and Compost

Waste Local Plan for Berkshire Commercial & Industrial %

Chart 8

Targets for Reuse, Recycling and Recovery of Inert Waste

70 South East Regional Waste Management 60 Strategy % Recycle & Compost (figures are for 50 construction & demolition waste only) 40 Sustainable Waste Strategy for the South % 30 East % Re-use/recycle

20

10 Waste Local Plan for Berkshire % Recycle 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year

61 As can be seen from the above charts, the targets set at EU, national, regional and local level for waste reduction are. One trend, however, is clear and that is the drive to reduce, recover and recycle waste at an increasing rate over the next twenty years, across all levels of government. The main thrust is towards waste reduction and diversion away from landfill.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

62 As can be seen from the above charts, the waste targets set for Berkshire only cover a five year period up to 2005/6. These will be reassessed as part of the JMWDF process, and reflect the government’s ongoing targets for waste reduction for a further ten years.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

63 Planning applications for waste-related development are normally submitted by private companies or individuals. The proposals of the Waste Local Plan are not a ‘programme of work’ for the waste planning authorities: the facilities described in the Plan will only be put in place if the private sector judges it appropriate to submit a planning application for them.

64 Implementation of the Plan’s policies and proposals therefore has two elements. Firstly, it is for the private sector to submit planning applications (and, if permission is granted, to put the facilities into place). Secondly, it is for the local planning authorities – in Berkshire, the six Unitary Authorities – to apply the Plan’s principles when deciding whether or not to grant planning permission for these applications.

65 Applications have been submitted both inside and outside the WLP’s Preferred Areas. Not all applications within the Preferred Areas have been approved, and they have been refused if the details of the proposal were judged to conflict with the general development control policies of the Plan, or if the application did not adequately address all of the Plan’s detailed requirements for the site in question. Equally, not all applications outside the Preferred Areas have been refused, because the policies of the Plan are drafted with sufficient flexibility to allow various types of waste-related development to be carried out at locations outside the Preferred Areas in appropriate circumstances. It is a matter for the judgement of individual Unitary Authorities whether these circumstances have been met in any particular case.

66 As well as dealing with planning applications, the Unitary Authorities are also responsible for taking enforcement action against developments carried out in breach of planning control.

STATISTICS

67 Statistics on the amounts of waste arising and treated are now gathered by the Environment Agency. Since the statistical base of the Waste Local Plan was finalised, the EA has produced three sets of statistical data covering Berkshire and the South East:

68 South East England: Strategic Waste Management Report on the 1996 Survey (published in 1998 and giving details for calendar year 1996)

69 Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000: South East (published in 2001 and giving details for the municipal year 1998/99; referred to elsewhere in this chapter as ‘SWMA’)

70 Details for municipal year 2000/01 were included in the Regional Waste Management Statement published during 2002 and these remain the most up to date figures pending publication of the next SWMA, currently expected in Autumn 2005.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

71 Unfortunately the information in these three sources has not always been collected on the same basis, and so their results are not always directly comparable. They should not therefore be regarded as providing a consistent set of ‘time series’ data.

72 The figures from the Regional Waste Management Statement, as well as being the most recent, are also regarded as being the most reliable. Details for Berkshire are set out in Sections A to C below; they are taken, or derived, from Tables A1.1, A1.2 and A1.4 in the Regional Statement. The figures in Section D are taken from the SWMA, as there is no equivalent data in the 2002 Regional Statement.

WASTE ARISINGS IN BERKSHIRE

73 No reliable figure is currently available for total waste arisings in Berkshire in individual recent years. As noted earlier, this is a matter of concern, as it is necessary to continue to refer to data from earlier monitoring reports. Table 2 below provides the best available estimate and uses data collected by the Environment Agency for the whole of the south-east region between 1st April 2002 to 31st March 2003 as part of the Strategic Waste Management Assessment. The level of accuracy is not certain, and may be partly judged in the context of municipal waste, since the figure provided by the waste collection authorities for the same period is about 450,000 tonnes as opposed to the almost 500,000 tonnes suggested in the table.

Table 2 Estimated waste arisings in Berkshire 2002-2003

Transfer Civic Landfill Stations Amenity Treatment MRF Total

Inert C&D 922,655 246,276 5,287 325,114 0 1,499,332

Special 14,995 10,321 125 15,416 395 41,252

Municipal 198,858 223,881 43,425 32,574 0 498,738 Industrial/ Commercial 230,435 169,848 0 104,235 54,687 559,205

Total 1,366,943 650,326 48,837 477,339 55,082 2,598,527 Source: EA Strategic Waste Management Assessment

74 There is no up to date reliable figure for wastes imported or exported in/out of Berkshire, and no reliable date for wastes other than municipal waste managed in the plan area.

75 With regard to remaining void space, SEERA commissioned a study published in June 2004 (Waste Management Capacity in the South East Region), which estimated capacity based on a questionnaire survey of local authorities and operators.

76 This study concluded that there were 26 landfill sites in Berkshire, of which 15 were inert and 11 non-hazardous, i.e. able to receive wastes including household, but not ‘special’ waste. These offered a total capacity at the end of 2003 of about 15 million tonnes, made up of about eight million tonnes inert, and seven million tonnes non-hazardous.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

77 The number of landfill sites, and other waste management facilities for Berkshire in 2003 are given below. A review of sites and their planning status, based on information from the Unitary Authorities is presented at Appendix Bii.

Table 3 Waste Management Facilities in Berkshire, 2003

Type of site Berkshire Type of site Berkshire Inert landfill 15 MRF 1 Non-hazardous landfill 11 Other physical treatment 4 Hazardous landfill 0 Crushing/screening of C&D waste 5 Composting 2 Specialist incineration 2 Sewage treatment 0 Non-specialist incineration 2 Other biological treatment 0 Civic amenity site 8 Chemical/physico-chemical 0 Hazardous/special waste transfer 2 Vehicle dismantlers 3 Other transfer 6 Metal recyclers 5 Source: Waste Management Capacity in the South East Region, SEERA, 2004

Table 4 Berkshire Estimated Annual Waste Management Capacity (2003-04)

Type of site Capacity (000 tpa) Landfill – inert 592 Landfill – non hazardous 1,169 Landfill – hazardous 0 Sewage treatment 0 Composting 85 Other biological treatment 0 Chemical/physico-chemical 0 Vehicle dismantlers 37 Metal recyclers 110 MRF 70 Other physical treatment 452 Crushing/screening of C&D 159 waste Specialist incineration 70 Non-specialist incineration 414 Civic amenity site 55 Hazardous/special waste 20 transfer Other transfer 103 Total (not including sewage treatment, CA sites or 3,158 transfer) Source: Waste Management Capacity in the South East Region, SEERA, 2004

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

78 The total annual capacities of these facilities as at 2003/04 was estimated in the 2004 SEERA report and are given in Table 4 above. Some of these are clearly incorrect (e.g. sewage treatment) and this is due to the response rate received to the survey on which the data are based. It should be noted that the annual capacity of existing landfill facilities is finite and will only continue while capacity remains at those sites, which will not be for the life of the JMWDF.

79 Future waste arisings have been forecast based upon the best available data. Table 5 sets out the projected waste arisings for the whole of Berkshire at 2016. The figures are based on a recent survey by Environmental Resource Management Ltd (ERM) of waste arisings in Berkshire and give an indication of the projected waste arisings based on targets set at national and regional levels. These data are likely to be revised as more up to date information becomes available, and will be re-visited in future annual monitoring reports.

Table 5 Projected Waste Arisings for Berkshire (2016)

Projected Waste Arisings for 2016 MSW C&I C&D Total

Existing arisings (tonnes per 1 2 2 460,000 650,000 1,800,000 2,910,000 annum)

Forecast arisings 2016 (tonnes 3 2 2 560,000 970,000 1,800,000 3,330,000 per annum) Recycling and composting target 4 50 55 60 2016 (%)

Other' recovery target (%)4 24 20 21

Existing recycling rate (%) 15.25 352 336

Additional recycling required 195,000 194,000 486,000 875,000 (tonnes per annum)7 Additional 'other' recovery 135,000 194,000 378,000 707,000 required (tonnes per annum) Total additional recovery 330,000 388,000 864,000 1,582,000 required (tonnes per annum)

Landfill capacity requirement8 146,000 243,000 342,000 641,000

Sources/Notes: 1 DEFRA Municipal Waste Management Survey 2002-03 2 South East Regional Waste Management Statement 2002 3 Emerging SE Regional Waste Management Strategy forecast based on last five years’ growth rate and long term pattern 4 Draft South East Regional Waste Management Strategy, Proposed Changes August 2005 5 Average across Berkshire Unitaries 2002-03 6 2001 C&D Survey carried out by Symonds/WRc for ODPM. 7 Difference between 2016 recycling target and current rate applied to 2016 arisings figure 8 In that year NB, All figures are rounded

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

SUMMING UP

80 This section of the Monitoring Report summarises the position on certain basic issues regarding the content of the BWLP, and considers in general terms the aspects of the Plan that need to be reviewed through the process of preparing the MWDF.

Soundness of the Plan’s Key Assumptions

81 The BWLP generally accords with the underlying principles of national guidance on waste management and waste planning. In particular, the basic premise of the BWLP – that there is a pressing need to change attitudes to waste and waste management, and to introduce new approaches to dealing with waste – has proved to be well-founded, and is now supported by a steady stream of guidance documents at national and indeed international level.

82 Although the general approaches of the BWLP and emerging national guidance are essentially similar, there are some differences of emphasis at the more detailed level, in particular regarding the position of incineration in the hierarchy of priorities. However, the attitude to this technology which is expressed in Berkshire results from the legitimate exercise of local choice in the preparation of the BWLP. The position has been somewhat overtaken by the granting of consent for the Colnbrook incinerator in Slough, a permission that has now been commenced, and the facility now forms a key part of a number of the MWMS of the Unitary Authorities in Berkshire.

83 The waste minimisation and recycling targets referred to in the BWLP are in broad accordance with the general thrust of emerging national policy, even though there are some differences of detail.

84 The BWLP is premised on an assumption of a 1% per year reduction in the amount of all waste requiring treatment (WLP para 3.29). In practice, this has not been borne out and there has been growth in waste arisings. Both in Berkshire and nationally, rates of waste arisings have risen in recent years faster than had been envisaged. The effect of this unexpected change has been to make the Plan’s targets (and those in national and regional guidance) that much harder to achieve, since the reductions required by those targets are based on lower levels of waste creation than are actually happening. Thus for example the percentage diversions required under the Landfill Directive are based on 1995 ‘actual’ figures. Since more waste is now being produced than in 1995, the tonnage that must be diverted away from landfill to achieve the required targets is much greater.

85 The same applies, on a smaller scale, in relation to the targets in Berkshire. Whilst the principles behind the targets in Berkshire remain sound, the rate of growth in waste arisings experienced over most of the plan period to date and, as far as can be told, across most of the waste streams, must cast at least some doubt on their realism and ‘achievability’. At the same time, the increased volumes of waste being created suggests that there is a case for reviewing the level of provision for different types of facility made in the BWLP, as part of the JMWDF.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Appendix Bii – Waste Management Facilities in Berkshire

Slough BC

Sites not operational but with planning permission or identified in WLP/LDP shown in italics.

SITE OPERATION CURRENT PLANNING STATUS Sutton Lane, Colnbrook (Biffa) Inert, commercial, industrial landfill Permission granted in 2000 to increase void space by c.500,000m3 and to extend life of facility to 2010 Permission granted 2003 to alter phasing and pre-settlement contours, and hence capacity Current application (September 2005) for engineering of discrete cells to allow deposit of a range of hazardous wastes Longford II, Poyle Inert, industrial landfill Restored Manor Farm Landfill WLP; No planning application. On-site contaminated soil only. North of Horton Landfill WLP; No planning application Slough Estates Power station, Incineration Built/operational Slough Grundons CWI, Colnbrook CWI Planning permission granted June 2000; pre-commencement conditions discharged and development has commenced Grundon, Colnbrook Incineration with energy recovery Planning permission granted June 2000; pre-commencement conditions discharged and development has commenced Grundon, Colnbrook Clinical Waste Incinerator Operational; planning permission to extend facility to increase capacity to 2 tonnes/hour not implemented (Superseded by Energy from Waste/Clinical Waste Incinerator/Materials Recycling Facility permission) Chalvey Waste Transfer Station Other recycling/ reuse - non inert, difficult, special, metal

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Langley Tyre Co, Slough Recycling/ Reuse Lanz, Rosary Farms, Poyle Recycling/ Reuse - Inert and some non inert Permanent planning permission granted for facility in February 1999. Permission granted subsequently for relocation of sorting hall: built but trommel etc not installed. Permission granted in 2000 for workshops and offices: under construction.

W N Thomas/ Belmont Works, Recycling/ Reuse - Scrap metal Planning permission granted October 2000 for recycling centre amongst other Slough uses; that part of permission is being held in abeyance Bruce Bishop, Slough Recycling/ reuse - Scrap metal Grundon MRF, Colnbrook Other recycling - sorting and baling Colnbrook Rail Depot Recycling/ Reuse - Inert, Other recycling/ reuse - non inert, Fairlie Road (took over Fibre Fuel Other recycling - non inert, other - makes Built and operational Plant), waste derived fuel pellets for Slough Power Station Slough Goods Yard, Slough Other recycling/ reuse - non inert, difficult, Planning permission granted June 1999 special, metal Wiggins Transport Ltd, Poyle Recycling/ Reuse - concrete crushing Enforcement notice required cessation of importation of materials for recycling in April 2002, and cessation of recycling by October 2002 with restoration of site by spring of 2003 currently being pursued further Manor Farm, sewage works, Poyle Other recycling/ reuse - difficult, special Permitted as part of T5 permission, 2001 Under construction

Slough Estates Other recycling/ reuse - metal, difficult, WLP; No planning application special, non inert, other - waste derived fuel

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Chalvey Waste Transfer Station Civic Amenity Site Permission granted 2003 for redevelopment of Chalvey waste station for new civic amenity site and new trade waste shed. Constructed and operational

Grundon MRF, Colnbrook MRF Planning permission granted June 2000; pre-commencement conditions discharged and development has commenced Chalvey Waste Transfer Station Waste Transfer Station Permission granted 2003 for redevelopment of Chalvey waste station for new civic amenity site and new trade waste shed. Constructed and operational

W N Thomas, Slough Waste Transfer Station Grundon MRF, Tanhouse 22 MRF Temporary planning permission granted 2001 for 5 years for MRF. Application for permanent retention of the MRF and permission for use of part of the site for further segregated waste bays agreed in principle in 2004 but awaiting S106

Built and operational

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

RBWM

Sites not operational but with planning permission or identified in WLP/LDP shown in italics.

SITE OPERATION CURRENT PLANNING STATUS Shorts of Ascot, St Georges Lane, Landfill Landfilling continues on a small-scale, intermittent basis. Ascot Sheephouse Farm, Maidenhead Landfill Still temporarily closed. May be resumed in the next 12 months (Summerleaze) Strande Castle, Landfill Landfilling long since completed. Not clear whether licence has been Maidenhead(Summerleaze) surrendered Hythe End Road, Wraysbury Landfill Riding Court Farm, Datchet Landfill Engineering Kimbers Lane Other - Soil screening and improvement DD Horwood, Maidenhead Recycling/ Reuse - Scrap Metal Operational. Planning permission granted c2003 to extend the range of wastes that may be recycled at the site – not known if this has been implemented Shorts of Ascot, St Georges Lane, Other recycling/ reuse - Commercial & Site is still operating, but there is no longer a planning permission in place. Ascot Industrial Braywick MRF, Stafferton Way, Recycling/ Reuse Braywick, Maidenhead Hindhay Quarry, Pinkneys Green Recycling / Reuse - Inert Braywick CA Site Other recycling/ reuse - metal, difficult, special, non inert Plant site, Monkey Island Lane Other recycling/ reuse - non inert Braywick Civic Amenity Site, Civic Amenity Site Stafferton Way, Maidenhead Berkshire

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Riding Court Farm, Datchet Composting Onyx Site is operational. Planning permission granted 2003 for change from a MRF to a transfer station. Kingsmead, Horton Temporarily closed as a landfill site. Will resume when mineral extraction resumes at the site. Reading Quarry, Pingewood (John Landfill Mould)

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

West Berkshire

Sites not operational but with planning permission or identified in WLP/LDP shown in italics.

SITE OPERATION CURRENT PLANNING STATUS Hermitage Farm, Oare Landfill Infilling complete. Part in aftercare part awaiting re-instatement. Not receiving any waste Beenham Stage IV, Beenham Industrial and commercial landfill In Aftercare therefore no waste importation Larkwhistle Farm, Brimpton Inert Landfill Infilling complete. In Aftercare therefore no waste importation Field Farm I, Theale Landfill Bath Road I, Midgham Quarry Landfill Extraction and infilling taking place (Grundon) Poors Allotment, Ufton Nervet (Alan Landfill Infilling complete. Awaiting tree planting (restoration to forestry) Hadley) Herons Nest I, Theale Landfill Understand that infilling has now ceased - may be linked to Herons Nest below Herons Nest II, Theale (Hanson) Landfill Infilling taking place Copyhold Farm, Hermitage (RK Landfill Active site. Some land raising taking place to improve drainage Eggleton Ltd) Standen Manor Estate, Hungerford Landfill Barton Court III (landfill), Kintbury Landfill Extraction and infilling taking place (Hills Waste & Minerals) Bath Road III (Grundons) Landfill Bath Road II (Marleys) Landfill (currently extraction but landfill once complete) AWE, Aldermaston Trade effluent Active site.

Cleansing Services, Newbury Separation of oil and water sludge Active site

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Computer Salvage, Newbury Electronic equipment recovery Active site Membury Aerodrome Solvent recovery Understood that this is an active site

Whitehouse Farm, Aldermaston Recycling/reuse - Inert. Other recycling/ Active WTS. Inert and skip waste transfer and processing - operated by (John Stacey & Sons Ltd) reuse - non inert, metal, difficult, special John Stacey so may be one of the above sites Passeys Scrapyard, Newbury Metal Recycling Active site Old Stocks Farm Recycling/ reuse - skip waste sorting area Active site. See Waste sorting and transfer sites (waste transfer only - no processing capacity) Barton Court II (WTS), Kintbury Recycling/ reuse WTS, Concrete crushing All infill ceased - remaining void space being used as WTS and WPF(see (Hills Waste) below) - if permanent WTS not retained infilling will continue Poors Allotment II (WTS), Ufton Recycling/ reuse concrete crusher and Infilling complete. Awaiting tree planting (restoration to forestry) Nervet (Alan Hadley Ltd) WTS Herons Nest, Theale Other recycling/ reuse - Commercial & Understand that infilling has now ceased - may be linked to Herons Nest Industrial below Rivar Preferred Area 2, Newbury Recycling/ reuse CSG II, Newbury Recycling/reuse - drummed waste WTS Active site. The Hanger, Sheffield Bottom (H Other recycling/ reuse non inert Unlawful site - Still active. Site due to close in near future- whole site has O'Donnell) permission for office/light industrial use Colthrop Recycling/ Reuse - Inert, Other recycling/ Permission granted for waste transfer station and inert waste processing reuse - non inert, metal, Incineration with facility - not implemented to date energy recovery. Other waste derived fuel Lower Farm, Greenham WTS Concrete Crushing Active site. Temp inert waste transfer station - recent planning app to erect bays and store glass - some on site processing (campaign basis) Field Farm II, Theale Recycling/ reuse MRF, concrete crushing Infilling complete. Awaiting final re-instatement and restoration (same site as Field Farm IIB and III) Greenham Common Recycling/ Reuse - Inert, Other recycling/ 3ha area designated for waste uses reuse - non inert, metal, composting Blue Circle Site, Theale Other recycling/ reuse - non inert, metal, Lafarge have re-opened site as a bulk cement depot difficult, special

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

ARC Plant Site, Sheffield Bottom Recycling/ Reuse - Inert, Other recycling/ Still utilised as gravel processing and offices – Possible operator intent to re- reuse - non inert, metal, composting locate recycling function from Field Farm Theale to this site in the future

Knott Lane, Beenham Other recycling/ reuse - inert, metal, Southern half - car park, Northern half breakers yard / scrap yard difficult, special Padworth Sidings, Other recycling/ reuse - non inert, metal, Active WTS. Skip waste sorting facility. Key site for local authority MWMS difficult, special integrated waste management facility Copyhold Farm MRF, Hermitage MRF Active site. Beenham MRF, Beenham MRF Active site. Barton Court I ( Landraising Landraising for agricultural improvement Landraising has been taking place to improve land for use as agriculture - GPDO), Kintbury under GPDO not a landfill site may now have ceased. AWE II (Radioactive Waste Radioactive aqueous waste treatment plant Active site Treatment Plant), Aldermaston Beenham Landfill Site, Beenham Composting Active Site Moores Farm Landfill Active Site Kennetholme Farm Permission granted for gravel extraction and inert infill - recent application to alter method of working Dark Lane Landfill Landfill - due to be completed May 2005 - application submitted to extend operations till Dec 2005 Reading Quarry Waste Transfer Site Active WTS. Inert and skip waste transfer and inert processing Clembins Waste Transfer Site Active WTS. Skip waste sorting facility - established use Weirside Waste Transfer Site Active site. Unlawful site inert WTS and WPF - Enforcement notice issued and appealed Thornford Road Waste Transfer Site Active site. WTS - awaiting retrospective planning application to regularise the site. Sheepdrove Farm Composting Application requested to regularise

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Wokingham

Sites not operational but with planning permission or identified in WLP/LDP shown in italics.

SITE OPERATION CURRENT PLANNING STATUS Whistley Mill IV, Hurst Landfill Expires September 2005 (Summerleaze) Star Works, Knowl Hill (Grundon) Landfill Whistley Court/Lea Farm, Hurst Landfill Expires September 2005 (Summerleaze) Blackbushe Metals, Wokingham Recycling/ reuse - scrap metal Bennet Commercials, Wokingham Recycling/ reuse - scrap metal J P Spares, Wokingham Recycling/ reuse - scrap metal Wokingham Scrap Metals, Recycling/ reuse - scrap metal Wokingham Berkshire Car Spares, Arborfield Recycling/ reuse - scrap metal (unauthorised and subject to enforcement)

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Reading

Sites not operational but with planning permission or identified in WLP/LDP shown in italics.

SITE OPERATION CURRENT PLANNING STATUS Elliots Metals, Reading Recycling / Reuse - Scrap Metal EGW Carter, Reading Recycling / Reuse - Scrap Metal Clembins, Pingewood Other recycling / reuse - commercial and industrial Island Road, Pingewood (John Recycling/ reuse - inert Mould) Smallmead, Reading Civic Amenity Site Smallmead, Reading Recycling/ Reuse - Inert Smallmead, Reading Other recycling/ reuse - metal, difficult/special Smallmead, Reading Incineration with energy recovery Smallmead Farm A, Smallmead Landfill Farm A (RMC) Reading Quarry, Pingewood (John Mould) Smallmead, Reading Landfill

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Bracknell Forest

Sites not operational but with planning permission or identified in WLP/LDP shown in italics.

SITE OPERATION CURRENT PLANNING STATUS Syngenta (formerly Zeneca), Incineration without energy recovery Planning permission granted 1991 for the erection of a building to house an Maidenhead Road, Jealotts Hill, incinerator including the demolition of the existing building used as Warfield incinerator. Facility has been in existence for many years and may be a lawful operation without planning permission. (Shorts/Bracknell Forest Borough Composting Deemed planning permission under General Regulation 3 (Local Authority Council) Planners Farm, Bracknell Development) granted 1995 for the use of a building for the production of Road, Winkfield compost by organic process from the arisings of landscape operations with the addition of organic waste. Expansion of the composting operation allowed 2002 for the change of use of land from agriculture to concrete hardstanding for processing and composting of green waste (Now operational).

Former timber yard, Englemere, Other recycling / reuse - non inert Site being used for the preparation, storage and distribution of timber and North Ascot fencing materials as per planning permission 1999.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

Longshot Lane, Bracknell Other recycling / reuse - Major recycling, Planning permission granted in 1964 for the use of the site as a Refuse Tip. metal, difficult/special Planning permission granted in 1973 proposing a compactor.

In 1978 Berkshire County Council sought observations on a proposal for a compactor, transfer pad and storage area.

In 1986 Berkshire County Council sought observations on a proposal for the construction of a detached building to house compaction equipment and an extension to the existing concrete apron.

Site being operated in accordance with planning permission granted in 1991 for the provision of new waste reception halls and the extension of the concrete apron which adjoins the existing tipping hall.

Jealotts Hill Waste Transfer Planning permission 1995 for the erection of a waste packing shed, mess room building and store after demolition of 3 buildings, re-arrangement and extension of site waste storage compound and erection of new storage gates. Syngenta (formerly Zeneca), Waste Transfer Planning permission 620763 granted 27 June 1995 for the erection of a Maidenhead Road, Jealotts Hill, waste packing shed, mess room building and store after demolition of 3 Warfield buildings, re-arrangement and extension of site waste storage compound and erection of new storage gates.

Berkshire Waste Development Framework Berkshire Unitary Authorities Annual Monitoring Report

APPENDIX 3

BRACKNELL FOREST BOROUGH LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

SUBMISSION December 2005

Approved by Executive December 2005

Brought into effect on YZ Month 2006

Contents

Section

1 Introduction

2 Background

3 The Purpose of the Local Development Scheme

4 Local Development Framework Resources and Management

5 Rationale and Schedule of Local Development Documents

6 Relationship with existing Planning Policy Documents

7 Joint Plans

8 Background evidence

9 Risk Analysis

10 Interim Update Process

11 Monitoring and Review

Appendices Appendix 1: Geographical location of LDDs

Appendix 2: Table detailing the schedule of Local Development Documents

Appendix 3: Individual LDD Profiles for the preparation of each Local Development Document

Appendix 4: Saved Policies and Proposals in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan

Appendix 5: Relationship between Saved Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance

Appendix 6: Glossary of Terms

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Executive Summary

Local Development Framework

The Documents which comprise the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework will contain policies and proposals to guide development in the Borough, and will replace those contained in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan.

Local Development Scheme

This document sets out the work programme for, and resources required to prepare, the first phase of policies and proposals that will constitute the Local Development Documents. It covers the period December 2005 to December 2008, and will be reviewed on an annual basis.

Local Development Documents

The first phase of the Local Development Framework will cover the preparation of the following documents:

1. Development Plan Documents • A Core Strategy • Site Allocations • Proposals Map

Later Development Plan Documents will comprise:

• Development Management • Amen Corner Area Action Plan

2. Supplementary planning documents • Parking Standards • Designing for Accessibility in Bracknell Forest • Limiting the Impact of Development

3. A Statement of Community Involvement

Further Information

Further details are contained within this document. Alternatively, contact a member of the Development Plans Team: [email protected] or 01344 351181.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Scheme 2005 - 2008

1. Introduction

1.1 This Local Development Scheme is a three year project plan for preparing Local Development Documents, some of which (those designated as ‘Development Plan Documents’) will replace the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and form part of the local Development Plan.

1.2 The first Local Development Scheme covered the period 2004 to 2007, and was brought into effect in March 2005. As required by legislation, the Local Development Scheme is subject to at least annual review, and this document sets out a revised Scheme that covers the period December 2005 to December 2008, It also includes complete timetables for documents which are started within this period, but due for adoption beyond 2008.

1.3 Together with the other Berkshire Unitary Authorities, the Borough Council is responsible for preparing a Local Development Framework for Minerals and Waste. More details on this are set out in Section 7.

2. Background

2.1 This document has been prepared under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 enacted in May 2004, and commenced in September 2004.

2.2 The Act effects a number of changes to the Development Plan system. In particular, the system of Structure and Local Plans is to be replaced by Regional Spatial Strategies and (at the local level) Development Plan Documents.

2.3 This Local Development Scheme (LDS) sets out the Documents that the Borough Council will produce as part of the new planning policy framework introduced by the Act. These new documents will be called Local Development Documents (LDD’s) and together the LDD’s will guide development at the local level. The Local Development Scheme covers a three-year period and sets out the subject matter of, and area covered by,

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

each document and provides a timetable for their preparation and review. It will be reviewed and submitted to the Secretary of State on an annual basis.

2.4 The Bracknell Forest Borough LDS is available from the Borough Council and can also be viewed electronically at www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk. The Environment and Leisure Department’s Homepage provides a link to the Planning and Transport Policy Homepage, where documentation relating to the adopted Local Plan, and the review of the Local Plan, can be viewed.

3. The Purpose of the Local Development Scheme

3.1 This LDS specifies:

ƒ The Local Development Documents (LDD’s) to be commenced over a three year period ƒ Which of these Documents will have Development Plan Status as Development Plan Documents ƒ Which of these Documents will be Supplementary Planning Documents ƒ The timetable and resources for the production of each of the LDD’s ƒ How the Documents interrelate ƒ How monitoring and review of the LDS will take place

3.2 The LDS will therefore:

ƒ Provide the Borough Council’s public statement of documents that will be prepared to guide development at the local level; ƒ Enable the Borough Council to prioritise and plan resources for the preparation of Local Development Documents; and ƒ Provide a timetable for the preparation and review of all Local Development Documents.

4. Resources and Management Arrangements

4.1 The broad resources and management arrangements for each Local Development Document are set out within each LDD profile attached at Appendix 2. A summary of the management arrangements for preparation of the LDD’s are set out below. Resources will be primarily from the Planning

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

and Transport Policy Section of the Environment and Leisure Department, but will involve other officers and external resources as necessary.

Council

Executive

Members Steering Group

Corporate Management Team

Departmental Management Team

Senior Managers Meeting

Development Plans Team (includes LDF Project Manager) And LDF Project team including officers from other teams and Departments as appropriate.

Stakeholders.

4.2 A Local Development Framework Steering Group has been established to oversee the LDD process. At officer level, reports will be presented at key stages to the Corporate Management Team to ensure the co-ordination of all the Council’s interests in the LDD preparation process. In addition an LDF project team has been set up including a core team of Officers from Planning and Transport Policy, the Chief Executive’s Unit, and the Assistant Director (Streetcare). This team will be expanded to include other Borough officers as appropriate.

4.3 Consultants may be engaged on specific projects where there is a lack of expertise or capacity in house. .

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

5. Rationale and Schedule of Local Development Documents

5.1 The Borough Council has reviewed carefully which Local Development Documents it should produce. This has been influenced by policies and proposals in the existing Local Plan, the adopted Berkshire Structure Plan, the spatial elements of the Community Plan, advice from the Government Office for the South East, guidance on preparing LDD’s, and known priorities within the community. More detail is provided in paragraph 5.5 below.

5.2 The Borough Council is currently progressing a Local Plan Alteration to make a modest change to the settlement boundary at Amen Corner. Details of the process and timetable for this Alteration can be found in Appendices 2 and 3.

5.3 The first Development Plan Document’s (DPD’s) the Borough Council intends to produce are: • A Core Strategy • Site Allocations

5.4 These are documents which will form part of the Development Plan and will be subject to independent examination. A Proposals Map will also be prepared as a DPD (although it does not follow the same process) and updated as each new DPD is adopted.

5.5 The Borough Council considers that the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Documents should be considered simultaneously for the following reasons:

1. Reliance on two large local plan sites to meet the Borough’s housing allocation up to 2006 has resulted in delays in housing delivery in the Borough, and required annual completion rates not being achieved. This has led to the Borough being one of a number of local authorities in the south east whose delivery issues are under close scrutiny by the Government Office.

2. Current housing allocations run until 2006. In order to ensure there is an adequate, and flexible, supply of housing and to avoid the

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

problems of delivery experienced over the last few years, it is considered insufficient to rely solely on the identification of broad locations as in the Core Strategy. The Borough must also establish specifically how future housing will be delivered, and enable a proper plan, monitor and manage structure to be in place should sites not come forward.

3. The nature of Bracknell as a compact New Town means that it does not have the historic redevelopment opportunities presented by older towns. Defined employment areas within the urban area are under pressure for residential development. The balance and future locations of housing and employment growth need to be considered together as part of the Core Strategy and therefore will need the detail provided within a Site Allocations DPD to ensure delivery.

4. In order to aid thorough consideration of Core Strategy and Site Allocations issues the Borough Council is committed to undertaking a robust and thorough Sustainability Appraisal which will allow the Planning Inspectorate to see how the decision making process has been soundly tested against social, economic and environmental issues of sustainability. A dedicated Environmental Policy Officer is in place and will be responsible for overseeing this process.

5. The Thames Basin Heaths proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA) is likely to have implications on the provision of future development in the south of the Borough. A detailed assessment of future housing sites must therefore be tested at an early stage to ensure that delivery can take place in a sustainable manner, and to demonstrate that an appropriate housing strategy can be prepared which takes into consideration the impact of the pSPA.

5.6 The Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD’s will be followed by the preparation of two further DPD’s: • Development Management • Amen Corner Area Action Plan

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

5.7 The Borough Council is also producing a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which sets out the process of community participation in LDD preparation and the planning application process. The SCI follows a similar process to DPD’s and is subject to independent examination.

5.8 To provide support to policies, the Borough Council will also produce Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) covering: • Parking Standards • Designing for Accessibility in Bracknell Forest • Limiting the Impact of Development

It is likely that further SPD’s will be identified as DPD’s are progressed.

5.9 Appendix 1 illustrates the geographical extent of the DPD’s.

5.10 A table detailing the schedule of the Local Development Documents that have been or will be commenced by December 2008 is contained at Appendix 2. This schedule and the individual project profiles in Appendix 3 summarises each LDD by providing: ƒ a document reference and title ƒ a brief synopsis of its content ƒ details of the area to which it relates ƒ the status of the document ƒ the chain of conformity ƒ resources ƒ management arrangements ƒ key milestones in preparation ƒ approach to involving stakeholders and the community.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005 Anticipated Structure of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework

Saved BFBLP Core Strategy Policies SA Documents Development Plan

Proposals Map

Development Site Allocations Amen Corner Management SA Area Action Plan SA SA Documents Supplementary Planning

Parking Limiting the Designing for Further SPDs may Standards Impact Accessibility in be identified as (Linked to saved Of Development Bracknell Forest the process Policy (Linked to saved Policy (Linked to saved progresses M9) SCI) Polices SA SA EN22 & H14) SA

STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

= Future links

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ID Task Name Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar 1 SCI: Commencement of preparation 27/09 2 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Commencement of preparation 27/09 3 SCI: Engagement on Issues & Options 4 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Engagement on Issues & Options 5 SCI: Prepare Preferred Options 6 SCI: Public participation on Preferred Opt ions 7 SCI: Analysis of comments & preparation of submission document 8 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Prepare Preferred Options 9 SCI: Submission to the SoS & consultation 10 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Public participation on Preferred Optio 11 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Preparation of submission DPD 12 SCI: Examination 13 SCI: Receipt of binding Inspect or's Report 14 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Submission to the SoS & consultation 15 SCI: Adoption 16 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Pre-Examination meet ing 17 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Examination 18 A men Corner AAP: Commencement of preparat ion 12/03 19 A men Corner AAP: Engagement on Issues & Opt ions 20 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Receipt of binding Inspector's Report 21 Development Mgt: Commencement of preparation 01/10 22 Core Strategy & Site Allocations: Adoption; update Proposals Map 23 A men Corner AAP: Prepare Preferred Options 24 Development Mgt: Engagement on Issues & Options 25 A men Corner AAP: Public participat ion on Preferred Options 26 A men Corner AAP: Preparation of submission DPD 27 Development Mgt: Prepare Preferred Opt ions 28 A men Corner AAP: Submission to t he SoS & consultation 29 Development Mgt: Public participation on Preferred Options 30 A men Corner AAP: Pre-Examinat ion meeting 31 Development Mgt: Preparation of submission DPD 32 A men Corner AAP: Examinatio n 33 Development Mgt: Submission to the SoS & consult at ion 34 A men Corner AAP: Receipt of binding Inspector's Report 35 A men Corner AAP: Adoption; updat e Proposals Map 36 Development Mgt: Pre-Examination meeting 37 Development Mgt: Examination 38 Development Mgt: Receipt of binding Inspector's Report 39 Development Mgt: Adoption; update Proposals Map

Summary of Development Plan Document (Core Strategy, Site Allocations, Development Management and Amen Corner Area Action Plan) and Statement of Community Involvement Timetables

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

2005 2006 ID Task Name Dec Jan Feb Ma r Apr Ma y Jun Jul Aug Sep Oc t Nov Dec Jan Feb Ma r Apr Ma y Jun Jul Aug Sep Oc t Nov Dec Jan Feb Ma r Apr 1 Accessibility: Commencement of preparation 04/01

2 Parking Standards: Commencement of preparation 04/01

3 Accessibility: Evidence gathering & engagement

4 Parking Standards: Evidence gathering & engagement

5 Parking Standards: Prepare Issues & Options & initial SA Reports

6 Accessibility: Prepare SPD & SA report

7 LID: Commencement of preparation 01/09

8 LID: Evidence gathering & engagement

9 Parking Standards: Public participation on Issues & Options

10 Accessibility: Executive consideration of SPD & SA Report

11 Parking Standards: Prepare SPD & SA Report

12 Accessibility: Public consultation on SPD & SA Report

13 Accessibility: Consider responses & finalise SPD & SA Statement

14 LID: Prepare draft SPD & SA Report

15 Accessibility: Executive to agree & adopt final SPD & SA Statement

16 Parking Standards: Executive consideration of SPD & SA Report

17 Parking Standards: Public consultation on SPD & SA Report

18 Acessibility: Publication

19 Parking Standards: Finalise SPD & Sustainability Statement

20 LID: Executive consideration of SPD & SA Report

21 LID: Public consultation on SPD & SA Report

22 Parking Standards: Executive to agree & adopt final SPD & SA Statement

23 Parking Standards: Publication

24 LID: Consider responses & finalise SPD & SA Report

25 LID: Executive consideration of SPD & SA Report

26 LID: Publication

Summary of Supplementary Planning Document Timetables

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

6. Relationship with existing Planning Policy documents

6.1 The existing strategic and local planning policy framework comprises:

ƒ Berkshire Structure Plan, 2001 – 2016, July 2005 ƒ Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, January 2002 ƒ Various publications providing supplementary planning guidance.

6.2 The transitional arrangements allow for adopted Plans to be ‘saved’ for a period of up to three years. The policies and proposals in the adopted Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan have therefore been saved in this way from Commencement of the Act in September 2004, until replaced by policies in Development Plan Documents. Table 1 below shows which plans will be saved upon commencement. Appendix 4 identifies which policies and proposals from the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan will be ‘saved’ on commencement. Table 1: Saved Plans as at Commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act that currently form part of this Council’s Local Development Framework. Plan Status Update

Adopted Plans Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan Adopted January 2002 Will be replaced over time by Development Plan Documents as set out in this LDS and Policies and Proposals will be saved any future updates. for three years from commencement of section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act or replaced by a Development Plan Document.

The Replacement Minerals Local Plan Will be replaced by a Development Plan for Berkshire (Incorporating Document prepared by the Joint Strategic Alterations adopted December 1997 Policies and proposals will be saved Planning Unit on behalf of the Unitary and May 2001) for three years from commencement. authorities in Berkshire in accordance with a minerals and waste development scheme. The Waste Local Plan for Berkshire. Adopted 1998. As above.

Policies and proposals will be saved for a period of three years from commencement.

Emerging Plans

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan Local Plan Alteration to provide a firm Deposit July – Sept 2004 Alteration – Land at Amen Corner settlement boundary at Amen Corner Redeposit February – March 2005 currently left void in the adopted Adoption February 2006 Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan. Will form part of the saved Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan.

6.3 The transitional arrangements will also allow for development plans initiated under the current system, but adopted after the commencement of the

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

legislation, to be ‘saved’ in a similar manner for three years from the date of their adoption. The Berkshire Structure Plan that relates to the period 2001 – 2016 is saved in this way.

6.4 A schedule will be produced with each Local Development Document outlining the extent to which that LDD replaces part(s) of the old planning policy framework.

6.5 The Borough Council currently has a number of adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes (SPG) which support policies and proposals in the adopted Local Plan. Appendix 5 identifies how existing SPG’s are linked to ‘saved’ policies in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan. Such SPG will under the transitional arrangements be a material consideration while such policies and proposals remain ‘saved’.

7. Joint Plans

7.1 For the purpose of providing a Local Development Framework for Minerals and Waste the Borough Council will work together with the other five Berkshire Unitary Authorities to produce the following Local Development Documents.

JLDD100 Proposals Map JLDD101 Minerals and Waste Core Strategy JLDD102 Detailed waste Development Control Policies and Preferred Areas JLDD103 Detailed Minerals Development Control Policies and Preferred Areas

7.2 The Joint Strategic Planning Unit (JSPU) together with consultants will undertake this work on behalf of all the Berkshire Unitary Authorities. Details of the preparation programme for the Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework are set out in the Berkshire Unitary Authorities Draft Joint Minerals and Waste Local Development Scheme. The most up to date version of this can be found at www.berks-jsu.gov.uk.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

8. Background Evidence

8.1 LDD’s will be prepared using information from a wide range of sources from both within the Borough Council and by external partners. It is recognised that the list below cannot be exhaustive and therefore each LDD will include an annexe outlining the main sources used in its preparation. As set out in Section 11 on Monitoring and Review, the annual review of the LDS will include assessing whether there is any new technical information, which requires review of individual LDD’s.

8.2 The key background technical studies and strategies that will be used in the first stages of preparing the LDD’s will include:

Study/Survey Status Review Existing Bracknell Forest Sustainable Produced 2005 No review planned at Community Plan present Bracknell Forest Local Adopted 2001 Provisional LTP for Transport Plan 2001 - 2006 2006 – 2011 completed June 2005 A Strategic Urban Potential Produced 2002 No review proposed Study but Annual Monitoring Reports prepared. Urban Housing Potential April 2005 Not timetabled at Study present BFBC Housing Needs Survey March 2002 HNS update 2004 BFBC A Spirit of Enterprise Adopted 2003 Not timetabled at Housing Strategy 2003 - 2008 present. ‘Life is for Living’ – A Local Adopted 2002 Not timetabled at Cultural Strategy for Bracknell present Forest 2002 - 2007 Strategy for Promoting May 2004 Not timetabled at Community Cohesion 2004/5 present – 2007/8 Annual Housing Produced annually summer each Produced annually Commitments year based on information from April 1st to March 31st Annual Employment Produced annually summer each Produced annually Commitments year based on information from April 1st to March 31st Employment and the Prepared 2003 None planned

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Study/Survey Status Review Economy of Berkshire 2001 – 2016 – A Report on Forecasts by Business Strategies from Experian on behalf of the Joint Strategic Planning Unit Bracknell Town Centre Retail 2002 None planned Study, Colliers CRE Bracknell Town Centre 2002 None planned Impact Analysis, Colliers CRE Centre Annual Health checks, Annually Annually; vacancy BFBC survey done 2005, but no town centre health check report this year Air Quality Progress Report Produced 2004 Document reviewed 2004, Bracknell Forest annually Borough Council Bracknell Forest Borough Current No review planned Landscape Strategy, Babtie Bracknell Forest Biodiversity Produced 2001 Reviewed in progress Action Plan 2001-5, Bracknell reports and Bracknell Forest Borough Council Forest Biodiversity Action Plan 2006-11 to be published imminently

Studies Proposed/in Preparation

Economic Profile - JSPU Spring 2005 N/A Local Development A’ statistical ‘where are we now’ N/A Framework Statistical pack to provide background background evidence for the preparation of LDD’s.

Spring 2005 Local Transport Plan 2006 - To be submitted to DfT March 2006 2011 Bracknell New Town Heritage December 2005 Background Document Open Space Audit and Audit work carried out through the Final report early 2006 Assessment Cultural Strategy and Parks & Open Space Strategy. Work on accessibility and quality to be

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Study/Survey Status Review undertaken in 2005 following introduction of accessibility software package. Bracknell Forest Borough Report to be produced for each Annually Local Development December, based on April – March Framework Annual monitoring year. Monitoring Report Employment Potential Study Autumn 2005 N/A

8.3 All Local Development Documents will be tested against a range of baseline indicators which will be identified in the relevant Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report, prepared as one of the first stages in the LDD process. Many of these indicators will be common to a number of documents. A set of baseline indicators was established in the Scoping Report for the Core Strategy published in November 2004 and these are described in a revised LDF scoping report published in October 2005. Future stages may identify other areas within the baseline data that need to be collected and monitored.

9. Risk Analysis

9.1 There are a number of factors which may cause risk to the local development framework, through for example lack of internal and external resources causing slippage in timetables and subsequent delays to adoption. These risks are set out below along with some actions for alleviating the risk:

Challenging Timetables – High Risk 9.2 The Government has set challenging timetables to prepare the first Development Plan Documents. All LDD’s will be carefully project managed to maximise the opportunities of meeting the timescales set out in this document. However uncertainties will remain throughout the process regarding for instance the number of representations likely to be received and consequently the amount of time needed to deal with them, the length of time of Examinations, and the availability of resources from external bodies.

Staffing and resources – Medium/Low Risk 9.3 In addition to 3.6 FTE staff in the Development Plans team who form the core of the LDF team, other officers in the Planning and Transport Policy Section will also be heavily involved in preparation of the LDD’s identified in this

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Scheme. Project teams will be established for progressing each DPD. It is anticipated that the risk of staff turnover within the team will be low, but that this process will ensure that the loss of one member of staff will limit any loss of knowledge of the process and project status. This structure will also ensure that there are adequate staff resources available to progress each LDD.

9.4 Nationally, there are difficulties with recruiting experienced planning staff and this may be an issue should additional/replacement staff be required.

Legislative / Government delays – Medium/High Risk 9.5 Throughout the process the input of GOSE and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) is required. The availability of resources within these agencies will affect our ability to meet the timetables set out in this document, particularly as many local authorities are likely to have similar timescales for preparing the first Development Plan Documents.

9.6 The Borough Council will ensure that it has early and ongoing dialogue with GOSE and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to limit this risk.

9.7 The Borough Council has established an LDF Steering Group in order to work closely with Members on the preparation of the LDF.

Resources of External Agencies – High Risk 9.8 Preparation of the DPD’s will require considerable input from other organisations, many of which will also be involved in other local authority DPD’s. If these organisations do not have sufficient resources to meet the likely work load, this may result in delays to the timetable.

9.9 In order to minimise this risk, the Borough Council will seek to talk to such organisations as early as possible, and to share the LDS with such groups where they can be identified.

Soundness/Legal Challenge – Low risk 9.10 The Borough Council will ensure that all DPD’s are “sound” and founded on a robust evidence base and well-audited stakeholder and community engagement systems in order to minimise the risk of legal challenge. The

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Borough Council will work closely with GOSE and PINS at all stages to ensure that tests of “soundness” are met.

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area - High Risk 9.11 The 11 affected authorities are currently working with English Nature, GOSE and ODPM to develop a robust and realistic Delivery Plan to which future development can refer to ensure protection and effective mitigation arises. However, progress has been slow and more recently, despite steps from GOSE and PINS to redress the problems presented by the Delivery Plan, the impact on current development proposals has not been cleared up. This casts great doubt on the ability to plan for current levels of housing allocation, let alone for large amounts of new housing projected through the RSS process. This doubt is based on the lack of clarity on what constitutes an effective Delivery Plan” and how any development can show no adverse impact on the SPA either in isolation or in combination.

9.12 This risk is heightened further by the recent European Court of Justice ruling which will require further guidance to be developed by ODPM to ensure development plans are fully assessed against the Habitats Directive and its regulations. All DPDs at BFBC are being assessed currently against this Directive, but there is concern that the emerging SEP has not been properly assessed. Until such time as the guidance has been produced, the assessment has taken place and then considered in examination, it may be premature to advance a local Core Strategy which may or may not be in line with the RSS.

9.13 Locally, in the absence of a realistic tool for judging an appropriate assessment of potential impacts, almost all of the developable area of the Borough is at risk of not being viably developed. This could have a tremendous impact on the delivery of sustainable development for the Borough. Unless a suitable implementation strategy is in place and is proven to meet the legal requirements of the European Habitats Directive regulations, the Core Strategy could not be defended. Furthermore, until the RSS has been properly assessed against the Habitats Directive, any submission of a local Core Strategy may be premature. Therefore, unless an implementation strategy is agreed and in place by Spring 2006, and a proper assessment of the SEP is in place which confirms the agreed housing distribution is

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

compliant with the Habitats Directive regulations, it will be necessary to delay the submission of the Core Strategy.

9.14 Bracknell Forest Borough Council will in the meantime be scoping out an Appropriate Assessment for the Core Strategy and conducting this work in consultation with English Nature, GOSE and other relevant bodies. It is hoped this will identify effective and appropriate mitigation for future development, but may through its conclusions cause the Council to reflect on its delivery milestones contained herein.

Other Guidance – Medium/High Risk 9.15 Regional Guidance is currently being reviewed but the timetables do not fit comfortably with these first documents. DPD’s will have to be prepared initially in accordance with existing approved strategic guidance and regard had to emerging guidance as appropriate.

9.16 Similarly, it is likely that there may be new national planning policy guidance issued during the preparation of documents. These will have to be taken into account at the next appropriate stage in preparation or review of the DPD.

10. Interim Update Process

10.1 The main process of review and update for the LDS will be through the Annual Monitoring Report (see Section 11 below). However, it is possible that there will be occasions when the need for urgent additional guidance arises prior to the Annual Review timetable. In such cases, the Borough Council will follow the procedures set out below:

a) A project profile will be agreed with the Environment and Leisure Department portfolio holder, including how the DPD links to the Core Strategy or SPD links to saved or new policies, setting out key milestones for production, and resources for preparation.

b) The project profile will be sent to the Government Office for the South East with a request to agree an amendment to the LDS. At the same time, background work on evidence gathering and community engagement will begin.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

c) Once agreed, the project profile will be published on the website as an amendment to the LDS. The new LDD will be fully incorporated in to the LDS at the time of the Annual Review and Monitoring process.

11. Monitoring and review

11.1 This first formal LDS was submitted to GOSE early in 2005. A revised LDS is to be published annually thereafter and will be planned to coincide with the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) required under the legislation as set out below.

11.2 The Bracknell Forest Borough LDS will be monitored on an annual basis from April to the end of March, and be part of a wider Annual Monitoring Report. The AMR will be co-ordinated by the Planning and Transport Policy Section in the Environment and Leisure Department.

LDS Monitoring 11.3 In relation to the LDS the following factors will be assessed in each annual review: ƒ progress against specified milestones for each LDD ƒ reasons for any mismatch and proposed actions ƒ any new technical information that warrants changes or review ƒ any other reviews e.g. the Community Strategy that might be taking place ƒ any other unforeseen circumstances that may have occurred

11.4 In addition, it will provide: ƒ An up to date list of relevant background studies and documents ƒ Information as to the status of plans and policies prepared under the previous system of development plans.

Policy Monitoring 11.5 The AMR will also monitor: • ‘saved’ policies to identify whether or not they are being implemented and to identify actions to ensure implementation if appropriate. This will build on an existing Annual report currently produced to look at the effectiveness of existing planning policies;

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

• Whether the targets and indicators within the LDD’s are being met, and identifying actions to overcome any areas where these are not being achieved;

• What impacts LDD policies are having on other national, regional, and local targets, for instance as set out in the Borough’s Community Plan;

• Action to be taken if policies need to be replaced – linking in with the LDS review and update above;

• Specifically on housing, the AMR will include the number of dwellings built during the monitoring period and since the relevant policies were adopted, and a trajectory of forecast future housing supply against strategic housing requirements.

11.6 The AMR will also incorporate monitoring requirements to be set by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of each DPD. This will include the social, economic and environmental effects of the policies and comparing them with the predicted impacts set in the SA/SEA.

11.7 The AMR will be submitted alongside the Council’s annual report on ‘Planning Commitments for Housing and Planning Commitments for Employment Uses’ which are produced on an annual basis jointly with the Joint Strategic Planning Unit. These cover the same annual monitoring timeframe (April to March).

11.8 The AMR will be submitted to the Council’s Executive as early as possible to allow the Executive time to review and comment on the Report before submission to the Government Office by December of each year as required by legislation. The AMR will also be publicly available and published on the Borough Council’s website.

11.9 This Executive meeting will also consider changes to the Local Development Scheme and the need to prepare or review any Development Plan Documents as a result of the Monitoring process.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Further Information

For further information on this document, or on the preparation of the Local Development Framework, please contact a member of the Development Plans Team at: Development Plans Team E-mail Bracknell Forest Borough Council [email protected] Time Square Market Street Or Phone on Bracknell RG12 1JD 01344 351181

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005 Appendix 2:

Table detailing the schedule of Local Development Documents

Document Number Brief Description Chain of conformity Date of Pre- Date of Submit Proposed Document Title submission participation to SofS Adoption & LDD Status consultation on preferred and date (issues and options (DPD) RPB options) or draft SPD and Sustainabilty Appraisal Report LPA001 Local Plan Alteration. • National and Regional Jan – Feb Screening Local February Guidance (PPG12) 2004 opinion sought Plan 2006 Bracknell Forest Amen Corner is currently a void area in • Development Plan as to the need Inquiry Borough Local Plan the adopted Bracknell Forest Borough Regulations First Deposit for an SEA program Alteration – Local Plan. The alteration sets the • Berkshire Structure Plan July – Sept (Nov 2004) med for Settlement boundary policy context for the area and 1996 – 2006 2004 Second early at Amen Corner identifies the settlement boundary deposit July January 2005 2005 LDD101 A statement of vision, core policies and • National planning policy Oct 2004 – January – July October a spatial strategy that: PPS’s & RPG9 August 2005 February 2006 2006 2007 Bracknell Forest 1. Reflects the most current • Influenced by the Borough Core planning policy; Berkshire Structure Plan, Strategy 2. Enables delivery of the housing the Community Plan and allocation for the set period; other local strategies DPD 3. Guides effective determination • All LDD’s to be in of planning applications. conformity with Core Strategy

Document Number Brief Description Chain of conformity Date of Pre- Date of Submit Proposed Document Title submission participation to SofS Adoption & LDD Status consultation on preferred and date (issues and options (DPD) RPB options) or draft SPD and Sustainabilty Appraisal Report LDD102 A document that provides • National Planning Oct 2004 – January – July October 1. Details of site specific proposals to Policy PPG3, PPG4, August 2005 February 2006 2006 2007 Site Allocations deliver the policy framework set out in PPG13 & RPG9 and other DPD’s. any reviews. DPD 2. To identify broad methods of • Conformity with all delivery for such site specific other DPD’s proposals. LDD103 A document that provides a set of • National and Regional October April 2009 – Novemb February development control policies against Planning Policy Guidance 2007 – May 2009 er 2009 2011 Development which the detail of development will be and any reviews. October Management assessed. • The Core Strategy. 2008

DPD LDD 104 A document that will provide detailed • National and Regional March 2007 May – June January February policies and proposals to guide and Planning Policy Guidance – November 2008 2009 2010 Amen Corner Area deliver future development at Amen • The Core Strategy 2007 Action Plan Corner. • Allocated Sites DPD

DPD LDD105 A map that reflects the adopted • All DPD’s For dates see Proposals Map Profile in Appendix 2. policies in DPD’s. Proposals Map

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Document Number Brief Description Chain of conformity Date of Pre- Date of Submit Proposed Document Title submission participation to SofS Adoption & LDD Status consultation on preferred and date (issues and options (DPD) RPB options) or draft SPD and Sustainabilty Appraisal Report Supplementary Planning Documents LDD201 1. To support saved BFBLP Policy • General conformity with October June 2006 – N/A October M9 or any subsequent Core Policy national planning policy 2005 - July 2006 2006 Residential and Non – 2. Sets out car & cycle parking PPG13 & RPG9 November Residential Parking requirements on residential and • Conformity with the Local 2005 Standards non-residential developments Transport Plan and saved 3. Review with objectives that: policies in the BFBLP SPD • Determines maximum levels of • Conformity with the parking in new developments. emerging Core Strategy • Encourages alternative modes of • Influenced by the transport. Community Plan and other • Provides minimum standards of local strategies cycle parking provision.

LDD202 1. SPD to support saved Policies EN22 • Conformity with saved N/A Nov – Dec N/A June 2006 and H14 of the BFBLP policies in the BFBLP. 2005 Designing for 2. Provides supplementary advice on • Conformity with the Accessibility in promoting the design of an inclusive emerging Core Bracknell Forest built environment for all. Strategy.

SPD

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Document Number Brief Description Chain of conformity Date of Pre- Date of Submit Proposed Document Title submission participation to SofS Adoption & LDD Status consultation on preferred and date (issues and options (DPD) RPB options) or draft SPD and Sustainabilty Appraisal Report LDD 203 • SPD to support saved policy SC1, • Conformity with saved N/A October 2006 N/A March and also to update existing SPG Policies in the BFBLP – November 2007 Limiting the Impact of following revised guidance on • Conformity with the 2006 Development Planning Obligations. emerging Core The SPD will set out the infrastructure Strategy SPD and community facilities expected in • Conformity with association with new development in national guidance on the Borough. Planning Obligations. LDD301 The SCI sets the process of • The Town and Country August 2004 April 2005 – October July 2006 community participation in LDD Planning (Local – February May 2005 2005 The Bracknell Forest preparation and planning application Development) 2005 Borough Statement of process. This will be a document that: (England) Regulations Community • Effectively engages stakeholders 2004. Involvement in the land use planning process • Influenced by the • Reflects the Governments Community Plan and other LDD expectations regarding community local consultation and engagement communication strategies

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Appendix 3:

Individual LDD Profiles for the preparation of each Local Development Document

PROFILE Ref: LPA001

Document Title Amen Corner Local Plan Alteration Lead Section Regeneration & Transport Team, Planning & Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status Local Plan Alteration Priority High Synopsis • Small scale Local Plan Alteration to define the settlement boundary in this area to the west of Bracknell Chain of • National Regional Guidance (PPG12) and the adopted and emerging conformity Berkshire Structure Plan Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of Document preparation January - February 2004 First Deposit Period July -September 2004 SEA Screening November- December 2004 Second Deposit period January - February 2005 Local Plan Inquiry (if necessary) July 2005 Receipt of Inspector’s binding report December 2005 Adoption and Publication of Local Plan Alteration February 2006 Management arrangements Director of Environment and Leisure → Environment Portfolio Holder → Executive Committee → Council Resources • Internal: The Regeneration and Transport Team plus other Planning & Transport Policy officers (excludes time devoted to other team core activities) • Also internal administration and technical support • LDF budget to cover consultation, printing and design costs, examination costs. Other Borough Council Officers’ and Members’ time and input • Specific budget for Local Plan Inquiry allocated

Approach to involving Through the prescribed process set out in PPG12 and the stakeholders & community Development Plan Regulations (1999)

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD101

Document Title Bracknell Forest Borough Core Strategy Lead Section Development Plans Team, Planning & Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status DPD Priority High Synopsis A statement of vision, core policies and a spatial strategy that: • Reflects the most current planning policy; • Enables delivery of the housing allocation for the set period; • Guides effective determination of planning applications. Chain of • General conformity with national planning policy PPS’s, RPG & conformity RSS • Influenced by the Community Plan and other local strategies Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of Document preparation August 2004 Evidence gathering and background research including August 2004 – March 2005 SA Scoping Report Preparation/participation on Issues & Options & Initial August 2004 – July 2005 SA Participation on Preferred Options and SA Report January 2006 – February 2006 Consideration of representations and discussions with February 2006 – July 2006 community and stakeholders Submission of DPD & Submission Proposals Map to July 2006 SofS and RPB Public Consultation period on submission DPD July 2006 – August 2006 Pre-examination consideration of representations July – December 2006 Pre-examination meeting December 2006 Examination period January 2007 – March 2007 Receipt of Inspector’s binding report July 2007 Adoption and Publication of DPD & Proposals Map October 2007 Management Director of Environment and Leisure → Members Steering Group → arrangements Environment Portfolio Holder → Executive Committee → Council Resources • Internal: The Development Plans Team plus other Planning & Transport Policy officers (excludes time devoted to other team core activities) • Also internal administration and technical support • LDF budget to cover consultation, printing and design costs, examination costs • Other Borough Council Officers’ and Members’ time and input • External resources: Specific LDF budget allows for possible use of consultants for other aspects of preparation • Stakeholder Resources: LSP to provide link to the community • Representatives of stakeholder groups to attend meetings, contribute to preparation etc • Development industry expertise Approach to involving Wide stakeholder and community involvement using a range of stakeholders & consultation methods to be described in the emerging SCI that community meet the minimum set out in the draft regulations.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD102

Document Title Site Allocations Lead Section Development Plans Team, Planning & Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status DPD Priority High Synopsis To produce a document that: • Identifies site specific proposals to deliver the policy framework set out in the Core Strategy including those identified to meet the Borough’s housing allocation. • Identifies timing and delivery mechanisms for site specific proposals.

Chain of • General conformity with national planning policy PPG3, PPG4, conformity PPG13, RPG9 & any reviews. • Conformity with Core Strategy • Influenced by the Community Plan and other local strategies Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of Document preparation August 2004 Evidence gathering and background research including August 2004 – March 2005 SA Scoping Report Preparation/participation on Issues & options & Initial August 2004 – July 2005 SA Participation on Preferred Options and SA Reports January 2006 – February 2006 Consideration of representations and discussions with February 2006 – July 2006 community and stakeholders Submission of DPD & Submission Proposals Map to July 2006 SofS and RPB Public Consultation period on submission DPD July 2006 – August 2006 Pre-examination consideration of representations July – December 2006 Pre-examination meeting December 2006 Examination period (joint with LDD 101) January 2007 – March 2007 Receipt of Inspector’s binding report July 2007 Adoption and Publication of DPD & Proposals Map October 2007 Management Director of Environment and Leisure → Members Steering Group → arrangements Environment Portfolio Holder → Executive Committee→ Council Resources • Internal: Development Plans Team plus other Planning and Transport Policy officers as appropriate • Internal administration and technical support • Other Borough Council Officers’ and Members’ time and input • LDF budget to cover consultation, printing and design costs, examination costs • External resources: Specific LDF budget allows for possible use of consultants for other aspects of preparation • Stakeholder Resources: LSP to provide link to the community • Representatives of stakeholder groups to attend meetings, contribute to preparation etc • Development industry expertise Approach to involving Wide stakeholder and community involvement using a range of stakeholders & consultation methods to be described in the emerging SCI that community meet the minimum set out in the draft regulations.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD103

Document Title Development Management Lead Section Development Plans Team, Planning & Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status DPD Priority Medium Synopsis To produce a document that: • Provides a more detailed policy framework for Development Control purposes to ensure that the spatial framework in the Core Strategy is delivered. Chain of • General conformity with national planning policy and regional conformity planning guidance & subsequent reviews • Conformity with the Core Strategy • Influenced by the Community Plan, and other local strategies. Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of Document preparation October 2007 Evidence gathering and background research including October 2007 – March 2008 SA Scoping Report Preparation/participation on Issues & Options & Initial October 2007 –October 2008 SA Participation on Preferred Options and SA Reports April 2009 – May 2009 Consideration of representations and discussions with May 2009 – November 2009 community and stakeholders Submission of DPD & Submission Proposals Map to November 2009 SofS and RPB Public Consultation period on submission DPD November 2009 – December 2009 Pre-examination consideration of representations November 2009 – April 2010 Pre-examination meeting April 2010 Examination period June 2010 – July 2010 Receipt of Inspector’s binding report November 2010 Adoption and Publication of DPD & Proposals Map February 2011 Management Director of Environment → Members Steering Group → Environment arrangements Portfolio Holder → Executive Committee→ Council Resources • Internal: The Development Plans team, plus other Planning & Transport Policy officers and Development Control Officers (excludes time devoted to other team core activities) • Also internal administration and technical support • LDF budget to cover consultation, printing and design costs, examination costs • Other Borough Council Officers’ and Members’ time and input • External resources: Specific LDF budget allows for possible use of consultants for other aspects of preparation • Stakeholder Resources: LSP to provide link to the community • Representatives of stakeholder groups to attend meetings, contribute to preparation etc • Development industry expertise Approach to involving Wide stakeholder and community involvement using a range of stakeholders & consultation methods to be described in the emerging SCI that community meet the minimum set out in the draft regulations.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD103

Document Title Amen Corner Area Action Plan Lead Section Regeneration and Transport Team, Planning & Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Site Specific Status DPD Priority Medium Synopsis A document that provides detailed policies and proposals to guide and deliver future development of land at Amen Corner. Chain of • General conformity with national planning policy, RPG9, RTS & conformity any reviews. • Conformity with Core Strategy and Allocated Sites DPDs • Influenced by the Community Plan and other local strategies Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of Document preparation March 2007 Evidence gathering and background research including March 2007 – August 2007 SA Scoping Report Preparation/participation on Issues & Options & Initial March 2007 – November 2007 SA Participation on Preferred Options and SA Reports May 2008 – June 2008 Consideration of representations and discussions with June 2008 – January 2009 community and stakeholders Submission of DPD and submission Proposals Map to January 2009 SofS and RPB Public Consultation period on submission DPD January 2009 –February 2009 Pre-examination consideration of representations January 2009 – May 2009 Pre-examination meeting May 2009 Examination period July 2009 – August 2009 Receipt of Inspector’s binding report December 2009 Adoption and Publication of DPD & Proposals Map February 2010 Management Director of Environment and Leisure → Members Steering Group → arrangements Environment Portfolio Holder → Executive Committee→ Council Resources • Internal: The Regeneration & Transport team, LDF Project Team plus other Planning and Transport Policy officers as appropriate • Internal administration and technical support • Other Borough Council Officers’ and Members’ time and input • LDF budget to cover consultation, printing and design costs, examination costs • External resources: Specific LDF budget allows for possible use of consultants for other aspects of preparation • Stakeholder Resources: LSP to provide link to the community • Representatives of stakeholder groups to attend meetings, contribute to preparation etc • Development industry expertise Approach to involving Wide stakeholder and community involvement using a range of stakeholders & consultation methods to be described in the emerging SCI that community meet the minimum set out in the draft regulations.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD104

Document Title Proposals Map Lead Section Development Plans Team, Planning & Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status DPD Priority High Synopsis To produce a map that: • Graphically illustrates the policies and proposals set out in adopted DPD’s and ‘saved’ policies in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan.

Chain of • Conformity with all DPD’s conformity Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of Map production February 2006 Submission map for Core Strategy and Allocated Sites July 2006 Adopted Proposals Map October 2007

Submission map for Amen Corner area Action plan January 2009 DPD Submission Map for Development Management DPD November 2009 Adoption Map for Amen Corner Area Action Plan February 2010 Adoption map for Development Management DPD February 2011 Management Director of Environment and Leisure → Members Steering Group → arrangements Environment Portfolio Holder → Executive Committee→ Council Resources • Internal: The LDF Project Team plus other Planning and Transport Policy officers as appropriate • Internal administration and GIS technical support • Other Borough Council Officers’ and Members’ time and input • LDF budget to cover printing and design costs • External resources: Specific LDF budget allows for possible use of consultants for other aspects of preparation • Development industry expertise Approach to involving As relevant DPD stakeholders & community

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD201

Document Title Residential and Non - Residential Parking Standards Lead Section Regeneration & Transport Team, Planning & Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status SPD Priority High Synopsis 1. SPD supports saved Policy M9 of the BFBLP or any subsequent Core Policy 2. Sets out the Borough Council’s car and cycle parking requirements on residential and non-residential developments Chain of • General conformity with national planning policy PPG13, RTP & Conformity RPG9 and any subsequent reviews • Conformity with the Local Transport Plan • Conformity with the emerging Core Strategy influenced by the Community Plan and other local strategies. Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of document preparation Jan 2005 Evidence gathering and background research: initial Jan – May 05 accessibility mapping using Accession and stakeholder engagement Produce and consult on Scoping Report Apr – May 05 Prepare Issues and Options and initial Sustainability June - Aug 05 Report Public Participation on draft issues and options and Oct 05 – Nov 05 further Scoping Report Prepare SPD and final Sustainability Appraisal Jan – Apr 06 Executive to consider consultation draft SPD and Final May 06 Sustainability Appraisal Consultation on the Draft SPD and the Final June – July 06 Sustainability Appraisal Finalise SPD and final Sustainability Statement Aug – Sep 06 Final SPD and Sustainability Statement to Executive: Oct 06 resolution to adopt Publication of SPD Nov 06 Management Director of Environment & Leisure – Planning and Transport Committee – arrangements Environment Portfolio Holder – Executive Committee Resources • Internal: Regeneration & Transport Team, plus other internal officers as appropriate • Internal administration and technical support • Budget to cover costs of consultation, design and printing • Members’ time and input • Stakeholder Resources: LSP to provide a key link to the community • Representatives of stakeholder groups to attend meetings, contribute to preparation etc • Development industry expertise

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Approach to involving Focused stakeholder and community involvement using a range of stakeholders & consultation methods to be described in the emerging SCI that meet Community the minimum set out in the draft regulations

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD202

Document Title Designing for Accessibility in Berkshire Lead Section Access Officer, Planning &Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status SPD Priority High Synopsis • The document will promote the design of an inclusive built environment for all. It will detail legislation, policy, best practice and design advice to achieve accessibility for all. Chain of • Influenced by the Community Plan and other local strategies conformity • Conformity with the emerging Core Strategy (LDD 101) Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of Document January 05 Evidence gathering, background research and Jan – Mar 05 stakeholder engagement Produce and consult on scoping report Mar – May 05 Prepare draft SPD and SA report and take to Executive June – Oct 05 Committee Public consultation/participation on draft SPD and SA Nov – Dec 05 report Consider responses and finalise SPD and SA report Jan – Mar 06 Executive to agree and adopt final SPD and SA report June 06 Publication July 06 Management Director of Environment & Leisure → Environment Portfolio Holder → arrangements Executive Committee Resources • Internal: Regeneration & Transport Team, plus other internal officers as appropriate • Internal administration and technical support • Budget to cover costs of consultation, design and printing • Members’ time and input • Stakeholder Resources: LSP to provide a key link to the community • Representatives of stakeholder groups to attend meetings, contribute to preparation etc • Development Industry expertise Approach to involving Focused stakeholder and community involvement using a stakeholders & range of consultation methods to be described in the emerging community SCI that meet the minimum set out in the draft regulations.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD203

Document

Title Limiting the Impact of Development Lead Section Implementation Team, Planning & Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status SPD Priority Medium Synopsis • The document will set out the infrastructure and community facilities sought in association with new development in the Borough. It will review and update an existing SPG. • Supports saved policy SC1 Chain of • Influenced by the Community Plan and other local strategies conformity • Conformity with the emerging Core Strategy (LDD 101) and national guidance on planning obligations. Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of Document Sept 05 Evidence gathering, background research and Sept 05 – Mar 06 stakeholder engagement Produce and consult on scoping report Jan 06 – Apr 06 Prepare draft SPD and Sustainability Appraisal Report Apr 06 – Sep 06 and take to Executive Committee Public consultation/participation on draft SPD and Oct 06 – Nov 06 Sustainability Appraisal Report Consider responses and finalise SPD and SA report Nov 06 – Feb 07 Executive to agree and adopt final SPD and SA report Mar 07 Publication of SPD Apr 07 Management Director of Environment & Leisure → Environment Portfolio Holder → arrangements Executive Committee Resources • Internal: Implementation Team, plus other internal officers as appropriate • Internal administration and technical support • Budget to cover costs of consultation, design and printing • Members’ time and input • Stakeholder Resources: LSP to provide a key link to the community • Representatives of stakeholder groups to attend meetings, contribute to preparation etc • Development Industry expertise Approach to involving Focused stakeholder and community involvement using a stakeholders & range of consultation methods to be described in the emerging community SCI that meet the minimum set out in the draft regulations.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

LDD PROFILE Ref: LDD301

Document Title Bracknell Forest Borough Statement of Community Involvement Lead Section Development Plans Team, Planning &Transport Policy Section (Environment and Leisure – Sustainability) Scope Borough Wide Status LDD Priority High Synopsis The SCI sets the process of community participation in LDD preparation and planning application process. This will be a document that: • Effectively engages stakeholders in the land use planning process • Reflects the Governments expectations regarding community engagement Chain of • General conformity with national planning policy PPS’s & RSS conformity • Influenced by the LSP/Community Plan and other local strategies Timetable Key Milestones Timescale Commencement of document preparation August 2004 Completion of pre-submission consultation February 2005 Public participation on draft Statement April 2005 – May 2005 Consideration of representations/ discussions with May 2005 – September 2005 stakeholders & preparation of submission Statement Submission of SCI to SofS October 2005 Public consultation period on submission SCI October 2005 – November 2005 Pre-examination consideration of representations October - December 2005 Pre-examination meeting (if needed) December 2005 Examination period (or Written Representations) March 2006 Receipt of Inspectors Binding Report May 2006 Adoption and publication July 2006 Management Director of Environment and Leisure→ Members Steering Group → arrangements Environment Portfolio Holder → Executive Committee → Full Council Resources • Internal: the Development Plans Team plus officer time and input from Development Control and other internal officers as appropriate • Administrative and technical input • Budget for consultation, design and printing • External: Use of facilitators for community workshop • Stakeholders: LSP to provide a key link to the community • Representatives of stakeholder groups to attend meetings, contribute to preparation etc Approach to involving Wide stakeholder and community involvement. stakeholders & community

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Appendix 4:

Saved Policies in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan

The table below indicates that all of the Policies and Proposals in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan (BFBLP) have been saved upon commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and will therefore form part of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework until replaced by new policies. It also indicates broadly when each policy will be reviewed. In some instances it is considered that elements of an existing policy may be reviewed under two proposed DPD’s as indicated in the table.

The way in which Local Development Documents are prepared means that not all policies and proposals will be reviewed simultaneously. Current timetables indicate that the first DPD’s will not be adopted until after September 2007, and therefore the majority of policies will need to be saved beyond the first three years, i.e. beyond September 2007.

Assessment as to whether policies should be saved has been made against the following criteria:

• Where appropriate there is a clear strategy • The policies have regard to the Community Strategy for the area • The policies are in general conformity with the core strategy development plan document (where adopted) • There are effective policies for any parts of the authorities area where significant change in the use or development of land or conservation of the area is envisaged; and • The policies are necessary and do not merely repeat national or regional policy.

This list will be subject to review and alteration as preparation of the Local Development Documents proceeds, and monitoring takes place. Changes may also occur depending on the content of the South East Plan.

Policy Title To be reviewed under Dates (Commencement & DPD Adoption) EN1 Protecting tree and Development Management October 2007 – February Hedgerow cover 2011 EN2 Supplementing tree and Development Management October 2007 – February hedgerow cover 2011 EN3 Nature Conservation Development Management October 2007 – February 2011

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

EN4 Local Nature Reserves, Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 Wildlife Heritage Sites and Regionally Important Geological Development Management October 2007 – February Sites 2011 EN5 Agricultural Land Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007

Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 EN6 Ancient monuments and Development Management October 2007 – February archaeological remains 2011 of national importance EN7 Other important Development Management October 2007 – February archaeological remains 2011 EN8 Development on land Development Management October 2007 – February outside settlements 2011 EN9 Changes of use and Development Management October 2007 – February adaptation of existing 2011 non-residential buildings outside settlements, outside the Green Belt EN10 Areas of landscape Development Management October 2007 – February importance 2011 EN11 Warfield Park Mobile Development Management October 2007 – February Home Site 2011 EN12 Historic parks and Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 gardens Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 EN13 Water Quality Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 EN14 River corridors Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 EN15 Floodlighting Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 EN16 Demolition of listed Development Management October 2007 – February buildings 2011 EN17 Development proposals Development Management October 2007 – February including the alteration, 2011 extension, or change of use of listed buildings EN18 Conservation areas Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 EN19 Demolition in Development Management October 2007 – February conservation areas 2011 EN20 Design considerations Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 in new development EN21 Crime and design Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 EN22 Designing for Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 accessibility EN23 Advertisements Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 EN24 Public art Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 EN25 Noise and other Development Management October 2007 – February pollution 2011

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

EN26 Energy Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 E1 Development in Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 Bracknell Town Centre E2 Development in defined Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 employment areas Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 E3 Employment Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 development on land within settlement boundaries but outside defined employment areas and Bracknell Town Centre E4 Small Businesses Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007

Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 E5 Hierarchy of shopping Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 centres E6 Shopping Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 E7 Business development Development Management October 2007 – February in shopping areas 2011 E8 Change of use of shop Development Management October 2007 – February units (A1) to other uses 2011 outside defined shopping centres E9 Non-retail uses in Development Management October 2007 – February Bracknell Town Centre 2011 primary shopping area, the retail core area of Crowthorne E10 Non-retail uses in Development Management October 2007 – February Bracknell Town Centre 2011 secondary shopping area, Crowthorne retail area outside the retail core area and Sandhurst Centre (west of Swan Lane) E11 Village and Development Management October 2007 – February neighbourhood centres 2011 and local parades E12 Identified major Development Management October 2007 – February employment sites 2011 GB1 Building in the Green Development Management October 2007 – February Belt 2011 GB2 Changes of use of land Development Management October 2007 – February within the Green Belt 2011 GB3 Residential Development Management October 2007 – February development within 2011 Green Belt villages GB4 Re-use and change of Development Management October 2007 – February use of buildings within 2011 the Green Belt GB5 Syngenta – a major Development Management October 2007 – February developed site within 2011 the Green Belt

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

H1 New residential Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 development H2 Residential extensions Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 H3 Residential Development Management October 2007 – February subdivisions and 2011 houses in multiple occupation H4 Areas of special Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 housing character Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 H5 New dwellings outside Development Management October 2007 – February settlements 2011 H6 Development involving Development Management October 2007 – February existing dwellings in the 2011 countryside outside the Green Belt H7 Dwelling types Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 H8 Affordable housing Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007

Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 H9 Non-static housing Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 H10 Site briefing Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 H11 Retention of the Development Management October 2007 – February housing stock 2011 H12 Enclosure of open land Development Management October 2007 – February in residential areas 2011 H13 Subordinate Development Management October 2007 – February accommodation for 2011 elderly or infirm relatives H14 Accessible housing Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 M1 Traffic management and Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 highway schemes M2 Safeguarded road line. Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 Extension of the northern distributor road M3 Protected road lines. Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 Sandhurst-Crowthorne bypass road scheme M4 Highway measures Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 expected in association with new development M5 Service road schemes Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 M6 Cycling and walking Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 M7 Access for people with Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 disabilities M8 Public transport Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 M9 Vehicle and cycle Development management October 2007 – February parking 2011

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

M10 Parking for countryside Development Management October 2007 – February recreation 2011 R1 Loss of open space of Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 public value R2 Urban recreation Development management October 2007 – February 2011 R3 Dual use of educational Development Management October 2007 – February facilities 2011 R4 Provision of open space Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 of public value Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 R5 Publicly usable open Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 space for small sites Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 R6 Visitor accommodation Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 R7 Countryside recreation Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 R8 Public rights of way Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 R9 Development involving Development Management October 2007 – February horses 2011 R10 Blackwater Valley Development Management October 2007 – February 2011 SC1 Provision of services Core Strategy August 2004 – October 2007 and community facilities SC2 Acceptability of service Development Management October 2007 – February and community facility 2011 proposals SC3 No reduction in existing Development Management October 2007 – February community facilities 2011 SC4 Telecommunications Development Management October 2007 – February provision 2011 SC5 Existing Development Management October 2007 – February telecommunications 2011 networks PEN2 Queensway, Priestwood Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 0i PEN2 Bay Drive, Bullbrook Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 0ii PE1i Land in the northern Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 sector of Bracknell Town Centre PE1ii Land at the south of Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 Bracknell Town Centre PE6i Heath Hill Road South Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 corner site, Crowthorne PE6ii Swan Lane corner site, Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 Sandhurst PH1.1 The Staff College, Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 Bracknell PH1.2 New housing Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 development proposal at Peacock Farm, west of Bracknell town PM1.1 Road junction and Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 highway works

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

PM1.2 Northern Distributor Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 Road PM1.3 Land protected for Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 dualling PM5 Service road schemes Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 PR2 Urban recreation Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 PR4 OSPV Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007 PR10 Blackwater Valley Allocated Sites August 2004 – October 2007

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Appendix 5:

Relationship between Saved Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance

December 2005

Document Links to saved policies

Public Art SPG Supports Policy EN24 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan (BFBLP) Light Pollution Guidance SPG Supports Policy EN2 of the BFBLP Extending your Home SPG Supports Policy EN20 of the BFBLP Opening Hours SPG Supports Policy E9 and E10 of the BFBLP Residential and Non-Residential Supports Policy M9 of the BFBLP Parking Standards SPG Guidance for the preparation of Supports Policy H10 and EN20 of the BFBLP Planning Briefs SPG Limiting the Impact of Supports Policy SC1 of the BFBLP Development SPG Stables Policy SPG Supports Policy R9 of the BFBLP Tree Planting Guide SPG Supports Policy EN2 of the BFBLP Telecommunications SPG Supports Policies SC4 and SC5 of the BFBLP Affordable Housing SPG Supports Policy H8 of the BFBLP Peacock Farm Planning and Supports Proposal PH1.2 of the BFBLP Design Brief The Staff College Planning and Supports Proposal PH1.1 of the BFBLP Design Brief Crowthorne Central Sites SPG Supports Proposal PE6I of the BFBLP Zeneca Planning Brief Supports Policy GB5 of the BFBLP College Town Design Guidelines Supports Policy EN20 of the BFBLP Bracknell Town Centre Masterplan Supports Proposals PE1I and PE1ii of the BFBLP Bracknell Town Centre Urban Supports Proposals PE1I and PE1ii of the BFBLP Design Framework Eastern Gateway Planning Brief Supports Policies H10 and EN20 of the BFBLP Designing for Recycling Supports Policy SC1 of the BFBLP

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

Appendix 6: Glossary of Terms

Development Plan Document – spatial planning documents that are subject to independent examination and together with the Regional Spatial Strategy will form the development plan for the Borough.

Examination – The process by which it is anticipated that Local Development Documents will be subject to independent scrutiny by a Planning Inspector.

Government Office for the South East – Represents Central Government in the South East including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Often abbreviated to GOSE.

Joint Strategic Planning Unit – Set up following the abolition of Berkshire County Council to carry out strategic planning functions on behalf of the six Berkshire Unitary Authorities. Often abbreviated to JSPU.

Local Development Documents – the documents which (taken as a whole) set out the Council’s policies relating to the development and use of land in the Borough. Often abbreviated to LDD.

Local Development Framework – A non-statutory term used to collectively describe the Local Development Documents that together guide development at the local level. Often abbreviated to LDF.

Local Development Scheme – A project plan for the Local Development Documents. Often abbreviated to LDS.

Local Plan – The type of planning policy document produced by District and Borough Councils to be replaced by Local Development Documents.

Local Strategic Partnership – a group of significant stakeholders, including public, private and voluntary sectors, who produce the Community Strategy. Often abbreviated to LSP.

Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act - The name of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Bill now it is enacted.

Planning Inspector – A person employed by the Planning Inspectorate to hear appeals against refusals of planning permission, call-in inquiries into major planning applications with implications for national planning policy, and into issues relating to emerging planning policy.

Planning Policy Guidance Note – National Planning policy guidance produced by the Government under the old planning regime. Planning policy guidance notes are advisory, although all planning policies at regional, county and district/borough level, and the determination of all planning applications are supposed to comply with Planning Policy Guidance Notes. Often abbreviated to PPG.

Planning Policy Statement – National planning policy produced by the Government under the new planning regime. All planning policies at a regional, county and

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

district/borough level, and the determination of all planning applications must comply with Planning Policy Statements. Often abbreviated to PPS.

Regional Planning Guidance – The type of planning policy produced at a regional level, now proposed to be replaced by the Regional Spatial Strategy. Often abbreviated to RPG or RSS.

Strategic Environmental Assessment – Under European Union legislation, any plan which has a major impact on the environment needs to be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment. This is an ongoing process intended to make the environment central to the decision making process, and to ensure that the process Is transparent. This process is intended to be combined with Sustainability Appraisal. Often abbreviated to SEA.

Structure Plan – The type of planning policy document produced by County Councils under the old planning regime. They were statutory and formed the strategic part of the development plan, so Local Plans were required to conform with them. Now proposed to be disbanded. The Regional Spatial Strategy will now form the strategic part of the development plan.

Supplementary Planning Documents – A type of Local Development Document that holds less weight in the determination of planning applications than a Development Plan Document. SPD supplements policies and proposals in Development Plan Documents.

Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning policy proposed by District, Borough or County Councils under the old planning regime, to supplement and elaborate on one or more policies in the main planning document that they produced (Local Plan, Unitary Development Plan, Structure Plan)

Sustainability Appraisal – The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act requires Local Development Documents to be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal, which examines the impact of the policies and proposals on economic, social and environmental factors.

The Community Plan – A Plan produced by public, private and community stakeholders and led by the Local Strategic Partnership.

Urban Potential Study – An assessment of the amount of residential development that could be accommodated within urban areas.

Bracknell Forest Borough LDS – December 2005

APPENDIX 4

Date of EIA December 2005 Directorate Environment and Leisure Function or Annual Monitoring Report policy to be assessed Is it a policy or Function function Is it a new or It is a new function. existing policy or function? Aim / objective The AMR reports on the implementation of policies in the local / purpose of development plan and progress made in meeting the milestones in the policy or the local development scheme. function Who is The Head of Planning & Transport Policy responsible for the policy or function? With regard to The document is to be made available to the population of the the equalities Borough. themes, which groups might be impacted by the policy or function? Which groups No groups will be adversely affected. might be affected adversely? What evidence The document is factual. has been found to indicate this? (include any consultation undertaken)

On what N/A grounds can adverse or differential impact be justified? What changes N/A are proposed to the policy or function to reduce or remove adverse or differential impact? In to which The AMR forms one of the portfolio of documents contained within plan or strategy the Local Development Framework. has the necessary action been incorporated? What This is a monitoring document monitoring arrangements have been put in place? What To submit the documents to the Secretary Of State via the conclusions Government Office for the South East have been drawn or recommendatio ns have been made? Has the Yes information in this EIA been made publicly available?