Land at Blue Mountain Representations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
From: To: Development Plan Subject: Blue Mountain - Land modification request Date: 10 October 2013 15:01:22 Thank you for the email with the attached letter regarding the meeting which has been called to release the land from the covenant whereby it should remain a golf course. As I read it I wondered if there is any point in objecting to this? Isn't it basically a foregone conclusion that houses ( and a school and a football stadium or whatever is decided is a necessity) will be constructed on this land? Why would I waste my valuable time thinking of something to write (yet again) that would hopefully change the mind of someone who even cared about the local community and what this facility and green space means to them. Then I thought back to a comment my 8 year son made last week as he looked out of the front landing window of our house and saw the fog lifting across the part of the golf course we can see, just as the sun was breaking through.He commented on how beautiful the golf course looked and how lucky we are to live in such a lovely village with the open space and green land of Blue Mountain. At that moment my heart just sank.We like to think that we can protect our children and we do our best to bring them up in green surroundings ( which is why we moved here in the first place) and in the blink of an eye it is completely out of your hands.Everything you had ever intended to be the environment where you wanted to raise your family is gone. I told my son about the plans for Blue Mountain.He has been having golf lessons there since he was 4 years old and he cried.He cried and asked why? Why would someone do that to that lovely big open space? He is 8 years old and yet his life will change forever, as will every other resident of this village and everybody who uses the facilities or the open space at Blue Mountain. The covenant in the agreement states that the land is not to be used for any other purpose.Why then can this be so easily overthrown? What was the point of the covenant in the first place if it is not worth the paper it was written on? Do the local community not have any protection at all? At the back of my mind I keep thinking that Binfield has gained the 'short straw' here. A football stadium is needed as the town centre land has been sold off for prime location housing.Where can land be found to relocate this? Binfield. A secondary school is needed as it was never built when it was promised years ago in the Temple Park/Quelm Park area.Where can land be found to build this? Binfield.Extra affordable housing which is essential......In fact surely two birds are being killed with one stone here....everything can be built in Binfield.Problem sorted. I strongly object to the land modification request and, although I doubt it very much, I would like my objection to be taken seriously. I expect every resident in Binfield will also object, although they may, like me, wonder is it actually worth bothering to write to express their views as the decision seems to have been made already and that this is merely a formality. Regards From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield. Date: 11 October 2013 08:56:20 From: Sent: 10 October 2013 18:12 To: Development Control Subject: Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield. 10th October 2013 Dear Sir/Madam Re : LAND AT BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE - BINFIELD NOTICE OF REQUEST TO MODIFY A PLANNING AGREEMENT DATED 16TH FEBRUARY 1990 I strongly object to Bracknell Forest Council releasing the landowners - The Trustees of the Luff Pension Scheme and Luff Farms Limited from the covenant signed in 1990 to keep this land for use as a Golf Course for 125 years. This covenant was put in place to protect this land from development for 125 - this should not be revoked as the Council will be breaking their signed promise to the residents of Binfield and Temple Park. What was the point of signing and agreeing this covenant if it can be broken for the benefit of the developers and landowners just so that they can build 400 plus houses, a football pitch, a secondary school, which the residents do not want. The secondary school is only required because of the large development to be built at Warfield. The secondary school should be built on land in Warfield so that the pupils will not have to drive to Binfield - which in turn will put pressures on the already congested infrastructure. The residents of Temple Park and Binfield signed a petition to keep this land as a Golf Course for 125 years - they do not want all the extra traffic and pressures on their services and facilities that this amount of development will bring. The Blue Mountain Golf Course and Conference Centre is much loved and very well used facility which provides recreation and entertainment for the local residents. If this is demolished to make way for houses and a football pitch it will greatly affect the lifestyles, wellbeing and health of the community. This is a profitable business that provides jobs for over 60 people and also provides facilities for local schools, groups and local companies. This golf course is not surplus to requirement - the golf course is very well used by local people who can walk to the course. Many young children use the driving range and golf coaching school which cannot re replicated at any local course. Golf is a growing sport and with a growing community this facility should be promoted and not demolished to make way for houses. It is a very busy golf course and provides much needed open space for people to socialise, exercise and engage in the peaceful sport of golf. The Council owned Downshire Golf Course is not within walking distance of Binfield and residents would have to drive there to use the course. The Downshire Golf Course is losing money - and is a drain on rate payers money. People from Binfield and Warfield will not travel to the Downshire Golf Course as this area is notorious for traffic problems and the facilities are sub-standard. To replace this tranquil green area used by many families for golfing, walking, cycling, dog walking, horse riding etc and to replace it with a football pitch is not a suitable replacement. Binfield has its own very successful football club which is in the same league as Bracknell Town. Binfield Football Club is a successful football club - Bracknell Town Football Club is a failing club with dwindling supporters (Bracknell Town were promoted to the same league as Binfield by default - they applied for promotion and were only accepted because no other club had sufficient facilities to be promoted). We do not need two football clubs in one village. We need green areas to stop the coalescence of the two areas - Binfield should keep its character and rural landscape. If this green space is developed it will cause untold effects on the lives and wellbeing of many of the local resident and the home owners on Temple Park who purchased their homes on the understanding that the golf course would remain as it is for 125 years! This was a PROMISE made by Bracknell Forest Council and SHOULD NOT BE BROKEN - IF IT IS HOW CAN WE TRUST ANYTHING THE COUNCIL EVER SAYS IN FUTURE? The NPPF states:- 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy ● support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; and ● promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship. 8. Promoting healthy communities ● safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and ● safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas. 70. To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: ● plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; ● guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs; ● ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community; ● 73. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision.