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. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.

74. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: ● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or ● the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or ● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss. 75. Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Local authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.

76. Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. Identifying land as Local Green Space should therefore be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. Local Green Spaces should only be designated when a plan is prepared or reviewed, and be capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period.

77. The Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space. The designation should only be used: ● where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; ● where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and ● where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 109. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: ● protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; ● recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; ● minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; ● preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and ● remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. 110. In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.

Regards

> -----Original Message----- > From: Development Plan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 10 October 2013 11:03 > To: Development Plan > Subject: Land at Blue Mountain, Binfield > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > Records show you previously made representations to the Council on its SADPD (now known as Site Allocations Local Plan), specifically in relation to Policy SA7: Land at Blue Mountain, Binfield. > > The attached letter is to inform you of a request by the landowners (The Trustees of the Luff Pension Scheme and Luff Farms Limited) to Bracknell Forest Borough Council to modify a 1990 Planning Agreement relating to the land at the Blue Mountain Golf and Conference Centre, off Wood Lane, Binfield. > > If you wish to make comments on this landowners request please see the procedure set out in the attached letter. Further information on this request can be found on the Council's website: > > http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/landatbluemountaingolfcourse > > Kind regards > > > Spatial Policy > Bracknell Forest Council > > *********************************************************************************

> > This e-mail will be read by employees of the Council and all personal information will be dealt with in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily the views or opinions of Bracknell Forest Borough Council. > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the system manager. Email: [email protected] > > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Although the Council has taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free we advise that in keeping with good ICT practice the recipients should confirm this for themselves. > > ********************************************************************** > > > ______> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by Verizon Business Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.verizonbusiness.com/uk > > "This e-mail and the information it contains are confidential and may be > privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify us > immediately. You should not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its > contents to any other person." > > ______> This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered > through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit > http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/ From: To: Development Plan Cc: Subject: RE: Land at Blue Mountain, Binfield Date: 10 October 2013 13:21:27 Importance: High

Dear Sir/Madam,

A fundamental reason for bringing my family to live in my current location in Bracknell Forest 3 years ago was the attraction of the wider open spaces, leisure facilities, greenery and primary schools.

The golf course and details such as the planning agreement, that the trustees are now trying to change, encouraged me to believe that we would be living on the edge of Bracknell and that my location would not be engulfed by the urban sprawl of Bracknell.

I have 3 young girls (ages 6, 5 and 2) who my wife and I regularly walk, cycle and sledge in the very area under threat, not to mention the other green areas that are also under threat in Warfield.

I live on which is less than 200 meters away from the Golf Course and any development will have a serious effect on the quality of life that my family and I can gain from the local area. Also the infrastructure including Roads, Schools, Leisure facilities, Hospitals and waste management will come under even more strain then they already are.

Planning agreements such as this should not be discarded when significant life decisions are being made by people on the back of them, within the communities that they affect.

I trust and plead that the right decision will be made in this instance and that the 1990 planning agreement (as detailed below) be upheld in its current format.

Regards,

-----Original Message----­ From: Development Plan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 October 2013 10:57 To: Development Plan Subject: Land at Blue Mountain, Binfield

Dear Sir/Madam,

Records show you previously made representations to the Council on its SADPD (now known as Site Allocations Local Plan), specifically in relation to Policy SA7: Land at Blue Mountain, Binfield.

The attached letter is to inform you of a request by the landowners (The Trustees of the Luff Pension Scheme and Luff Farms Limited) to Bracknell Forest Borough Council to modify a 1990 Planning Agreement relating to the land at the Blue Mountain Golf and Conference Centre, off Wood Lane, Binfield.

If you wish to make comments on this landowners request please see the procedure set out in the attached letter. Further information on this request can be found on the Council's website: http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/landatbluemountaingolfcourse Kind regards

Spatial Policy Bracknell Forest Council

*********************************************************************************

This e-mail will be read by employees of the Council and all personal information will be dealt with in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily the views or opinions of Bracknell Forest Borough Council.

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the system manager. Email: [email protected]

This footnote also confirms that this e-mail has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Although the Council has taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free we advise that in keeping with good ICT practice the recipients should confirm this for themselves.

**********************************************************************

______CAUTION: This message was sent via the Public Internet and its authenticity cannot be guaranteed.

PROPRIETARY: This e-mail contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is intended for the recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the authority by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on this e-mail. From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain change of use - Section 52 Date: 14 October 2013 09:30:00

-----Original Message----­ From: Sent: 11 October 2013 20:59 To: Development Control Subject: Blue Mountain change of use - Section 52

Dear Sirs

I have seen your correspondence from of Bracknell Forest Borough Council (BFBC), regarding the use of the land at the Blue Mountain Golf Centre in Wood Lane, Binfield. Reference number to this letter is: S52 - 614307.

The previous planing agreement from 16th February 1990, clearly states that this land, formerly known as Park Farm, be dedicated to a number of uses including a golf course, balancing pond, hotel, distribution road and most importantly open space. The reference for this document is 614307.

Your recent letter advises of the land owners, - The trustees of Luff pension schemes and Luff Farms limited, as having made a request to modify the planning agreement from the original 1990 Tenth Schedule Part II, paragraph 1 and this request is to change the use from a golf course.

I wrongly object to the change of use of this land and would ask that BFBC objects and rejects this request for change of use for a number of reasons, which I have listed below:

This land has been designated to be open space for the use and enjoyment of local residents for recreational and leisure activities.

The land is used as an open space which divides the development residential areas of Bracknell town and Binfield

The land offers a wide range of activities for locals including, amongst many others, golf, business and conference facilities, a social meeting place and a walking area for dogs and the local population

The area also offers wildlife a natural resource and refuge area and an opportunity to breed, and give natural habitat for the wildlife

For these reasons, and many others , I would ask that the BFBC rejects this request to change the use of this land.

Please could you confirm the receipt of this email and also give me any details of decisions made by BFBC following this application.

Many thanks

Kind regards Sent from my iPhone

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Proposed re-development of Blue Mountain Golf Course - Vote Against Date: 29 October 2013 10:53:34

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 09:11 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Proposed re-development of Blue Mountain Golf Course - Vote Against

I am writing to object to proposed plans to redevelopment of Blue Mountain Golf course, and the removal of Section 52 Agreement that is currently in place.

We live in Temple Park, and the propoerty was purchased on the basis that it would not be in the center of a housing estate with lots of green areas for our children and pets. I am a regular golfer at Blue Mountain, and the family and our pets often enjoy walks around the course. Also, to think of the increased issues with traffic, not to mention the financial implications to property value. To think that this Section 52 agreement could potentially just be removed is almost laughable after only 23 years of a 125 year agreement.

Please can you register this e-mail as a major objection to the proposal to develop on this site.

20 October 2013

Dear Sir

Re: ISSUE REFERENCE: I043295 Blue Mountain Golf Course-Section 52 Agreement

I am very disappointed to have received a letter from the Council informing me that the Executive is planning to make a decision in December regarding releasing or waiving a covenant in the section 52 agreement dated 16/2/1990 that land at Blue Mountain should only be used as a golf course, for sporting purposes or as open space. The agreement was signed for 125 years. This decision would be in direct contradiction of the basis on which the land was sold in the first place.

We have lived on Temple Park since October 1992 and one of our reasons for moving here was for somewhere green and quiet to bring up our family. We particularly liked the fact that we were so close to the countryside and that, as one side of the Temple Park development was bordered by Blue Mountain Golf Course, we would be protected from development and that land would therefore never be built on. To find out that this agreement might now be reneged upon angers me.

I cannot believe that our local council could even consider removing this section 52 agreement, taking away such a valuable local facility, to allow housing and educational establishments, as well as an unwanted football stadium when we have a thriving local club already, to be built on the land. The site is used not only for golf, but for social events on the course, such as the annual fireworks and auctions, exhibitions and parties in the function rooms, bar and restaurant areas. The green open space provided by the course is attractive and peaceful, allowing somewhere pleasant to walk and cycle, to pick blackberries, to view the wildlife or to go sledging and creates a lovely green boundary between Bracknell and the village of Binfield. If it is built on there is no going back and a beautiful, well used facility and green space will be lost forever and Binfield will just become part of the urban sprawl of Bracknell.

The club at Blue Mountain has invested a substantial amount of money in its golf course, which is very popular. Why would we want this replaced with 400 houses, 2 schools and the new home for Bracknell Football club? This development would completely swamp an infrastructure which is already failing to cope with existing dwellings, such as the roads and junctions, local doctors’ surgery and shops.

I find it incredible that BFC wishes to overturn something it would have been a party to under the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 simply to push through their plans and meet housing targets. This would also set a dangerous precedent for waiving other such agreements in the future - not only in Binfield but across the country. These agreements were put in place for good reasons which have not changed.

Please do consider local feeling about the way the council is acting, totally disregarding local feelings and ploughing on with their plans for development and voting on such a waiver with such a blatant disregard for the law.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Section 52 Agreement for Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 22 October 2013 09:07:41

-----Original Message----­ From: Sent: 21 October 2013 22:06 To: Development Control Subject: Section 52 Agreement for Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sir / Madam

I email to relay our objection's on the proposed development on Blue Mountain.

We purchased our home based on its location near to Blue Mountain and the open green space that Temple Park looks upon over it.

We are disgusted that the council are planning to build in excess of 400 houses, 2 schools and a football stadium on such a great space that is popular with so many local residents for many activities, not just golfing. What is even more concerning is that a formal agreement in our house deeds (section 52) to protect this space is in the process of being overthrown by yourselves. Absolutely saddening and shocking, shame on you Bracknell Forest Council.

What is a very desirable place to live will become an eyesore if these plans go ahead.

I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this complaint and confirm that it will be logged with the hundreds of others that I am sure you have received.

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Date: 21 October 2013 16:25:52

From: Sent: 21 October 2013 16:26 To: Development Control Subject:

LETTER REGARDING THE AGREEMENT MADE ON BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE LAND IN 1990

My husband and I have been resident in Binfield (Temple Park) since March 2009 and then prior to that in Warfield from 2005 -2009. As I am sure you are aware, Temple Park is directly opposite Blue Mountain Golf Course.

We are writing to you, to formally express our deep concern about the proposed and excessive over development of Binfield and Warfield, which will change this area for ever if allowed to proceed. These concerns are shared by both communities.

Bracknell Forest Council's Site Allocation Plan for this area is totally excessive and takes no account of the existing infrastructure which will be unable to cope with such massive developments.

My key concerns are the proposed development of the Blue Mountain Golf Club, the proposed development of land at Tilehurst Lane with the building of 71 dwellings - planning ref 13/00746/OUT refers, and the proposed development of land South of Foxley Lane and East of Murrell Hill Lane with the building of 67 dwellings - planning ref 13/00784/REM refers. The latter two developments are on top of the SAPD.

The Blue Mountain Golf Course is protected from development by a legal covenant, (Section 52 Agreement) preventing it from being used as anything other than a golf course, sporting facility or as open space for 125 years. Whilst this agreement was entered into in good faith by the past and present owners of the land, alarmingly Bracknell Forest Council (BFC) believe they can simply have this agreement waived to allow housing developments to be built on the land. This is in direct contradiction of the basis on which the land was sold in the first place! BFC have scheduled a meeting on 10th December 2013 where the Executive will be requested to determine whether a covenant in the section 52 agreement dated 16/2/1990 that land should only be used for sporting purposes or as open space should be released/waived. (ISSUE REFERENCE: I043295 refers) ­ see also: http://democratic.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryChronology.aspx?IId=43295&Opt=2

The Executive will be considering a report prepared by the Director of Environment, Culture & Communities which will not be available for the public to review until 5 days before the meeting. I find it incredible that BFC wishes to overturn something it would have been a party to under the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 simply to push through their plans and meet housing targets. This would also set a dangerous precedent for waiving other such agreements in the future - not only in Binfield but across the country. These agreements were put in place for good reasons which have not changed. You should also be aware, that the covenant protecting Blue Mountain is referred to in the title deeds of the properties on Temple Park; numbering some 400.

The Blue Mountain Golf Course is a valuable local facility, not only for golf, but the function rooms, bar and restaurant areas that the clubhouse provides as well as the green space. IF this green space is built on there is no going back and a beautiful, well used facility and green space will be lost forever. Only recently, I read an article in the Binfield Beacon, see attached: http://www.binfieldchurches.org.uk/downloads/BeaconOct2013.pdf which states that the Blue Mountain is "investing a substantial amount of money in its golf course" ­ so why would we want this replaced with 400 houses, 2 schools and the new home for Bracknell Football club? All of which will swamp an infrastructure which is already failing to cope with existing dwellings.

The Tilehurst Lane development adds a further 71 dwellings on a notoriously dangerous corner which is a nightmare to navigate at peak times. Again this development, if allowed to proceed, will wipe out large tracts of green field. It also includes a proposal to relocate the Doctor’s Surgery to the middle of their development, which would mean that anybody wishing to go to see the Doctor would have to travel to Church Lane by car. There is no pedestrian access to the estate and the distance alone would mean that is would not be a walk able for most residents, particularly the elderly.

The Foxley Lane development adds a further 67dwellings off a very small lane which will clog up Binfield village roads.

Please can you do whatever is necessary to stop these developments going through. Undoubtedly the most important is the Blue Mountain Golf Course. If Bracknell needs so many extra houses why not look to convert or demolish the ever growing number of empty office blocks and remove the need to spoil existing green spaces and clog up local roads. Converting offices in Bracknell would also contain the traffic in an area where the infrastructure could be improved to benefit all local areas.

In 1990 at numerous meetings opposing the change of use of this land. It was discussed at length, that the golf course would be a stepping stone for urbanisation. We also witnessed the dismissive comments & sincere promises that with safe agreement/covenant with Bracknell Forest Council in place - Blue Mountain Farmland would always remain GREEN LAND & a strategic gap ­

The development was granted & went ahead. Now years later this recent letter from Luff Development companies just, matter of factly, asks to relinquish this agreement/ covenant & all it stood for. I cannot believe that this could even be entertained. We are meant to live in a society where we can trust those in authority, to stand up for our local environment & uphold agreements made to protect the future of our green spaces.

I trust that I have outlined my objections in sufficient detail and look forward to your response.

Regards

–

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection Date: 21 October 2013 16:15:48

From: Sent: 21 October 2013 15:55 To: Development Control Subject: Objection

Hello,

I am emailing you to voice my objection at the proposal of building on Blue Mountain Golf course. This is such a beautiful area used by golfers, walkers, dog walkers, runners and of course the wildlife. I am appalled at the plan to build over this area of such outstanding beauty. Why cannot you look at tearing down the long term newly built offices that remain empty for years in Bracknell ? These empty offices are a waste of space and could easily be used to create flats and apartments for habitation.

I hope you will take all residents opinions seriously.

Regards,

DISCLAIMER: "The information in this e-mail and any attachment is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original communication. IBS makes no warranty, express or implied, nor guarantees the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of the information contained in this email or any attachment and is not liable for any errors, defects, omissions, viruses or for resultant loss or damage, if any, direct or indirect." From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 AgreementBlue Mountain golf course Date: 22 October 2013 09:07:29

From: Sent: 21 October 2013 19:09 To: Development Control Subject: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 AgreementBlue Mountain golf course

Dear Sir/Madam

I have a strong objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement Blue Mountain Golf course. This is one of the last remaning parts of the town that hasn't already been ruined by the town council. Leave it alone. From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: proposed development on Blue Mountain Date: 22 October 2013 09:07:35

From: Sent: 21 October 2013 20:02 To: Development Control Subject: proposed development on Blue Mountain

To whom it may concern

I would like to express, in the strongest terms, my objections to any plans you have for the Blue Mountain site. My family and I moved to Temple Park in 2003 and we spoke to BFBC to make sure that the golf course at Blue Mountain would remain exactly that but, as usual in these situations, you people think you know best and are attempting to move the goalposts. A covenant protecting that site is actually mentioned in the deeds to ALL Temple Park properties safeguarding the site for at least 125 years.

Think, for once, of the residents of Bracknell. The same residents who moved here because of all the greenery, open spaces and GOLF COURSES! You will probably just glance at this email ( I would expect nothing less) but I sincerely hope you get flooded with responses like this and re-consider any plans you have for that site!

Yours,

An angry and let down Temple Park resident. From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Section 52 removal blue mountain Date: 21 October 2013 16:15:23

-----Original Message----­ From: Sent: 21 October 2013 16:06 To: Development Control Subject: Section 52 removal blue mountain

Hello I am writing to object to the proposed removal of section 52 which stipulated that blue mountain would not be built on for125 years. Surely it is undemocratic to be able to just remove something like this via one vote by a select few people? It is the sort of thing that I would expect of other countries who have certain elements of corruption but I would not have imagined it could happen in UK. I am shocked and saddened that a small area of green space and a sports and social facility used by many is under threat when there must be many other brown field sites available in the borough. Especially when that area was supposed to be protected by law. It makes a mockery of the law and means that noone can be sure when they buy a house that their environment is future-safe whatever the laws in place. Thanks and regards

Sent from my iPhone From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to development of Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 24 October 2013 11:09:48

From: Sent: 23 October 2013 20:16 To: Development Control Subject: Objection to development of Blue Mountain Golf Course

Binfield, Bracknell Berkshire.

We wish to underline our objection to the above. We have written to you many times over the last 25 years during which time the land behind our house was threatened with development. We had hoped that the when Park Farm became a golf course this would protect the gap between Bracknell and Binfield. We use the footpaths for country walks and the withdrawal of the Section 52 Agreement and further development would destroy one of the main reasons we came to live in Binfield.

We also know that further development would put even more pressure on the transport systems. As you are aware it is sometimes almost impossible to drive in and out of Bracknell at peak times. More houses would not help the situation, it will only make it worse and generate more demand for housing.

We would like to see some of the empty office blocks converted to flats - this would be a more useful direction for planners to consider.

Yours sincerely

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: section 53 agreement Date: 23 October 2013 17:17:26

From: Sent: 23 October 2013 15:05 To: Development Control Subject: section 53 agreement

Hello,

This email is to confirm my objection to the proposed removal of the Section 52 Agreement applying at the Blue Mountain Golf course.

To whom it may concern.

Regards

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE AND LAND Date: 24 October 2013 11:05:30

From: Sent: 23 October 2013 18:14 To: Development Control Subject: BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE AND LAND

As a resident of Temple Park we would like to strongly object to the removal of the agreement by Mr Luff when he sold the land to developers to keep this land for recreational usage only for 125 years.

We chose our property based on the golf course and surrounding land being kept as it is.

Please take this email as our objection to this planning application

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course Development Date: 23 October 2013 17:19:17

From: Sent: 23 October 2013 15:23 To: Development Control Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course Development

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I would be very grateful if you could please forward this letter of concern onto the appropriate inspector who is dealing with this matter as we really feel we must all take this opportunity to express our concern about developing Bracknell at this inappropriate time under such dreary economic conditions, to the detriment of the quality of life in the whole of the Borough, with the loss of green spaces that were part of the original New Town concept and our evidence, opinions and ideas being swept aside for ever.

It is important to agree with the principle of settlement boundaries determining where development should take place. But as residents watching the eating away of green space and countryside in Binfield, we need to continue arguing against unnecessary expansion of the settlement into the countryside.

When we moved into the area in 1996 one of the main reasons was that the green spaces in the area were going to add to our quality of life. We now feel that that this is going to be taken away from us and we are going to have no say in the matter. This we feel is totally unfair and inappropriate as we say in this present time.

I am grateful for your time and attention From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 23 October 2013 17:17:17

-----Original Message----­ From: Sent: 23 October 2013 14:59 To: Development Control Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sir

As a resident of Binfield, I am writing to object to your proposed removal of Section 52 of the Agreement, which states that Blue Mountain should remain.

Section 52 is a legal and binding part of the Agreement and you have no authority to remove it. From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Planning Proposal - OBJECTION Date: 24 October 2013 16:20:28

From: Sent: 24 October 2013 14:41 To: Development Control Subject: Blue Mountain Planning Proposal - OBJECTION

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of myself and my husband, we object to the proposed removal of the Section 52 Agreement. We are residents at . As such I believe we have the right to object.

Please let me know if we need to supply any further details.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of a legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 28 October 2013 09:11:50

From: Sent: 25 October 2013 18:53 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to the removal of a legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to you as a resident of Temple Park, where I have lived with my family for 17 years. One of the main reasons I bought my house was its proximity to the open spaces on the other side of Temple Way and I have become a regular user and member of the golf course.

As you are no doubt aware, Bracknell Forest Council signed an agreement with Luff Developments Ltd in 1990 to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course or open space for 125 years. You will also be aware that this Section 52 agreement was a condition of the planning permission for Temple Park. It is referred to in the title deeds of my property as a covenant, which stipulates:

“1. Not to use the Golf Course Land for any purpose other than as a golf course for the provision of sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the Golf Course Land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the uses mentioned in this paragraph”

Removal of this covenant to satisfy the greed of the developers will not only destroy the rural environment around Binfield but also alter the title deeds of my property. The Section 52 Agreement was put in place and enforced by the Council to provide a community facility for residents, an area of open space and to preserve a green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed the agreement on my behalf. That you are now even considering removing it beggars belief and is in my view an absolute disgrace. What is the point of a legal agreement if you can just tear it up when it becomes convenient? Where is my say in this? Why have I not been written to by the Council as a home owner whose deeds state that the covenant is in place?

I wish to put on record that as the owner of a house in Temple Park, I strongly object to this removal of the Section 52 agreement. Furthermore I do not support your using taxpayer’s money to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. Yours faithfully,

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Development of land at Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 28 October 2013 09:12:49

From: Sent: 26 October 2013 11:07 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Development of land at Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my objection to the removal of a legal agreement to protect Blue Mountain Golf Course. The agreement that Bracknell Forest Council signed with Luff Developments stipulated that the land at Blue Mountain would remain a golf course or open space for 125 years ­ and was a condition of the planning permission for Temple Park. This agreement is referenced in the title deeds of my house on Boltons Lane.

I have not been consulted on this proposed change which may affect the legal title I hold for this property. When it was signed in February 1990 there were sound reasons for the Section 52 agreement including a community facility for residents and preservation of the green gap between Bracknell and Binfield. These reasons remain sound and I object to the fact that this agreement might be waived at the convenience of the Council.

I was one of the first residents to move into a property on Temple Park and its proximity to the Blue Mountain Golf Course, natural wooded areas to walk, cycle and jog, were key reasons to select this area. It is not right (or fair) that Bracknell Forest Council now wishes to renege on this agreement to build more houses. I urge you to rethink your plans.

Yours faithfully. Lesley Hoban

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 28 October 2013 09:12:31

From: Sent: 26 October 2013 14:09 To: Development Control Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course

I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed development of Blue Mountain Golf Course.

Building on this land would remove the only existing green area between Bracknell and Binfield, in effect making Binfied a suburb of Bracknell. The area is going to be incredibly over subscribed for Drs and schools, let alone the impact on the already chaotic road situation. The area is home to a wide variety of wildlife who will be adversely affected by this development, including the deer which are regularly seen in the area, foxes, badgers and birds.

It seems somewhat ludicrous to relocate Bracknell football club, from its current position, in Bracknell, to Binfield.

The golf club is a recreational area which will be required even more so when all the other proposed developments in the area go ahead. The area should be maintained in its current state.

Please confirm that this email has been lodged as an objection

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: OBJECTION: Removal of Legal Agreement Protecting Blue Mountain Golf Club Date: 28 October 2013 09:12:25

From: Sent: 26 October 2013 13:48 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: OBJECTION: Removal of Legal Agreement Protecting Blue Mountain Golf Club

Good afternoon,

Please accept this e mail as my total objection to you considering the removal of the existing legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Club.

I understand that the history of this legal agreement is as folllows:

Bracknell Forest Council signed an agreement with Luff Developments Ltd in 1990 to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course or open space for 125 years. This agreement was a condition of the planning permission for Temple Park and is known as a Section 52 Agreement. The Council is now set on removing this agreement because they have allocated the site for a huge housing development, 2 schools and Bracknell Town Football stadium.

I live in Temple Park, and this agreement is referred to in the title deeds of my property as a covenant, which stipulates:

“1. Not to use the Golf Course Land for any purpose other than as a golf course for the provision of sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the Golf Course Land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the uses mentioned in this paragraph”

Removal of this covenant will not only destroy the rural environment around Binfield but also alter the title deeds of our property.

Other points of objection I have are;

1. 1 have not been consulted on a proposed change, which may affect the legal title we hold. 2. One of the main reasons we bought our property was due to its proximity to the golf course and open space. 3. The property was sold to us with the covenant in place and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed. 4. I understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years). 5. The Borough Council and County Council (at the time) signed an agreement on my behalf and there is no reason why this should change. 6. My council tax money should not be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. 7. It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. 8. Building on the golf course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views, tranquility, and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

As Head of Development Management I urge you to please maintain the Section 52 agreement and therefore the covenant on my title deeds which protects Blue Mountain Golf Course.

Kind regards, From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to removal of Section 52 Agreement - Temple Park Date: 28 October 2013 09:12:20

From: Sent: 26 October 2013 12:40 To: Subject: Objection to removal of Section 52 Agreement - Temple Park

Dear Sir/Madam, Ref: Removal of Section 52 Agreement Temple Park, Binfield , Bracknell, Berkshire I wish to object to the proposed removal of Section 52 Agreement for Temple Park being made by Bracknell Forest Council. I have lived on Temple Park since 1995, in three different properties within the same estate. The main reason for staying on this estate was to bring up my two children in a safe green open spaced environment which was provided by the existing copses and the proximity to Blue Mountain Golf Course. To date, I like all the other residents on Temple Park have not been consulted individually on the proposed change to the Section 52 Agreement which was in place when I purchased my first property. With the covenant in place, I would not agree or expect it to be changed or removed by Bracknell Forest Council. I definately would not agree to it being changed myself and so do object to its removal. I understand that the Section 52 Agreement is in place now to protect Blue Mountain from any development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years). I also do not support the tax payers money being used to break a legal agreement which was signed on my behalf to protect this land from development. It is not right that the same owner who signed the original agreement to protect the land of Blue Mountain now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. Building on the golf course would be detrimental to my own personal enjoyment of the open space as I walk regularly around this area. The views and tranquility of having this green area would be in serious jeopardy if building of these houses, two schools and Bracknell Town Football club were to go ahead. Also road congestion, pollution and noise would be a major factor in being within close proximity to Blue Mountain. I hope you will acknowlege my own personal objection as outlined above to this ludicrous proposal. Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Saving Blue Mountain Date: 28 October 2013 09:12:49

-----Original Message----­ From: Sent: 26 October 2013 12:25 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Saving Blue Mountain

To the Head of Development Management.

I am writing to you with regards to the Development discussions put forward for Blue Mountain Golf Course.

I have lived here for thirteen years, and one of the main reasons for choosing here was for the environment, the tranquility, the view from my bedroom window of fields and when you walk to the village the lovely view of the fields, and often deer at certain times of the day. The wildlife is special. I am very angry at this proposal as it was agreed that this land would remain as a recreational space for the remainder of the agreement. The signed agreement between The Borough Council and or the County Council at that time.

Now the same owner who signed the agreement is now allowed to break a legal agreement. We realise this is about money, and make no mistake most of these battles for land are always about money at the end of the day. But if we broke an agreement, we would be prosecuted at the most. So why should this person be allowed to change his mind, at a cost to not himself, but to the community as a whole.

Traffic in this small area is already and has been for some time an issue. This will of course increase, along with pollute and noise levels. And of course Councils and Government will again fail us as they so often do. This Section 52 Agreement was put in place to protect Blue Mountain from development for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years).

So at the end of this letter I ask you to inform me as a resident of Temple Park. The Council will benefit largely and of course the owner. But what will we gain the people of Binfield. Will we have any reduction in council tax. NO all we will be left with is a complete change and disruption in our lives as we now know it. And what is a pleasant and happy place to live unbearable and that is my main objection to the Councils proposal.

Why build more houses, there are so many empty offices that have over the years been built and remained empty. They could be converted into flats and used instead of building more houses. We need work opportunities to be in the area first, and the people that live and have lived in the area for years to be able to be housed and have facilities. Not new estates using every bit of green land we have. But most of all this owner and yourselves need to stick to the Agreement made. From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to building on Blue Mountain / removal of the section 52 agreement Date: 28 October 2013 09:12:55

From: Sent: 26 October 2013 18:39 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to building on Blue Mountain / removal of the section 52 agreement

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to communicate my strong objection to the proposed removal of the section 52 agreement with plans to build on the land at Blue Mountain.

One of the main reasons we purchased a house in Bracknell and particularly in Temple Park was the open space and proximity to the golf course.

In addition we had the piece of mind that this would remain in place for at least our lifetime as per the section 52 agreement .

We are extremely disappointed to hear the council are now looking to tear up the protection agreement they put in place for the good of local people and to attract people to the area.

We, like many others, based our choice of where to bring up our families on the principles the planning department had at the time that seem to now be being swept aside and would strongly like to urge the council to reconsider and look at alternative options.

Understand the need for more housing but surely there are alternative spaces in the area for such development.

Bracknell has made great steps forward (e.g. College rebuild a few years ago, Garth School rebuild, Waitrose and the Peel Centre development, Town Centre current regeneration etc.) but surely taking away one of its treasured open spaces and highly regarded leisure facilities is a step backwards for Bracknell and its future rather than a step forward.

Yours sincerely

From: Development Control To: Subject: FW: Objection to the proposed development of Blue Mountain, Bracknell Date: 28 October 2013 09:13:10

From: Sent: 27 October 2013 12:00 To: Subject: Objection to the proposed development of Blue Mountain, Bracknell

From,

(Home owners - - since 2002)

We formally object to the Council's proposal to redevelop the Blue Mountain Complex to a housing complex, 2 schools and a football stadium for the following reasons ­

The main reason we bought this property was because of its close proximity to the golf course and open space. A Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and states that it cannot be used for any purpose other than golf and recreation for the remaining 102 years of this Agreement. We purchased this property with the covenant in place and this should not be amended or removed I have not been consulted on the proposed change which, if it proceeds, will affect the legal title I hold.

Please accept this as our formal objection to the the respective Council's plans to renege on the legally binding Section 52 Agreement which protects Blue Mountain's status as a Golf and Recreational Complex.

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to Blue Mountain Development Date: 28 October 2013 09:13:15

From: Sent: 27 October 2013 12:16 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to Blue Mountain Development

As residents of Temple Park for the last 12 years we are writing to express our objection to the proposed development on the Blue Mountain Golf Course. The sanctity of all our open spaces and commitment made to their preservation was a key factor in our decision to move to and remain in the area and to find that the council not only initially proposed to develop on one of the more attractive areas but in addition is ignoring all the objections and proposing to backtrack on the section 52 agreement from 1990 is alarming.

We object to this development proposal on multiple grounds including: · It violates one of the key reasons we chose to move to and remain on Temple Park – the open space, recreational facilities, protected green areas and tranquillity · To the last point the impact to traffic from building works and subsequent additional volume of residents, notwithstanding the morning school traffic and football stadium traffic is an unreasonable burden on existing residents · Similarly the noise impact of the stadium is not acceptable for this tranquil area and in addition to the traffic will make the area less attractive to the very people it most benefits from as residents – the above average number of higher tax paying professionals. · There is still over a century to run on the section 52 agreement signed by the council, reversing this agreement is a breach of commitment from our council, isn’t in keeping with the morals we would expect and we object to our funds being used to defend this decision · Finally the breach of trust that comes from receiving significant objection to this proposal yet engaging counsel to challenge the councils own section 52 agreement illustrates we are served by a council that isn’t representing the very people they are engaged to serve.

Please lodge our objection in addition to the others you have received and recognise that we are joining our voices and funds with the Preserve Blue Mountain appeal. Once again recognise that as long term residents, voters and high rate taxpayers in Binfield we strongly object to having to spend our time and funds in dispute with our own council over a development the residents are objecting to.

From: Alex Jack To: Nigel Moore Subject: FW: OBJECTION TO REMOVAL OF SECTION 52 AGREEMENT - BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE Date: 28 October 2013 09:24:22

From: Sent: 27 October 2013 18:21 To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: OBJECTION TO REMOVAL OF SECTION 52 AGREEMENT - BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE

Dear Sir / Madam

I wish to raise my objections to the proposed change of use for the Blue Mountain Golf Course and the dissolution of the Section 52 Agreement that appertains thereto. My reasons are:

· This act constitutes a material change to a condition of contract and is therefore unlawful · I have not been consulted on a proposed change, which may affect the legal title you hold. · One of the main reasons that I bought your property was due to its proximity to the golf course and open space. · The property was sold to me with the covenant in place and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed. · I understand that a Section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course , open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years) . · The County Council and thereby its successor authority Bracknell Forest Borough Council, signed an agreement on my behalf and there is no reason that this should change. · I do not support that taxpayer 's money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. · It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. · Building on the golf course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views , tranquillity, and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell · There are many other “brown field” sites available for this purpose, and it is incumbent upon the authority to utilise these first before removing covenanted land and an area of high amenity value. · In spite of massive objections to consultation on this site by the Council in 2009, the Council has decided to ignore the views of residents and include this site in its adopted Local Plan this year. · This action is not in the spirit of the Governments commitments to local community participation and consultation

I have copied this email to the local MP Mr Adam Afriyie and to the Borough Solicitor and the Development Control Department.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue Mountain development Date: 28 October 2013 09:13:36

-----Original Message----­ From: Sent: 27 October 2013 17:55 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain development

Dear Sirs,

I would like to voice my objection to the development planned for the Blue Mountain golf course. I understood that there was a Section 52 Agreement in place to protect this land from development for 102 years. Furthermore I cannot understand how The Borough Council and County Council can sign this agreement and then decide to rescind it at their will. The golf course provides a natural break between Bracknell and Binfield and any such change will affect our enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreational facilities and views provided to Binfield and Temple Park residents. yours sincerely From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue Mountain Golf Course development objection! Date: 28 October 2013 09:13:20

-----Original Message----­ From: Sent: 27 October 2013 12:29 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain Golf Course development objection!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to make my objection to the removal of a legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course to build a new development of homes, school and football ground.

My objections for the councils proposal of removing section 52 agreement which is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development are as follows:

- I have not been consulted on a proposal change which may affect the legal title which me and my partner hold. - The main reason I bought my property is due to it's proximity to the golf course and open space and makes this one of the most desired locations around, we would much prefer to overlook a beautiful well maintained peaceful golf course rather than an ugly new development of houses, cars, school and football ground which will bring high levels of noise to this peaceful area! - I bought my property with the covenant in place and I strongly disagree that it should be changed or removed - I understand that a section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining 102 years remaining on the agreement. - At the time the agreement was signed by the Borough Council and County Council on my behalf so there is absolutely no reason why this should change. - I do not support the tax payers money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which was to protect this land from development. - It is not right nor politically correct the same owner who signed this agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build some houses. - Building on the golf course will affect mine and the community of Temple Park's enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation/community facilities, views, tranquility and the current free gap between Binfield and Bracknell. - The damage to the environment also is extravagant as not only during this potential building development but the long term of over 400 houses, which will commonly be approx 1000 cars, plus a school and football club which will bring more vehicles an footfall to a small area.

So i am extremely against the breaking of Section 52 Agreement which is in place to protect Blue Mountain Golf Course.

Regards resident of Temple Park.

Sent from my iPhone From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to removal of the Section 52 agreement for Blue Mountain GC Date: 28 October 2013 09:13:47

From: Sent: 27 October 2013 19:55 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to removal of the Section 52 agreement for Blue Mountain GC

Dear Sirs,

I would like to object to the removal of the Section 52 agreement for Blue Mountain Golf Course. The section 52 agreement that was dated 16th February 1990, was put in place and enforced by the council to provide a community facility for residents, an area of open space and to preserve a green space between Binfield and Bracknell.

My family and I recently bought a house in and one of the reasons we bought the house was due to Blue Mountain golf course: I'm a keen golfer, and we loved the close proximity to open spaces, especially as we have a dog.

Myself and many other local residents strongly oppose your intention to attempt to renege on the aforementioned 1990 (section 52) legal agreement for a number of reasons: - As previously mentioned, we deliberately bought our house 5 months ago, so we could access Blue Mountain GC for a number of reasons. - Our house has a covenant in place in the title deeds stipulating that "1. Not to use the golf course for any other purpose other than as a golf course...". The property was sold to me on this basis, and I do not agree to this covenant being changed or removed. Furthermore, I will support the BVPS and other local residents to protest against the removal of this agreement and fight it legally. - Furthermore, I do not support my own council in using monies provided to it by its own residents, to spend on legal fees to attempt to break the aforementioned section 52 legal agreement. - Building on this land will severely affect my families quality of life, as it will restrict our access to open space and leisure facilities, will increase congestion & pollution in our immediate local area, and could well affect our ability to sell our home or affect the valuation of our house (even the current uncertainty will affect this situation, so I appeal to the council to drop this legal challenge and instead focus on less contentious areas for development).

Please accept this email as my official objection to this action. Please reconsider your standing on this situation, and instead continue to preserve this land for future generations.

Kind regards.

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: DEVELOPMENT OF BLUE MOINTAIN GOLF CLUB SITE -OBJECTION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SECTION 52 AGREEMENT Date: 28 October 2013 09:13:30

From: Sent: 27 October 2013 16:30 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: DEVELOPMENT OF BLUE MOINTAIN GOLF CLUB SITE -OBJECTION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SECTION 52 AGREEMENT

Dear Sir,

As residents of Temple Park, we are extremely worried at the turn of events in this area, after the announcement by Bracknell Forest Council in 2009 that the Blue Mountain Golf complex was under serious consideration for development, whereby a huge housing complex, two schools and a football pitch and stadium would take the place of one of the few remaining green and recreational areas around Bracknell, Binfield and Wokingham.

We were one of the first owners of houses in the second stage of this development purchasing the Victoria showhouse immediately opposite the Golf Course in 1994. We purchased the property primarily for the open outlook and pleasant surrounds. We were told at the time (by Bryants, the builders) that there was no danger of the land opposite ever being built on, because there was a legal agreement between the owners (Luffs) and Bracknell Forest Council that the land would never be built on – in fact a Covenant stipulating this fact was in our title deeds. Surely as the owners of a property so close to the area involved we should have been consulted before plans had reached this point. We find it unjustifiable that legal documents can be so easily revoked - thereby negating all previous plans. This was supposed to have protected our property for the remaining 102 years. Apart from ruining the outlook at the front of the property the whole area will be changed in that there will be no green areas between Bracknell, Binfield and Wokingham, - leading to continuous development between all three places. BVPS and the Blue Mountain Campaign are trying their hardest to overturn plans which should never have been in place in the first instance due to the legal position, but we as residents are extremely angry and worried by the recent turn of events. We cannot understand how a legal document can so easily be overturned. All those living around the golf course I am sure are of the same opinion.

Yours faithfully From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue Mountain and my Home Date: 28 October 2013 09:13:03

From: Sent: 27 October 2013 11:40 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain and my Home

FAO: Head of development management, Bracknell forest council. CC:

In July LAST year (2012), I purchased As part of that process Bracknell Forest Council responded to a CON29 form dated 24th May 2012 which stated under 1.2 Planning designations and proposals that NO proposals were in place for Regional spatial strategy The South East (May 2009), Bracknell Forest Borough Local development framework core strategy (2008), Particular Policy Designations or Saved policies from the Bracknell Forest Borough Plan (Jan 2002). There were no other polices or proposals detailed.

The property information form from the sellers stated that they were not aware of any proposed development nearby.

How is it then that you are planning on building a mini town less than 200m away from my home? Was I lied to in the legal searches document that you sent to my solicitor last year?

Removing a section 52 (now 106) agreement makes a complete mockery of it being agreed in the first place. It was put there to make sure the land wasn’t built on and until it expires it should remain so.

I bought my house due to its close location to a protected open space. That is what it should remain – PROTECTED.

The environmental search pointed out that there is a risk of surface water flooding within 250 m of my property. Removing natural drainage land and replacing it with tonnes of tarmac will only exacerbate the risk.

There has so far been no public consultation on this. One could be forgiven for thinking that the council are trying to keep these plans under wraps until it is too late for the people who actually live around Blue Mountain to do anything about it.

You are planning on using my taxes to try and break a LEGAL agreement. I totally disagree with this and see it as a criminal waste of money in the current economic climate.

Building on Blue Mountain will remove our local open space, destroy the gap between Binfield and Bracknell and make what are already badly congested roads even worse. What with the proposed development of Amen Corner and the enormous one at Warfield it would change my house from a lovely, tranquil dwelling to a busy area with the feeling of the inner city sprawl and traffic jams to match.

Please stop wasting our money, threatening our way of life and making a mockery of the legal system and stop trying to build on a protected space.

I look forward to your answers to my questions.

Yours sincerely

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue mountain golf course Date: 29 October 2013 10:56:20

FYI

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 18:37 To: Development Control Subject: Fwd: Blue mountain golf course

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: < Date: 28 October 2013 18:32:19 GMT To: "[email protected]" Cc:

Subject: Blue mountain golf course

I am writing to oppose the plans to build on the Blue Mountain Golf course.I have lived opposite the golf course for 13 years and one of the reasons we purchased the property was the fact that it was surrounded by green areas, including a golf course which we use and walk around. It was my understanding at the time we purchased the property that there was a covenant on the Blue Mountain Golf course, and that it could not be built on. It is with great dismay that I now find that despite a section 52 agreement being in place to protect the Blue Mountain Golf course, it appears that the law can be disregarded on a whim by councils. I find it totally immoral as both a law abiding citizen and a tax payer that when they deem fit a council, elected by us, can disregard its electorate, and overturn a legal agreement at our cost. Even more disturbing is the fact that they are prepared to site a football stadium in the middle of a residential area!!! I would never have purchased a property in close proximity to a football stadium.

Regards Sent from my iPad From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection - Removal of Section 52 Agreement relating to Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 28 October 2013 15:11:11

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 13:48 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection - Removal of Section 52 Agreement relating to Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sirs

As a Temple Park resident I strongly object to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement above as a matter principle and would therefore be grateful if you could please explain:

1. What was the exact purpose of the Agreement of 125 years dated 1990 signed by yourselves and Luff Developments? 2. How is the removal of this legal Agreement possible? 3. Why have I not been consulted regarding this proposed change which would affect the Title of my property?

I await your comments.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: (no subject) Date: 28 October 2013 13:35:16

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 13:10 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: (no subject)

Blue Mountain Golf Course - Removal of Section 52 Agreement

I wish to inform you that both myself and my wife wish to object to the proposal to remove this agreement on the following grounds:­

1. There has been a distinct lack of consultation on this proposal which could affect the legal title that we hold.

2. The reason that we selected our property was that it was in a village with a distinct identity from the town of Bracknell.

3. We do not agree that the covenant that attaches to our property should be arbitrarily changed or removed.

4. We understand that there is a Section 52 Agreement in place to protect Blue Mountain Golf Course from development other than as a golf course or recreational purposes for 102 years.

5. There is no valid reason why the agreement which was signed by the Borough Council and the County Council should be changed.

6. It is not a proper use of taxpayers money for it to be used to break this agreement which was signed on our behalf to protect this land from development.

7. It is immoral that the property developer who signed the agreement not to develop this land should now be allowed to break a legally binding agreement and build more houses in order to increase his profit.

8. Building on the golf course will affect the views that we currently enjoy; it will affect the recreational pleasure that we currently enjoy as golfers and will destroy the gap that currently exists between Bracknell and Binfield.

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Blue Mountain ­ Date: 28 October 2013 13:35:22

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 13:32 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Blue Mountain ­

Dear sir,

I am writing to officially logged my objections to the removal of the legal agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course.

I raised this objection based on the legal title deeds of my property which states:

1. Not to use the Golf course land for any other purpose other than as a golf course for the provision of sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the Golf course land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the uses mentioned in this paragraph.

It is my understanding that this would make it illegal to remove this legal agreement, of which I would like you to confirm in writing?

This property was sold to me on the 30th March 2012 with the covenant in place and I do not believe that legally this can be removed without adequate consultation or legal discussion.

We moved to this area based on the tranquil environment and to be away from a large built up area. I believe the building of any development on this land would affect my enjoyment of the area and may make me consider relocating to another area.

I look forward to receiving clarification of my points above in writing. Yours sincerely

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 agreement - Blue Mountain Binfield Date: 29 October 2013 10:55:43

FYI

From: at Sent: 28 October 2013 23:08 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 agreement - Blue Mountain Binfield

Head of Development Management

Bracknell forest Council

Environment, Culture & Communities Department

Dear Sir,

I purchased my house in Temple Park in March 2013. The Title Deeds of the property include a covenant that stipulates that the (Blue Mountain) Golf Course Land will not be used for any purpose other than as a golf course … or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the Golf Course Land other than … in connection with any of the uses mentioned in (that) paragraph.

If you decide to remove this agreement then you will be in breach of this covenant. I will take this very personally and seek legal advice.

In addition I object to this development on the following grounds:

1. I have not been advised by the council what compensation will be paid if the legal title of my property is changed without my agreement.

2. I bought the property in Temple Park because of its peace and quiet with a large green buffer zone between Bracknell and Binfield.

3. I bought the property with the covenant already in place and I do not agree to it being changed or removed without discussions with my legal representative.

4. If you are able to remove the Section 52 Agreement, and the protection it gives to Blue Mountain, as a golf course or open space for recreational use for the remainder of the agreement then presumably you are able to do this with any other legal agreements you continue to make, including those with the developers and retailers in the new Bracknell town centre development.

5. The Borough Council and the then County Council signed an agreement on my behalf and you should have the political backbone and strength of character to honour that agreement for the entire 125 years and not just the first 23 or whenever it suits you.

6. I strongly object to MY Council Tax being used against me to break a legal agreement signed on MY behalf to protect this land from development.

7. It is morally reprehensible that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now proposes to break the same agreement to build more houses on the golf course.

8. Building on the course will impact directly on my enjoyment of the lovely open spaces and facilities at Blue Mountain. I use the clubhouse for social events and enjoy the peace and quiet of the views when walking. It is also important to have a green gap between Binfield and Bracknell. What next, annex Wokingham as part of Greater Bracknell?

As there is no upcoming election where an ordinary member of the public can really make their voice heard, I fully expect this email to be ignored.

However I can assure you the outcome of this issue will be closely followed by me and my fellow neighbours. Any personal impact on both my property and my enjoyment of the area will be addressed appropriately. Including legal action in breach of the covenant, expressions of public disagreement with the councils attitude towards local Council taxpayers and civil disobedience towards a local council who have no understanding of the political process; whereby you are in jobs because you are paid by local Council Taxpayers to represent the best interests of ALL those who live and work in the area. Not just the developers who no doubt have promised all sorts of financial incentives to the Council to encourage you to allow this development to go ahead.

Sincerely, From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Development on Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 29 October 2013 10:56:01

FYI

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 19:51 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Development on Blue Mountain Golf Course

Dear Sir/Madam

We are contacting you to register our strong objection and dismay at the proposal that the Council overturn the Section 52 Agreement which was put in place to protect the land at Blue Mountain as an open space.

Our decision to move to Binfield in 2003 was hugely influenced by the village feel and individual identity which is largely maintained due to the separation from Bracknell provided by the green space of the golf course. Due to Section 25 Agreement, we understood that this would not change during our lifetime and that this land could not be used for anything other than as a recreational or open space until 2115.

We therefore feel extremely betrayed and upset to discover that plans are under way to reverse the agreement. There can be no doubt that Binfield will lose the separate identity and community spirit which we treasure so strongly. We worked and saved hard in order to afford our home here, and the possibility that this important aspect of our home may be lost is most distressing. We recognise that planning developments are not based on the impact for individuals, but in this case we, and probably many of our neighbours, placed our faith in what appeared to be a solid legal protection, to make one of the biggest decisions of our life - the home we planned on living the rest of our lives in. The proposed decision to renege on this agreement completely compromises the integrity of those who participated in the original agreement and we are struggling to believe that it is possible to legally overturn this so easily.

In addition, we have previously raised our very serious concern regarding the impact of the increase in traffic on the B3408. We have yet to be even faintly convinced that the plans to manage the increase in traffic are remotely adequate. I travel on the Loddon Bridge Park and Ride on a regular basis to get to work. It currently can take up to 15 minutes to travel about half a mile from the end of St Marks Road to the Coppid Beech (the whole trip to the Park and Ride takes less than this outside of the the rush hour). It is already intended to add a number of houses at Amen Corner which will feed into this situation. To add in further traffic from the Blue Mountain land is going to make the morning commute to work completely ridiculous and potentially untenable.

The public consultation regarding the development plans were a complete farce. There was obviously never any genuine interest in the views of the local residents or intention to consider local concerns. The astonishing quantity and complexity of documentation put forward during the consultation was clearly designed to be as impenetrable as possible, and we are struggling to see this as anything other than a blatant attempt to minimise the number of formal objections lodged by making the task of reviewing, understanding and responding to the proposal impossibly daunting for the majority of residents.

In summary, we are thoroughly disgusted and disillusioned that the Council is considering betraying the trust of the local people in this way.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course Date: 28 October 2013 11:10:40

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 11:04 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to the removal of the Section 52 agreement protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course

To Whom It May Concern;

I write to express my strongest objection to the proposed removal of the Section 52 agreement protecting the Blue Mountain Golf Course.

My understanding is that the remaining duration of the agreement is 102 years and that this is intended to protect Blue Mountain from development and that it cannot be used for any other purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreation space for the remaining duration. I maintain that the Borough Council signed an agreement at the time on behalf of myself, the previous owners and any future residents to protect this space and I do not believe there is reason for this to change nor do I support any such proposal.

This agreement is referred to in the title deeds of my property as a covenant and stipulates:

'Not to use the Golf Course Land for any purpose other than as a golf course for the provision of sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the Golf Course Land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the use mentioned in this paragraph'

Removal of this covenant will not only destroy the rural environment around Binfield but also alter the title deeds of my property. I have not been consulted on any proposed change, nor do I give permission for any alteration to be made to any legal title I hold. Any such change could have a detrimental affect to both the desirability of my property and its market value, and at no time have I been consulted in this regard or any form of compensation been offered.

One of the main reasons we purchased our property was due to the proximity of the golf course and open space, secured by the knowledge that a legally binding covenant was in place protecting Blue Mountain Golf Course and the open area from development. Our property was sold to us with this covenant in place and I do not agree to it being changed or removed.

I am appalled that Tax payers money should be used to break such a legal agreement and believe this undermines the principles behind such an agreement, setting precedent for further such abuse by Bracknell Council to break other agreements within the Borough. There is no justification that Bracknell Council should be enabled to break a legal agreement such as this and it makes a mockery of any ability of the council to enforce such a covenant elsewhere in the Borough. I submit that it should not be allowed for any such entity to on one side be responsible for enforcing legal requirements such as covenants, planning permission or building regulations, yet on the other be allowed to dismiss or ignore rules, regulations and legally binding covenant to suit their current agenda.

The proposal by Bracknell Council to break such an agreement, of which they were the enforcer and agreeing party, is at best hypocritical. The morally bent decision to renege on such a covenant appears to be fuelled by financial greed and self agenda rather than consideration of the view, wishes and objections voiced by the community for whom Bracknell Borough Council purports to represent. The proposed movement of Bracknell Town Football Stadium for example should and can be seen for what it is, a financially driven move to relocate to cheaper real estate, freeing the more expensive land within the town centre for further development.

Removing the agreement and allowing any development on the Blue Mountain Golf Course will affect the enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreation facilities, views, tranquillity and the current green gap between Binfield and Bracknell and should not be allowed.

With utmost objection,

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to proposed removal of Section 52 Agreement Date: 29 October 2013 10:57:04

FYI

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 16:53 To: Development Control Subject: Objection to proposed removal of Section 52 Agreement

Dear Sir, I would hereby like to lodge my objection to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement with respect to the Blue Mountain Golf Course. I would make it clear that this is the only one of the many housing developments proposed over the next decade in spite of the fact that it will mean the total urbanisation of a once rural environment. I do not understand why a Conservative council is so intent on compounding the failures of the previous Government to protect us from excessive immigration which has been shown to have brought no benefit to the incumbent population, i.e. no improvement in GDP per capita. It has merely placed an enormous strain on public services. I understand that Dr. Lee has asserted that all these houses are required by the people of Bracknell. I would be surprised if more than 30% of the houses will become occupied by Bracknollians. For example, the couple across the road from me have decided to jump ship and make for the wide open spaces of Lancashire; the people who have bought their house are coming from Hounslow! The purchasers of the newly developed houses will commute to London or Reading, unless, that is, they are shop assistants, because Bracknell is losing businesses at an alarming rate; Siemens, BMW, production at Boehringer Ingelheim, Quintiles, Dell, downsizing at Hewlett Packard. Thank goodness for Waitrose. The argument that we have too many golf courses can only be raised by a non-golfer. The municipal Downshire course attracts too many novices and rounds can often take 5 hours to complete if you have the patience. Blue Mountain attracts serious, generally capable golfers. I remember how people used to queue at Downshire before daylight before Blue Mountain was created. Billingbear is a nine-hole course, Birdhills is sadly unattractive and boring compared with BM, Windlesham is £1,800 a year. Our councillors should be protecting the interests of those who elected them instead of ploughing ahead with total disregard to them. I am heartily sick of all these phony consultations. I am disappointed that more councillors have not defected to UKIP. I am sure that the blatant incursions into the green belt throughout the country, e.g. HS2 (which I am confident will not come to fruition), will cost the Conservatives dear. Nick Boles is a great vote-loser. To sum up, I object to the removal of the aforesaid agreement.

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Land at Blue Mountain, Binfield Date: 29 October 2013 10:56:50 Attachments: Blue Mountain.doc

FYI

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 17:12 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Land at Blue Mountain, Binfield

Dear Sirs, Please consider the attached letter relating to the proposed development at Blue Mountain.

Yours faithfully

28 October 2013

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

Dear Sir or Madam

Land at Blue Mountain, Binfield (The Section 52 Agreement dated 16 February, 1990)

We wish to object most strongly to the proposed development on the land at Blue Mountain. This is land protected by a Section 52 agreement dated 16/2/1990 and signed by the Council on behalf of the residents of Binfield. We have never been consulted over changes to this agreement and we certainly do not agree that taxpayers’ money be used by Bracknell Forest Council to break this legal agreement and allocate the land as a site for a huge housing development, two schools and Bracknell Town Football Stadium. The green wedge of land between Binfield and Bracknell would be swallowed up and the village become a suburb of Bracknell.

When Bracknell New Town was built, Berks County Council issued a Binfield Village plan (May 1973) to ensure that the village retained its character as a physically separate settlement. The land at Blue Mountain was identified as important rural land that must be safeguarded from any future development. A golf course was permitted because it provided a recreational facility and would not injure the rural character, wildlife or the landscape quality of the area. When Temple Park was allowed, the Section 52 agreement was signed by Bracknell Forest Borough Council with Luff Developments Ltd to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course or open space for 125 years.

The area at Blue Mountain is enjoyed by many people, young and old. If the area is developed, Binfield residents would lose a beautiful rural location within easy walking distance of the village, a safe area for young children to ride bikes and the elderly to walk and enjoy the wildlife, as well as the golf course, conference centre and driving range, also a valuable community facility.

We would be grateful if you would consider carefully our very strong objection to development on land at Blue Mountain. We have never been consulted on the break in the legal agreement (Section 25 agreement dated 16/2/90) which was signed on behalf of all Binfield residents to protect the land from development for the duration of the agreement (125 years).

Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to Blue Mountain Development Date: 28 October 2013 15:11:01 Importance: High

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 12:58 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to Blue Mountain Development Importance: High

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to confirm the above in the strongest possible manner.

A resident of Temple Park, I moved to the area in 1994.

Originally living in and now for a further 14 years in the location was chosen based on the dynamics of the estate, including size of development, no outlooked future developments due to the agreed and legally confirmed Section 52; in a addition to being a keen golfer. I also value the 'village' and community feel that exists.

I believe the current infrastructure for the area is at maximum capacity, with the significant increase in traffic due to the original plans being altered to allow the bottom end of Temple Way to be opened as a through way. The roundabout at the junction of London Road and Temple Way already see significant congestion.

There has been no direct consultation and I see no rationale for closing a functioning business that currently serves a wide demographic in the local area.

I want to insist that the current Legal Agreement, Section 52, is maintained. I moved to the area and have been heavily involved in the community based on the agreement that Blue Mountain Golf Course and facilities would not under any circumstances, be developed, given the lead coverage as above.

Regards,

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to removal of Section 52 Agreement - Temple Park Date: 28 October 2013 11:49:14

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 11:31 To: Subject: Objection to removal of Section 52 Agreement - Temple Park

Dear Sir/Madam, Ref: Removal of Section 52 Agreement Temple Park, Binfield , Bracknell, Berkshire

We wish to object to the proposed removal of Section 52 Agreement for Temple Park being made by Bracknell Forest Council. We have lived on Temple Park since 2003, where we have 3 young children now. The main reason for moving to Temple Park and our particular plot was the safe green open spaced environment which was provided by the existing copses and the proximity to Blue Mountain Golf Course. We currently have views over the golf course from our house, that was one of the main reasons for purchasing the property. Since we have moved here the temple way road noise levels have increased considerably as all houses from Warfield use the road to join the M4. Having further houses, schools, etc in this location would destroy the beauty of Binfield and produce noise levels to an unacceptable level, not to mention the temple way road danger.

To date, my family and all the other residents on Temple Park have not been consulted individually on the proposed change to the Section 52 Agreement which was in place when we purchased our property. With the covenant in place, we would not agree or expect it to be changed or removed by Bracknell Forest Council. We definitely would not agree to it being changed and so do object to its removal. We understand that the Section 52 Agreement is in place now to protect Blue Mountain from any development and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space or recreational space for the remaining duration of the agreement (102 years). We also do not support the tax payers money being used to break a legal agreement which was signed on my behalf to protect this land from development. It is not right that the same owner who signed the original agreement to protect the land of Blue Mountain now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses. Building on the golf course would be detrimental to my entire family's personal enjoyment of the open space as we walk regularly around this area, we often take our children there too. The views and tranquility of having this green area would be in serious jeopardy if building of these houses, two schools and Bracknell Town Football club were to go ahead. Also road congestion, pollution and noise would be a major factor in being within close proximity to Blue Mountain. I hope you will acknowledge our personal objection as outlined above to this ludicrous proposal. Yours faithfully

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to the removal of the section 52 agreement - Blue Mountain Development Date: 29 October 2013 10:55:16

FYI

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 23:24 To: Development Control; Subject: Objection to the removal of the section 52 agreement - Blue Mountain Development

Hello,

As a resident of Temple Park and a regular user of the Blue Mountain Golf Course I would like to object to the removal of the section 52 agreement for the following reasons:

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

2. One of the main reasons I moved to the Temple Park area was the proximity of the house to the Blue Mountain Golf Course, my wife and I are regular users of both the golf course and the social facilities at the course

3. The property was sold with the covenant regarding the use of the Blue Mountain land in place and I do not agree that it should be changed or removed. I understand that Section 52 agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and it cannot therefore be used for any other purpose than a golf course.

4. I do not support that taxpayers money should be used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf to protect Blue Mountain from development

5. It is not right that the same owner of the land who signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break the agreement in order to profiteer.

6. Building on the golf course and social facilities that I regularly use, will affect my enjoyment of the area, will ruin the views, and tranquillity of the area

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield. Date: 28 October 2013 09:55:17

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 09:33 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield.

Dear Sirs,

I wish to register my objection to the Request to Modify a Planning Agreement dd 16th February 1990 regarding Land at Blue Mountain Golf Course, Binfield as follows:­

1) As a condition of the Planning permission for the Temple Park developement a Section 52 Agreement was put in place to protect Blue Mountain from developement so that it cannot be used for any purpose other than a golf course, open space/ recreational space for a period of 125 years - of which 102 years remain.

2) I do not support the use of taxpayer money being used to break a Legal Agreement,signed on behalf of the Local Residents, by the then Borough & County Councils.

3) Surely it cannot be right that the same Owner who signed the Agreement to protect the Land now wishes to break the Agreement to build more houses etc.

4) Building on the Golf Course will affect the enjoyment of the many residents who make use of the Golf Course, Recreation/Community facilities, Views, Tranquility and the current green gap between Binfield Village an Bracknell.

I trust my views will be fully considered by you.

Yours faithfully,

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. SPAMfighter has removed 1916 of my spam emails to date.

Do you have a slow PC? Try a free scan! From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Development proposals for land at Blue Mountain - Removal of Section 52 agreement Date: 29 October 2013 13:20:32

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 12:24 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Development proposals for land at Blue Mountain - Removal of Section 52 agreement

We wish to raise the strongest possible objection to the BFBC proposal to remove the Section 52 agreement with Luff Developments to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a Golf Course oropen space for 125 years from 1990. As residents of Temple Park who purchased our property from new in 1995 the fact that this agreement was in place was a major factor in our decision to buy this house in preference to others we were considering. Theagreement is referred to in the deeds of our property as a covenant which clearly stipulates that the only building allowed on the site is that which might be reasonably required in connection withsporting or other recreational facilities or as open space. Houses and schools as proposed by BFBC/Luff clearly do not meet this requirement! At no stage in the proposals for development have we been consulted on such a change which may affect the legal title we hold and as we purchased the property with this Section 52 agreement in place do not agree to it being altered in any way and certainly not to it being removed! We were told at the time of purchase that this was a legally binding agreement and was signed by the Borough (and County) Council on behalf of the residents and taxpayers of the borough and object to the same Borough Council now proposing to break it and using taxpayers money to do so! What on earth is the point of parties signing such agreements if the same bodies can then overturn them at will! Building on the golf course land will remove a well used and valuable sports and recreation facility, valuable open space and a wildlife haven. Added to the proposed developments at Cabbage Hill and Amen Corner and the increase in traffic,noise ,pollution etc it will completely ruin life in what is at present a very pleasant area. In addition it will remove what is a major part of the Green Gap Between Bracknell and Binfield and lead to a loss of identity of Binfield as a village. It is clearly not right that the same landowner who signed the original agreement to protect the land should be allowed to break that agreement in order to build more houses It is also clearly not right that BFBC are prepared to ignore the wishes of local residents with this agreement in their property deeds and renege on a promise they also made to protect this land from development.

If this Section 52 agreement is removed we will feel cheated by the council and landowner. Both parties clearly knew this agreement was in place so why did BFBC choose to ignore it when producing the SADP? Why choose this site above other equally suitable ones? In short , the whole way in which this issue has been handled makes us deeply suspicious of the way in which BFBC makes key planning decisions and what influences are at work in the making of those decisions.

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Develpoment of Blue Mountain Golf Club Date: 29 October 2013 15:43:31

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 15:15 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Develpoment of Blue Mountain Golf Club

Sir, This email constitutes a strong objection to the proposed change of deeds of covenant with regard to The Golf course Land, BLUE MOUNTAIN. I would firstly remind you that within the title deeds of my property as a covenant it states “NOT to use the golf course land for any purpose other than as a golf course for the provision of sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space AND NOT TO CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDINGS ON THE GOLF COURSE LAND OTHER THAN AS REASONABLY REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OF THE USES MENTIONED IN THIS PARAGRAPH.”

This is also enshrined within the Section 52 AGREEMENT DATED 16TH FEBRUARY, 1990 AS ENFORCED BY THE COUNCIL.

The following points are also part of my objections; 1) i have not been consulted on the proposed change, which will affect the legal title i hold 2) The property was bought with the knowledge of the it’s proximity to the open space. 3) The section 52 Agreement is in place to protect Blue Mountain from development and it cannot be used for any purpose other than as outlined above for the duration of the agreement, namely a further 102 years 4) The borough Council and County Council both signed this agreement on my behalf and there is no change of circumstances which alter the validity or legal standing of those signed agreements 5)I do not agree that tax payers money is being used to break a legal agreement signed on my behalf which is to protect the aforementioned land from development 6) it is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land now wishes to break that agreement and also seems to be having a significant and inappropriate input to the decision making. 7) The effect of building on this land will affect the enjoyment of open space, sports and recreation facilities, views, tranquillity and the current green gap between Binfield an Bracknell. 8) The manner in which these decisions are being made with a total lack of transparency, public inpout at the meetings, the fact that it does not appear to include all members of the councils is not within the English common law standards of fair legislation and representation of local people and would, i believe be the subject of Freedom of Information request both at local levels and parliamentary levels.

From: Development Control To: Ian Church Subject: FW: Objection to change of Section 52 agreement re Blue Mountain Date: 30 October 2013 08:46:08

FYI

From: Sent: 29 October 2013 18:34 To: Development Control Cc: Subject: Objection to change of Section 52 agreement re Blue Mountain

Dear Head of Development Management

I am writing to strongly oppose the removal of the Section 52 agreement between Blue Mountain and Luff Developments which is to keep the land at Blue Mountain as a golf course or open space for 125 years from 1990.

This agreement was put into place and enforced by the Council to provide an open space and preserve a green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

One of the main reasons I bought my house in Binfield was it's green gap and open space. I do not agree that the taxpayer's money should be used to break a legal agreement which was to protect this land from development. It is not right that the same owner who signed the agreement to protect the land, now wishes to break this agreement in order to build more houses.

Building on the golf course will affect my enjoyment of the open space, sports and recreational facilities, views, tranquillity and most importantly, the green gap between Binfield and Bracknell.

Yours faithfully