Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale
Neighbourhood Plan
STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
CONTENTS
1. Background and Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… p. 3
2. Media, PR and general communications…………………………………………………………… p. 4
2.1 Website…………………………………………………….…………………………………………. p. 4
2.2 Media and PR Activity………………….………………………………………………………. p. 4
2.3 Email Campaign……………………………………………..……………………………………. p. 4
2.4 Social Media …..……………………………………………..……………………………………. p. 5
3. Key Stages of Community Consultations…………………………………………………………… p. 6
3.1 Launch event & consultation Sep/Oct 2011…………………………………………. p. 6
3.2 Vision Consultation Apr/May 2012………………………………………………………. p. 7
3.3 Ascot Rejuvenation Consultation Jul/Nov 2012……………………………………. p. 10
3.4 Options Consultation Dec 2012/Jan 2013 ……………………………………………. p. 12
3.5 Pre‐submission Consultation Summer 2013 ………………………………………… p. 14
3.6 Other engagement ……………………………………………………………………………… p. 15
4. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………… p. 17
APPENDICES Appendix A – MEDIA COVERAGE……………………………………………………………………… p. 18
Appendix B – LAUNCH CONSULTATION ………………………………………………………….. p. 25
Appendix C – VISION CONSULTATION …………………………………………………………….. p. 64
Appendix D – ASCOT CENTRE CONSULTATION ………………………………………………… p. 121
Appendix E – OPTIONS CONSULTATION ………………………………………………………….. p. 169
Appendix F – LIST OF STATUTORY CONSULTEES ……………………………………………… p. 229
Appendix G – PRE‐SUBMISSION CONSULTATION…………………………………………….. p. 231
2 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan has placed community engagement at its heart since its inception in early 2011. The process was started by the Borough Council in a workshop event to gather information and to raise awareness of neighbourhood planning. Shortly afterwards, a Steering Group for the Plan was set up and work began on launching it. The launch event took place in September 2011 and started the process of collecting significant community input with comments solicited from local residents on what they liked about living and / or working here and the areas and issues that concerned them. This input then formed the basis for much of the research and work undertaken by the Steering Group, and the Topic Groups which were set up towards the end of 2011. Two further major consultations followed as well as two additional wide‐scale consultations specifically around a vision for the rejuvenation of Ascot Centre. Our website (ascotandthesunnings.com) has, throughout the entire period, kept everyone informed and up‐to‐date with the progress of the Plan. We have also throughout the entire process engaged regularly and seriously with both parish councils and with the Borough Council. This Statement of Consultation sets out what was undertaken, how the information was analysed and how it was publicised.
3 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
2. MEDIA, PR AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
2.1 Website From the very early days of the Ascot, Sunninghill & Ascot Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group being formed, it was decided that a website was a pivotal element of a communications strategy. www.ascotandthesunnings.com was set up in the spring of 2011. Traffic built steadily over the following few months to reach averages of 1,000+ unique visitors per month. Traffic statistics are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1
Regular updates have kept people informed on the development of the Plan and local residents were encouraged to volunteer to join the team. The website was especially used as a means of encouraging as many people as possible to participate in the community consultations, which worked very well in this respect. The parish council websites have also regularly featured the latest developments on the Plan, especially the community consultations, and the Borough Council has maintained a Plan update page with links directly to our website.
2.2 Media and PR Activity We are fortunate in having an active local media with Ascot (& Bracknell) News and The Villager. Ascot Matters is an important website which promotes information and community events in Ascot and the surrounding area. All have been interested and supportive about our local neighbourhood plan. We have also made maximum possible use of the parish magazines and the Borough Council’s Around the Borough – a publication that goes to all households in the area 3‐4 times a year and is widely read. An extract of some of these publications is included in Appendix A.
2.3 Email campaign At public events and consultations, we invited people to give us their email addresses if they wished to be kept in touch with how the Plan was developing and also to hear about future consultations. Over time, our email list has grown to 600 strong and this mailing list has been used to publicise key stages of the Plan production and invite comments during consultations. We have also widely publicised our email address [email protected] so that people could email us directly about questions and issues they wished to raise. These have all been considered and informed the content of our Plan.
4 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
2.4 Social Media We have set up a Facebook page which has 85 likes and has helped us reach a diverse range of the community, notifying followers with updates of consultation stages and progress of the Plan. This has also served as a forum with some discussions taking place on issues in the Plan. We have also set up two Twitter accounts, one for the neighbourhood plan and one for the Ascot High Street consultations, which were used to notify people of consultation stages. These two pages have 25 and 28 followers respectively.
5 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
3. COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Launch Event Consultation Description
A launch event for the Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan was held at Ascot Racecourse on 28th September 2011. This consultation had two clear purposes: 1) to receive feedback from the community to act as a basis for producing the Plan; and 2) to attract additional members to the group producing the Plan. This meeting was attended by approximately 180 local residents, local press, Borough and Parish Councillors, and by Adam Afriyie, our local MP. Members of the Steering Group were present and were available to answer questions. A presentation was made to all attending explaining what neighbourhood plans are and the process involved in producing one. Display boards were used to stimulate interest and discussion; these included maps and information around the topics of Community, Economy, Environment and Transport. Interested attendees were invited to join the NP team as volunteers on the Topic Groups. Following the event, the display boards were put onto our website, accompanied by an on‐ line survey, which people were invited to complete. A special effort was made to engage with the older pupils at Charters School, our local secondary school, by supplying them hard copies of the survey and inviting them to complete them. Copies of the display boards, along with detailed analysis of the findings, and a copy of the response booklet used are included in the Launch Event Consultation Report in Appendix B.
Publicity & Materials
Much effort went into promoting this launch event, which included a flyer distributed widely. This was handed out in the village centres by members of the neighbourhood plan team and sent out to local businesses and organisations. Considerable press overage was achieved in Ascot News, The Villager, and Ascot Matters encouraging people to attend the event and there was more press coverage after the event, including a spread in the Borough Council’s Around the Royal Borough newspaper. Results & Findings
A total of 172 completed surveys were returned, including 39 from Charters School. A detailed report on all the results is included in Appendix B. This consultation provided a sound basis for proceeding with work on our Plan, but more work would be needed to better define the issues and to identify those that could be tackled in the Plan. The key findings of the consultation were: Housing – the responses received suggested that a mixed approach should be adopted across the area, and should focus on delivering homes near public transport hubs, whilst not harming the character of the area or the green belt where possible. The provision of flats,
6 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
whilst not wholly considered inappropriate, was unpopular and generally considered not to be entirely a fitting way to deliver housing. The delivery of small and medium family houses was the preferred option for delivering new homes. Traffic, congestion, and parking – these three issues were most frequently highlighted as problems in the area in many parts of the survey. This suggests that the alleviation of car‐ related problems should be a central part of this Plan. Leisure pursuits in the natural environment – a common theme in multiple parts of this survey was the importance of the rural environment for leisure pursuits such as walking and cycling. Whilst the area is already blessed with a valuable provision, the Plan should investigate ways to enhance this enjoyment of our rural areas. Village centres – the appearance and the vitality of the village centres were shown to be important to respondents and there was notable desire to improve particularly Ascot village centre in a number of different ways. A summary of the findings was published on our website following the closing date of the consultation on 31st October 2011.
3.2 Vision Consultation
Description
The feedback from the Launch event and consultation was analysed and informed the work undertaken subsequently by the four Topic Groups of Housing & Environment, Economy, The Community, and Transport & Infrastructure. This work included research and data gathering, interviews with various stakeholders, residents, organisations and businesses, and site and area visits and assessments. A decision was made to invite Design Council CABE to help us shape a vision for our area as a key step forward to producing our Plan. Representatives from Built Environment Experts and Design Council CABE attended a number of sessions with the Steering Group and all members of the neighbourhood plan team. They shared with us examples of vision statements for other areas and facilitated a workshop to help us formulate our own. The final form of the vision consultation was a 10‐page document which included a 2‐page questionnaire. This consultation ran for approximately 6 weeks from after 10th April to 20th May 2012. A copy of the Vision Consultation is included in Appendix C as part of the Vision Consultation Final Report.
Publicity & materials
10,000 copies of the Vision paper were printed. A distribution company was appointed to deliver copies to all households and businesses in our neighbourhood plan area and a total of 7,764 copies were circulated. The remaining 2,200 copies were used to hand out in parish offices, libraries and through churches and other organisations. An A4 flyer was produced and was displayed in parish and community notice boards and in a number of retailers’ windows. A press pack was issued and press coverage was secured in Ascot Matters and The Villager.
7 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
The consultation was promoted on our website, which was also a primary vehicle for inviting responses to the Questionnaire. An email was sent out to 111 people who had registered their interest in the neighbourhood plan and had given us their email addresses. A second email was sent out to inform them that the results to the consultation were available to be accessed on the website; this email went to 286 people, which included all those who had provided their email address when responding. Copies of press coverage and the email texts are included in Appendix A.
Results & Findings
A total of 550 completed questionnaires were received, representing a response rate of 7%, which was considered to be very successful, being twice as high as the highest response previously to other planning consultations undertaken by the Borough Council. Over 50% of respondents also included comments in the three free text sections and approximately 2/3 of respondents completed the questionnaire online on our website; the others completed it in hard copy and handed it in at one of the parish offices. The response to the consultation was encouraging as the Vision Statement and the suggested Priorities set out received overwhelming support from the local community. 86% of respondents showed a strong level of support for the consultation paper overall.
The Vision Statement was as follows: 1. Maintain the distinct character of our three main villages and the separation between them, avoiding the creep of urban sprawl. 2. Preserve the green and leafy appearance of our surroundings for recreation and wellbeing, and to secure wildlife corridors to protect our flora and fauna. 3. Meet new housing demand in a way that is sympathetic to the area, maintaining a mix of housing types to include family homes, affordable housing, single person households and for our ageing population. 4. Move towards a low carbon emissions environment by locating new development close to transport hubs and routes and encouraging more energy‐efficient buildings. 5. Create an economic environment that makes it attractive for micro, small and medium sized businesses and shops to locate and remain in the area, providing sustainable employment opportunities for those who live within and outside it. 6. Ensure our roads and streets provide safe and accessible routes, better balancing the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.
The Priorities set out in the vision consultation document were as follows: Improve our village centres through appropriate sensitive development of Ascot High Street and Sunningdale, and the preservation and enhancement of Sunninghill. Protect Green Belt land against development subject only to overarching community benefits and public support. Encourage the market to deliver the right type of housing in the right locations to ensure a mixed and inclusive neighbourhood that fits with the local character and aspirations of the community. Ensure attractive community green spaces in Ascot and Sunninghill similar to the Recreation Ground in Sunningdale.
8 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
Protect and encourage the diversity and specialisation of retail businesses in Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale, and in particularly smaller independents, to make it attractive for people to shop locally. Provide sufficient, locally accessible, high quality health and care facilities for all ages and sections of the community. Improve recreational and community facilities for all residents, especially groups under catered for such as 13‐18 year olds and older people. Retain the area’s appeal to families by ensuring that future development is matched by increased capacity in our schools and nurseries and appropriate transport plans. Make our roads and pavements safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists through lower speed limits, more cycle facilities and better paths and pavements. Seek to reduce the reliance on cars but also to ensure we have adequately and efficiently managed on and off street parking facilities. Ensure high quality fit for purpose utilities and infrastructure, including fast broadband, for local residents and businesses and to accommodate future growth.
The positive response showed strong support for these priorities. This was a good indication that the work by the neighbourhood planning team was heading in the right direction. Answers to all the specific topic sections also provided very clear guidance on the issues that local people saw as being the important priorities for the Plan to address. This feedback was also reinforced by the number, quality and length of the responses to the three free text questions. Some of the key findings from the topic‐based questions were as follows:
56% of respondents saw focusing development in built areas and around transport hubs whilst protecting key open gaps between villages; however, looking flexibly at other locations where public support existed as a high priority with only 16% stating that this should be a low priority; 70% of respondents stated that they felt that maintaining separation of villages by identifying green gaps as a high priority with only 8% stating that this was a low priority; 84% of respondents felt that ensuring development is in keeping with the local character and protect wildlife, habitat and trees should be a key priority, with only 3% stating that this should be a low priority; 46% of respondents felt that providing a mix of housing types and sizes, focusing flats only in sustainable locations where character would allow was a key priority, with 17% seeing this as a low priority (free text comments suggested that this relatively low level of support was due to the desire not to deliver more flats or mansion houses); 83% of respondents stated that preserving Green Belt, the leafy appearance of our area and the protection of wildlife corridors were high priorities, with only 2% seeing these aspects as low priorities; 65% of respondents felt that ensuring development is of high architectural quality, respecting its location and providing a pleasant and safe environment is a high priority with only 8% suggesting this was a low priority; 67% of respondents saw the improvement of our village centres through sensitive development at Ascot High Street and Sunningdale centre and the preservation and enhancement of Sunninghill High Street as a high priority. Only 7% saw this as a low priority.
9 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
53% of respondents said that avoiding the homogenisation of Ascot High Street and other retail areas through neighbourhood development orders was a high priority with only 14% stating that it was a low priority; 65% of respondents stated that delivering open spaces at appropriate locations in Ascot and Sunninghill, community facilities as vibrant village hubs and new allotments was a high priority with only 6% stating that this should be a low priority; 56% of respondents stated that delivery of leisure facilities for teenagers and possibly a swimming pool for use by the community were high priorities whilst only 10% suggested that this should be a low priority; 78% of respondents supported the neighbourhood plan seeking to retain hospital or health services at Heatherwood, with only 9% stating that this was a low priority; 45% of respondents felt that matching population growth with the delivery of new school and nursery places was a high priority with 15% stating that this was a low priority; 63% of respondents stated that managing car parking and looking to provide additional parking space should be a high priority, whilst 11% felt this should be a low priority; 52% of respondents stated that looking to improve public transport should be a high priority, whilst 13% felt this was a low priority; and 58% of respondents stated that looking into improving the experience of pedestrians and cyclists in our area through lower speed limits, traffic‐free routes, and wider pavements where they are currently narrow were high priorities whilst 14% stated that these were low priorities.
Other topics did have support, such as the delivery of care homes for older people and the delivery of new doctors’ surgeries amongst others. However, these topics were not progressed due to constraints in identifying suitable locations through the Plan. The detailed findings were published on our website for all to view in the Vision Consultation Report (available in Appendix C) and the Steering Group did presentations of the results to officers at the Borough Council and parish councillors.
3.3 Ascot Rejuvenation Consultations
3.3.1 INTRODUCTION
Feedback from the Launch and Vision consultations identified that Ascot was seen as a centre that had potential for improvement. This was such a potentially important issue that it was decided that it warranted a specific Ascot‐focused consultation programme with both the local community and local businesses. A dedicated neighbourhood plan project team was set up to coordinate and manage this.
3.3.2 ASCOT HIGH STREET SURVEY
Description
Volunteers among the neighbourhood plan team conducted interviews on Ascot High Street with passers‐by, including residents, visitors and shoppers. The results were captured on a survey form and analysed. The survey was also placed on our website and publicised by email, and people were invited to complete it online.
10 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
Publicity & materials
A copy of the survey questionnaire is included in Appendix D.
Results
A total of 470 people completed the survey. A copy of all the results is included in Appendix D as part of the appendices to The Prince’s Foundation report on Ascot High Street. Some key findings of the survey include: Supermarkets, small food retailers, chemist, newsagent, coffee shops, pubs, banks or cash machines, and petrol station were seen as the most important uses or reasons why respondents visit Ascot High Street; Off licences, betting shops, home and interior design shops, estate agents, solicitors, car boot sales, chiropractors, car showrooms and antique or art dealers were seen as the least popular uses that people would not miss if they were not in the High Street; There were a range of opinions on a number of issues identified in the survey, the most significant of these according to the respondents were traffic congestion and parking problems; and The respondents saw small food retailers, a market, a community green space, a leisure centre including a swimming pool, and independent restaurants, cafes or bars as the most popular uses or facilities that would improve the High Street.
This information formed the basis of the next stages of work considering the appropriate approach to Ascot High Street.
3.3.3 THE PRINCE’S FOUNDATION “ENQUIRY BY DESIGN”
Description
Following the Ascot High Street Survey, The Prince’s Foundation was asked to undertake an “Enquiry by Design” for Ascot. This involved facilitating community workshops and presentations, and working with the neighbourhood plan steering group to develop a vision, strategies and plans for the future of Ascot Centre. Engaged in this process were local residents, key stakeholders from the community and local businesses, the Borough Council and Ascot Racecourse. A first public event took place at Ascot Racecourse on 8th October 2012 with over 200 people attending. Following a presentation by The Prince’s Foundation, ideas were invited from the floor. During a break, attendees were also encouraged to stick Post‐it Notes of their ideas and suggestions onto display panels situated around the room. This was immediately followed by a two day long workshop with landowners and other stakeholders, and invited members of the neighbourhood team, where various options were explored for how Ascot could be developed and rejuvenated. There was also a specific workshop organised through local schools with older school children, in order to canvass the views of youth. The Prince’s Foundation took all the inputs from these sessions and, in collaboration with the Steering Group, developed a potential Vision for Ascot centre. This was then shared with the community at a second public meeting, also held at Ascot Racecourse, on 29th October. Between 250 and 300 people attended.
11 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
Attendees were also asked to complete a Questionnaire regarding their support or otherwise for the various aspects of The Prince’s Foundation proposed vision. Everyone who attended one of these public events was invited to give us their email address if they wished to be included in future email communications about the development of the Ascot project and our neighbourhood plan
Publicity & materials
Leaflets were used to publicise the public events and banners were placed at strategic sites at the main entry points to Ascot. The media were briefed and an email sent out to 482 people on our email list. Examples of press coverage can be seen in Appendix A.
Results
The outputs from the public meetings, the workshops and the responses from the Questionnaire were collated and shaped into a vision document for Ascot High Street. This report was also the subject of a consultation to gauge the support for the vision. There were nearly 250 responses to this consultation and this demonstrated strong support for the majority of concepts within the vision. The full findings can be found in Appendix D as an appendix to The Prince’s Foundation Report. This demonstrated that the approach set out in this report was appropriate to pursue. We also received a number of emails from attendees, thanking us for the initiative.
3.4 Options Consultation
Description
The detailed results from the Vision consultation, including all the responses to the free text questions were used as the basis for further research by the topic groups, leading also to a decision to create a number of cross‐discipline groups to consider major strategic sites. Topic and site groups were asked to draw up a shortlist of sites for inclusion, which were evaluated by the Steering Group with input also from all neighbourhood plan members and the parish councils. Because of the scope and complexity of the content of the consultation, it was decided to use a presentation format with a linked questionnaire, which people could complete online on our website or in a paper format. The six week consultation took place between 3rd December 2012 and 15th January 2013.
Publicity & materials
Display panels were produced and were exhibited in the Sunninghill & Ascot, and Sunningdale parish offices; they were also used for the consultation events organised – see below. A3 flipchart presentations were placed in parish offices and all libraries plus additional copies of A4 flipchart presenters. Printed copies of the questionnaires were available both in libraries and parish offices.
12 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
Consultation events were organised in Sunningdale parish office and, in a concerted effort to engage with a younger audience, in Charters School, local youth clubs and Ascot United FC. Copies of the display panels, presentations and printed questionnaire are included as Appendix E. The consultation was placed on our website together with an online questionnaire. A4 leaflets were produced, with laminated copies going onto parish and community notice boards and paper copies being placed with local retailers. These heavily promoted our website, encouraging people to go online to participate in the consultation. A door‐drop was done of the leaflet to all retailers and businesses on the high streets of Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale. People on our mailing list, having now grown to 570 names, were sent an email informing them of the consultation and inviting them to go onto our website to participate in the consultation. We also used Facebook and Twitter to promote the consultation. Examples of press coverage are included in Appendix A.
Results
We received 510 responses to the consultation with a spread across our community including businesses and younger people, as well as respondents from across our neighbourhood area. A detailed report on all the results was published on our website and is included in Appendix E. Some of the key findings of the Options consultation include:
57% of respondents supported the Ascot Centre proposals with only 22% not supporting; 62% of respondents supported the redevelopment of Ascot Station area, including residential development, some retail development, and decked car parking, despite the Green Belt designation at this location. 19% did not support this proposed approach; A range of views of preferences were offered for the housing types and mix that might be delivered as part of the redevelopment of Heatherwood Hospital, with some stronger support for 3‐4 bedroom houses, retirement homes and small terraced houses; There was also greater levels of support for buildings being up to 2½ storeys as opposed to taller buildings at Heatherwood Hospital; There was a greater level of support for development involving a mix of small‐scale retail combined with housing at Broomhall Car Park than for development that would include an anchor store, a higher level of housing or a GP surgery; 75% of respondents supported an approach for Sunninghill Village centre that would seek to limit the potential impact of new housing development on congestion in the High Street and to limit retail development that could result in an intensification of traffic and especially deliveries; Respondents showed a preference for accessing Sunninghill Gasholder site through a number of access points should it be redeveloped for housing; There was also a preference from respondents for residential development at the Sunninghill Gasholder site being for dwellings that are up to 2½ storeys as opposed to higher;
13 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
73% of respondents supported the proposed approach to delivering appropriate development at Ascot High Street, using some Green Belt land, using Borough Council policies in other Green Belt areas and seeking community support as part of any argument in an application attempting to demonstrate “very special circumstances”; 65% or more respondents supported each of the proposed gaps between villages; 61% of respondents supported the proposed approach of limiting flatted development to specific locations in our area, with some of those not supporting the proposed approach citing the policy as not being strict enough; and 71% of respondents supported the proposed cycle route across our neighbourhood.
This information was used to refine the approach taken on a number of sites and policies in the neighbourhood plan.
3.5 Pre‐submission Consultation
Description
The draft proposed Neighbourhood Plan for Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale was formally published by Sunninghill & Ascot Parish Council, as the Qualifying Body, with the support of Sunningdale Parish Council. The consultation on the draft Plan took place over a 6‐week period as required under the Localism Act before it can be submitted to the Local Authority. The consultation took place between 25th June and 7th August 2013. This was the first occasion where the draft Plan was consulted upon both with the community and with statutory consultees. It was published on our website and printed copies made available in both parish offices and all libraries, including North Ascot library which is just outside our area in Bracknell Forest.
Publicity & materials
Posters were placed on all parish notice boards and on community notice boards in the village centres. A concerted effort was made to get media coverage with all the local papers at the start of the consultation period. An email was circulated to 600 people on our email list. A number of local groups, notably SPAE (Society for the Protection of Ascot and Environs) and Ascot Residents also emailed all their members. We invited the Planning Minister, Nick Boles, to visit us, and we invited members of the press as well as councillors and the neighbourhood plan volunteers to meet him, resulting in a significant second wave of media coverage. The Borough Council’s Around the Borough was distributed to all households in the area during the second half of July which included a prominent piece on the consultation. In addition to general communications, members of the topic groups also contacted directly all those with whom they had held discussions and / or who had contributed views to inform them that the proposed Plan was now available for reading and comment. This included many of the businesses in the area, schools and other stakeholders.
14 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
Responses received
We received responses by email submission and in writing to the parish offices. All responses received to this consultation are available in full on our website. These comments were received from residents, land owners and agents with many showing support for the work we have done. There were also a number of detailed suggestions for how we might amend or improve our Plan. Statutory bodies were also contacted, inviting them to respond to our proposed Plan. A reminder was emailed to non‐respondents around 10 days before the closing date. A list of the statutory bodies consulted is included in Appendix F. A summary of these responses has been provided including whether or not the responses were taken into account in the final draft Plan. This document is included in Appendix G.
3.6 Other engagement
Description
The Plan has been produced with members from each of the parish councils, who are part of the Steering Group. We have worked hard to ensure that all parish councillors not directly involved in the Plan production have had ample opportunity to engage throughout the process in advance of each stage of consultation. In addition to working closely with the parish councils, we have also worked closely with the Borough Council, with a planning officer being assigned as a link to the steering group since its inception. The relationship with the Borough Council has been especially important in the absence of an up‐to‐date Local Plan. This has made it imperative that we worked closely with the Borough throughout the process. This has been to ensure that the thinking and principles in our neighbourhood plan are in general conformity with the existing policies of the adopted Local Plan. It has also been to ensure that our suggested policies would not conflict with those that are likely to come forward in an emerging Borough Local Plan. We have also engaged throughout with other Borough Council departments. The following is a summary of some initiatives undertaken to ensure that the Borough Council was fully engaged with our Plan:
Regular contact by phone, email and meetings with planning officers at the Borough Council Results of the Vision consultation presented to the Borough Council Development Control team Results of the Vision consultation also presented to members of the Rural Development Control Panel at workshops Borough Council planning officers included in The Prince’s Foundation Ascot Centre workshops Engagement by topic group members with Borough Council officers in the highways policy and education departments, amongst others Results of the Options consultation presented to the Borough Council Development Control team Early versions of the draft Plan given to the Borough Council for comments and guidance
15 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
Letter received from the Borough Council that draft neighbourhood plan is in their view “Ready for Pre‐Submission Consultation”
This constant communication has ensured that issues to be tackled in the neighbourhood plan would be deliverable and would not conflict with Borough Council policy or protocol. The steering group has also undertaken to engage directly with local resident groups and organisations, and land owners throughout the Plan production process. This engagement has occurred both formally in stages of consultation and also through numerous meetings and communications on a variety of matters. This informal consultation process has proven to be an effective means to supplement the formal stages of consultation to ensure that a wider range of views are heard and can be incorporated in the neighbourhood plan.
16 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
4. CONCLUSIONS This consultation statement demonstrates that the production of this Plan has included a significant amount of successful consultation with the community, land owners, businesses and bodies that potentially have a stake in our Plan. It demonstrates the effectiveness of our consultation strategy. This statement, in association with the consultation reports appended to this document, clearly identifies the issues raised through consultations and how the Plan has sought to take account of these comments where necessary and appropriate. The variety of means used to consult has been effective in engaging a wide range of our community. Full details of all of our consultations and individual consultation responses are available on our website.
17 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
APPENDIX A – MEDIA COVERAGE
18 Neighbourhood Plan Launch Consultation September 2011 Neighbourhood Plan Vision Consultation June 2012 Prince’s Foundation Ascot Centre Consultation Dec 2012 Neighbourhood Plan Options Consultation Winter 2012/13
Neighbourhood Plan Pre‐submission Consultation Summer 2013 Other media examples Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
APPENDIX B – LAUNCH CONSULTATION
Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Environment and Housing …………………………………………………………………… 5
Economy …………………………………………………………………………………… 9
Community …………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Transport and Infrastructure …………………………………………………………… 17
Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Exhibition Boards ………………………………………………………….. 22
Appendix 2 – Response Booklet ………………………………………………………….. 28
Appendix 3 – Detailed Responses Addendum …………...... 33
1 Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan Launch Event Consultation Report November 2011
This page is intentionally left blank
2 Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan Launch Event Consultation Report November 2011 Introduction This document seeks to present the findings of the Ascot, Sunninghill, and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan Launch Event consultation. It shows a break down of the findings along with some initial commentary of these findings.
The information contained in this report will inform the Topic Groups in steering the plan, although further consultation will be needed to justify approaches and to ensure collective community views are considered.
About the consultation:
The consultation was designed to accompany the launch event at Ascot Racecourse on 28th September 2011 where display boards were available to inform responses and Steering Group members were available to answer questions. The display boards can be seen in Appendix 1.
Following the event, the display boards were made available online on the Neighbourhood Plan website until 31st October 2011. Between the launch event and the subsequent online consultation 133 responses to the survey were received. In addition to this, hard copies of the questionnaire were provided to Charters School and 39 response booklets were returned. All responses have been merged to provide an overall community response from 172 booklets.
The consultation contained sixteen questions with four questions relating to each topic. Most questions offered an opportunity for respondents to choose up to two options, but some others were simplified where they were yes/no or had limited options. The response booklets can be seen in Appendix 2.
These questionnaires were extensive, and were intended to be this way, in an effort to provide useful information for all Topic Groups to get started with, whilst educating the public about the current situation with Neighbourhood Planning and the potential implications in our area.
Responses were received across the area with a good spread across each of the urban areas within the Neighbourhood Plan area, as shown below:
3 Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan Launch Event Consultation Report November 2011 Introduction Further responses were received from outside the Neighbourhood Plan area, these are not shown on the map but are included in final figures and percentages1.
A break down of the results from the launch event and consultation period compared to the Charters responses are provided in Appendix 3.
Further information was given in free-text boxes on the questionnaires, and also on two large maps that were available at the launch event:
Information collected through these messages will be available as an addendum in Appendix 3 to this document once fully collated.
1 Please note, where percentages are given, these are rounded to the nearest percent. 4 Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan Launch Event Consultation Report November 2011 Environment and Housing Questions
Q1 – What type of homes should we be providing?
Option No. of selections % of selections Small houses (1-2 bedroom) 43 14% Medium houses (3-4 bedroom) 85 28% Large houses (5+ bedroom) 16 5% Mix - depending upon type and character of the area 55 18% Small flats (1 bedroom) 4 1% Large flats (2-3 bedroom) 11 4% Retirement complexes and care homes 22 7% Mix - to meet a variety of needs 64 21% Total 302
Small houses Medium houses Large houses Mix - character Small flats Large flats Retirement Mix - needs
Commentary:
• Responses to this question regarding what type of homes should be provided showed a firm leaning towards the provision of modest family houses with 'Medium houses' at 28%, 'Small Houses' at 14%. • Providing a mix depending upon the character of the area (18% of selections) and to meet a variety of needs (21%) were also popular options. • It is notable that large houses and both small and large flats did not receive much support, with each respectively recording just 5%, 1% and 4%. • The option of 'retirement complexes and care homes' recorded 9%, however this option could perhaps be usefully linked together with the 'Mix to meet a variety of needs' option, as could other less popular options to form a part of a varied supply in the area.
5 Environment and Housing Questions
Q2 – Where should new homes go?
Option No. of selections % of selections Near to public transport hubs (e.g. stations) 72 25% Increase densities in suburbs 12 4% Use gardens 20 7% Mix to preserve character 68 24% In a planned extension adjoining the built area 32 11% Convert large homes into flats 10 3% Increase densities close to village centres 15 5% Mix to preserve green belt 60 21% Total 289
Transport hubs Suburbs Gardens Mix - character Urban extension Conversion to flats Village centres Mix - Green belt
Commentary:
• The responses to where new homes should go showed strong support for locating them close to public transport at 25%, with a desire to have a mix to preserve character at 24% and a mix to preserve green belt at 21%. • There was little support for either increasing densities in suburbs at 4%, using gardens at 7%increasing densities close to village centres at 5%, and converting large homes into flats at 3%. Interestingly, these options all represent the type of development that has mainly been occurring in the area in recent times.
6 Environment and Housing Questions
Q3 – What do you value most about our local built environment?
Option No. of selections % of selections Historic character and heritage assets 22 7% Leafy appearance and predominance of trees 85 27% Mix of styles of buildings (please specify below) 17 5% Mix of scales of buildings (please specify below) 7 2% Village setting, doesn't feel too urban 75 24% Good services and connectivity 42 14% Vitality and community spirit 21 7% Thriving village centres 41 13% Total 310
Heritage assets Leafy apperance Mix of style Mix of scale Village setting Services and connectivity Vitality Village centres
Commentary:
• For the question of what is most valued in the local built environment, there is a markedly strong showing of support for the leafy appearance and predominance of trees at 27%, and a village setting that doesn't feel too urban at 24%. • Good services and connectivity received 14% of selections with a notably high number of selections from Charters School (at 20 selections this was the most popular option), whilst thriving village centres received 13% of the overall selections with this being a notably less-important option to Charters pupils than in the general public responses. • Vitality and community spirit, and historic character and heritage assets both recorded 7%. • Mix of styles of buildings received 5% of selections and mix of scales of buildings received 2%.
7 Environment and Housing Questions
Q4 – What do you value most about our local natural environment?
Option No. of selections % of selections Habitats for wildlife 50 17% Leisure pursuits(e.g. walking, cycling, etc.) 83 27% Absorption of carbon emissions (e.g. trees) 20 7% Providing open gaps between villages 46 15% Opportunity to escape from built areas 47 16% Farming 6 2% Attractive views and vistas 40 13% Escape from other people 11 4% Total 303
Habitats Leisure Carbon absorption Gaps Escape from built environment Farming Views Escape from othe people
Commentary:
• In terms of what was most valued in the natural environment, strong support at 27% was shown for valuing the opportunity for leisure pursuits such as walking and cycling. • The provision of habitats for wildlife received 17% of responses. • Open gaps between villages, recorded at 15%, possibly reflects the value associated with villages having individual character and geographical distinctiveness. • There was support for retaining a semi-rural or rural environment with opportunity to escape from built areas receiving 16%, coupled with 14% putting down attractive views and vistas as most valued. • Even though only 7% of responses chose 'Absorption of carbon emissions for example by planting trees, the strong support for valuing the predominance of trees covered in Question 3 above suggests that greenery is popular for other reasons.
8 Economy Questions
Question 5 – What type of jobs should we encourage in our area?
Option No. of selections % of selections Tourism and Leisure 28 9% Restaurants, bars and cafes 39 13% Industrial, manufacturing or warehouse jobs 7 2% Work in pharmaceuticals or computer industry 17 6% Home businesses 29 10% Shopping 33 11% Health, community and education 40 13% Self-employed business (not at home) 25 8% Mix of general office jobs 18 6% Mixed approach to provide for a varied need 64 21% Total 300
Tourism and leisure Restaurants, bars and cafes Industrial Pharmaceuticals / computers Home businesses Shopping Health, community and education Self-employed (not at home) General office Mix - varied need
Commentary:
• Responses to this question about the types of jobs that should be encouraged in the area show a fair spread across the options with the largest share of selections being for a “mixed approach to provide for a varied need’ at 21%. • The second most popular option was ‘Health, community and education’ gaining 13% of votes. Restaurants, bars and cafes also received 13% of votes with over 50% of these votes coming from Charters pupils. • However, a notable number of selections were received for other options, including home businesses at 10%, tourism and leisure at 9%, and self-employed businesses (not at home) at 8%. All of these options received greater support in the general consultation than in the Charters consultation. • ‘Industrial, manufacturing, or warehouse jobs’ received the fewest selections at just 2% possibly suggesting that this use is considered to be inappropriate in the area.
9 Economy Questions
Question 6 – Would you like to see any of our village centres improved, if so how? Option No. of selections % of selections Ascot 81 46% Sunninghill 50 29% Sunningdale 41 23% Other centre 3 2% Total 175
Ascot S’hill S’dale Other Option No. % No. % No % No % Improve parking 24 17% 24 29% 16 22% 2 25% Improve the range of shops 35 25% 16 19% 13 18% 1 13% Reduce traffic and congestion 35 25% 26 31% 20 27% 2 25% Improve the way it looks and feels 21 15% 8 10% 10 14% 2 25% Provide more leisure 12 9% 1 1% 6 8% 1 13% Make it easier to walk around the centre 3 2% 5 6% 3 4% 0 0% Improve the quality of shops 8 6% 4 5% 5 7% 0 0% Provide a specialist service 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total 140 84 73 8
Specialist service
Quality of shops Other Sunningdale Walk around centre Sunninghill Leisure Ascot Look and feel
Traffic
Range of shops
Parking
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Commentary: • Ascot village received the most selections (46%) for improvement. This could be due to the location of the launch event, although 62% of Charters respondents also wanted Ascot village centre improved. Of those selecting Ascot, reducing traffic and congestion (25%) and improving parking (17%) were both popular showing the current dominance of the car in the village centre. Improving the range of shops (25%) and improving the way it looks and feels (15%) were the other most popular responses. Interestingly the Charters pupils chose the provision of more leisure as a priority, this was not shared by the wider group of respondents. • Sunninghill was the second most selected centre with 29%, where parking (29%) and reducing traffic and congestion (31%) were the clear priorities. • Likewise in Sunningdale, which received 23% of selections, where parking (22%) and congestion (27%) were shown to be the biggest issues. The Charters pupils chose improving the shops and providing more leisure in Sunningdale village centre as priorities, showing a different opinion to other respondents.
10 Economy Questions Question 7 – What do you see as the biggest barriers to growth and sustainability for local businesses?
Option No. of selections % of selections Access and parking for staff and customers 49 19% Findings suitable premises locally 31 12% Finding affordable premises locally 76 29% Business rates are very high 55 21% Lack of ability to adapt business premises 13 5% Local infrastructure (e.g. roads, broadband, etc.) 19 7% Difficult to hire staff 8 3% Expensive to hire staff 13 5% Total 264
Access and parking Suitable local premises Affordable local premises High business rates Inability to adapt premises Local infrastructure Difficult to hire staff Expensive to hire staff
Commentary:
• Responses to this question highlighted an opinion that affordability of premises is a key issue for local businesses with 29% of selections, which reflects the high land values locally. • High business rates received 21% of votes and access to parking for staff and customers received 19%. • Notably adaptability of premises was not shown to be a big concern where only 5% of votes were placed, which suggests that planning is not a significant barrier to business, likewise where only 3% of selections suggested that it is difficult to hire staff. • Most of these options point towards monetary costs being the biggest barrier to local businesses as opposed to physical constraints.
11 Economy Questions
Question 8 – What are the biggest problems that result from businesses in our area?
Option No. of selections % of selections Harms the appearance of the area 15 6% Pollution (including noise, dust, emissions, etc.) 21 8% Increased traffic and congestion 78 30% Deliveries cause problems 38 14% Parking issues 55 21% Messy or unsightly buildings or areas 25 10% Impact upon privacy 3 1% Does not fit in with the village setting / ambience 28 11% Total 263
Harms appearance Pollution Traffic Deliveries Parking Messy / unsightly Impact on privacy Village setting / ambience
Commentary:
• As shown in other parts of this survey, traffic and congestion with 30%, and parking with 21% were seen as the biggest issues in the area resulting from businesses. • Similarly, the third most popular option in this question where deliveries causing problems was also cited as an issue with 14%. • Impact upon privacy received only 1% of votes.
12 Community Questions
Question 9 – What health services and facilities are most important to have locally?
Option No. of selections % of selections Doctors surgery 123 40% Dentists 26 8% Accident and emergency 75 24% Minor injuries unit 42 14% Specialist NHS treatments 11 4% Private health care 5 2% Drop-in clinic 13 4% Care homes 16 5% Total 311
Doctors Dentists A & E Minor injuries unit Specialist NHS treatment Private health care Drop-in clinic Care homes
Commentary:
• Nearly 40% of respondents selected Doctors surgeries as the most important health service to have locally possibly reflecting the frequency of using these services and the requirement to have them easily accessible. • Accident and emergency was the second most popular option with 24%, followed by minor injuries unit with 14%. • Notably private health care received only 2% of votes, and specialist NHS treatments and drop-in clinics only received 4% each. These suggest that infrequent or non-emergency health services are not as essential as other services.
13 Community Questions
Question 10 – What are the main issues that you have with education in our area?
Option No. of selections % of selections Competition for school places 42 19% Catchment areas are unfair or need improving 25 11% Traffic from schools 56 25% Student behaviour in public 21 10% Access to schools by walking or cycling 37 17% Access to schools by public transport 21 10% Quality of teaching 13 6% Quality of school buildings 6 3% Total 221
School places Catchment areas Traffic Behaviour Walking or cycling Public transport Teaching quality School buildings
Commentary:
• This question received fewer responses than many questions, suggesting that many people do not have issues with local schools, or do not have experience of them. • The biggest issue with schools was traffic which received 25% of selections as in other areas of this survey. • The second most popular selection for those at the launch event and responding online was access to school by walking or cycling which received 22%, whilst only receiving 6% of responses from Charters pupils (providing an overall selection of 17%). • The fact that these two options were favoured and that access to school by public transport also received 10% of selections suggests that improvement to getting to school by bike, foot and/or public transport might reduce the need to drive to school and so might ease the issues with traffic. • Interestingly more Charters pupils see catchment areas as being problematic (13 selections) than the respondents at the launch and online (12 selections).
14 Community Questions
Q11 – What types of open spaces do you value most, and which are inadequate or missing locally?
Value Inadequate Option No. of % of No. of % of selections selections selections selections Childrens play areas 60 20% 15 7% Sports pitches 42 14% 23 11% Formal gardens 7 2% 22 11% Golf course 24 8% 4 2% Rural or semi-rural open spaces 71 23% 17 8% Pleasant walking routes 70 23% 33 16% Village greens 19 6% 53 26% Allotments 12 4% 34 17% Total 305 201
Play areas Sports Gardens Golf Rural / semi-rural Walking Greens Allotments Value Inadequate
Commentary:
• Responses to this question provided a good insight into both the current situation and the preferred future position with regard to open spaces. The most valued types of open space were rural and semi-rural open spaces and pleasant walking routes both with 23% of votes. These both emphasise the importance of access to the open environment, particularly when compared with the results from question 4 where leisure pursuits were the considered the most valuable aspect of the rural environment. • Childrens play areas were also noted as a significantly valued type of open space with 20% of votes.
• The options preferred under the ‘inadequate’ question were those of ‘village greens’ with 26% and allotments with 17%. Both of these options were not popular under the ‘valued’ question, suggesting that these are aspirations for the area. • However, the popularity of pleasant walking routes with 16% of selections for improvement suggest that this is both valued and needing improvement.
• Over 100 fewer people responded to the question about the types of open spaces that are inadequate or in need of improving. This could be representative that people are content with open spaces, or it could reflect the relative complexity of the question type.
15 Community Questions
Q12 – What community facilities are important locally and which need improving?
Value Improve Option No. of % of No. of % of selections selections selections selections Theatre 36 12% 24 11% Library 62 21% 26 12% Youth centre / services 38 13% 49 23% Community hall 33 11% 25 12% Day centres 27 9% 17 8% Pubs and restaurants 55 19% 20 10% Churches and other places of worship 22 8% 2 1% Adult education 19 7% 46 22% Total 292 209
Theatre Library Youth services Community hall Day centres Pubs /restaurants Churches Adult education Value Improve
Commentary:
• There was a fair spread of responses to the community facilities that are important locally, possibly reflecting the wide variety of past times and services that are important to local people. • Libraries were considered the most important function with 21% of the votes, closely followed by pubs and restaurants with 19% of the selections. Interestingly pubs and restaurants were the most popular answer for Charters pupils with 23% of selections.
• There were two facilities that were clearly viewed as most in need of improvement, namely adult education with 22% of responses and youth centre / services with 23% of responses.
• Similarly to question 11, over 80 fewer people responded answered the question asking what facilities should be improved. Again, this could be representative that people are content with facilities, or it could reflect the relative complexity of the question type.
16 Transport and Infrastructure Questions
Q13 – How should we improve walking and cycling in our area?
Option No. of selections % of selections Improve on-road cycle routes in urban areas 37 14% Improve off-road cycle routes in urban areas 32 12% Improve on-road cycle routes to rural areas 24 9% Improve off-road cycle routes to rural areas 28 11% Improve cycle parking in villages and work places 21 8% Improve pavements in urban areas 36 14% Create new rights of way in rural areas 18 7% Improve road crossings 37 14% Create new off-road shared surfaces 13 5% Improve cycle parking at stations 15 6% Total 261
On-road urban cycle routes Off-road urban cycle routes On-road rural cycle routes Off-road rural cycle routes Cycle parking in villages / work Pavements Rights of way Road crossings Shared surfaces Cycle parking at stations
Commentary:
• There was a fair spread of responses across the options for this question. Support for on-road and off-road cycle routes in both urban and rural areas were proportionately distributed but with slight preference for improvements in the urban areas. • Overall safety for pedestrians was also a concern with the improvement of pavements in urban areas and improving road crossings both receiving 14% of selections. The Charters respondents made up nearly 50% of those selecting improve road crossings.
17 Transport and Infrastructure Questions
Q14 – How should we improve public transport and to where?
Option No. of selections % of selections More buses between villages 30 11% More buses to other towns 51 19% Quicker bus routes to other towns 30 11% Buses run earlier, later and at weekends 23 8% Make buses cheaper 23 8% Make buses more pleasant 4 1% Improve frequency of trains 22 8% Increase train capacity 19 7% Make trains cheaper 59 22% Make trains more pleasant 11 4% Total 272
Buses between villages Buses to towns Quicker routes Earlier, later and weekend buses Cheaper buses Pleasant buses Train frequency Train capacity Cheaper trains Pleasant trains
Commentary:
• In response to the question of how and to where the improvement of public transport should be directed, 22% wanted to make trains cheaper. Over one third of those choosing this option were from Charters, where this was by far the most popular option (30%). • There was also good support for improving the bus service in the area where a nearly 60% of all selections chose some form of improvement to this service. The popularity of the different options for improving the bus service was fairly spread with 19% choosing the option of putting in more buses to other towns, and more buses between villages and making the routes to other towns quicker both receiving 11%.
18 Transport and Infrastructure Questions
Q15 – How should we deal with traffic, speeding, parking and congestion issues?
Option No. of selections % of selections Provide more parking 70 25% Restrict parking in problem areas 44 15% Restrict deliveries where necessary and possible 23 8% Introduce speed traps or average speed cameras 25 9% Make it easier / cheaper for people not to use cars 65 23% Make it harder / pricier for people to use cars 3 1% Provide alternative routes / bypass 28 10% Speed bumps, chicanes or other speed-reducing 27 9% obstacles Total 285
More parking Restrict parking Restrict deliveries Speed traps Easier / cheaper not to use cars Harder / pricier to use cars Alternative routes Bumps or obstacles
Commentary:
• One quarter of responses chose the option of providing more parking, and this was heavily favoured by the respondents from Charters School. This issue is also highlighted under other responses in this questionnaire. • The second most popular option, also the most popular option for those responding online or from the launch event, was making it easier / cheaper for people not to use cars. When this response is considered alongside the 1% received for making it harder or more expensive to use their cars, it is clear that the respondents favour a carrot rather than a stick approach, which also ties in with the calls for improving access to public transport, and the cycling and pedestrian environment as outlined above in Question 14. • As for suggestions on tackling speeding, both the use of speed traps or cameras, and the introduction of speed bumps or other speed reducing obstacles received 9% of votes.
19 Transport and Infrastructure Questions
Q16 – What should our priorities be for improving how we get around?
Option No. of selections % of selections Encourage use of public transport 77 26% Improve cycling access and facilities 46 15% Improve pedestrian access and facilities 35 12% Tackle road safety issues 19 6% Encourage the use of electric cars 11 4% Reduce the need to get around 14 5% Tackle parking problems 41 14% Tackle congestion problems 54 18% Total 297
Public Transport Cycling Pedestrian Road safety Electric cars Reduce need Parking Congestion
Commentary:
• This question should be read in conjunction with the responses from the earlier questions in this section, as it provides a broad prioritisation for where the focus should be for improving transport in the area. • The responses show improving public transport in our area at 26%, as the most important opportunity to take. • Cycling (15%) and pedestrian (12%) improvements, and parking (14%) and congestion (18%) also received significant support. • These responses generally highlight the range of opportunities that the community would like to see both in improving how we use our cars, and also in providing more attractive options to car use.
20 Conclusions
Each question provides good insight into the local views about a range of issues, these views can be seen individually in the commentary accompanying each question. However, there are some themes and views that carry across the survey that require consideration. These are presented within theme titles below:
Housing – the responses received suggest that a mixed approach should be adopted across the area, and should focus on delivering homes near public transport hubs, whilst not harming the character of the area, nor the green belt where possible. The provision of flats, whilst not wholly considered inappropriate, was unpopular and generally considered not to be the appropriate way to deliver housing. The delivery of small and medium family houses were the preferred option for delivering new homes.
Traffic, congestion, and parking – these three issues are most frequently highlighted as problems in the area in many parts of the survey. This suggests that the alleviation of car-related problems should be a central part of this plan.
Leisure pursuits in the natural environment – again a common theme in multiple parts of this survey is the importance of the rural environment for leisure pursuits such as walking and cycling. Whilst the area is already blessed with a valuable provision the plan should investigate ways to enhance this enjoyment of our rural areas.
Village centres – the appearance and the vitality of the village centres were shown to be important to respondents and there is notable desire to improve particularly Ascot village centre in a number of different ways.
More information needed – whilst the responses to many questions provide a good starting point for our work, some questions suggest that more evidence is needed to firm ideas, consider issues in more detail, or to justify some thinking. This work will be continued by the Topic Groups to ensure that the plan will represent local community views in a workable, prosperous and successful package.
21 Appendix 1
22 Appendix 1
23 Appendix 1
24 Appendix 1
25 Appendix 1
26 Appendix 1
27 Appendix 2
PTO for response booklet by section.
28 Appendix 2
29 Appendix 2
30 Appendix 2
31 Appendix 2
32 Appendix 3 – Detailed Responses Addendum
The charts below show the official consultation response results on the left and the Charters responses on the right. This allows for full comparison of the results
Q1 – What type of homes should we be providing?
21% 16% Small houses 8% 24% Medium houses Large houses Mix - character 9% 3% 33% Small flats 2% 27% Large flats 8% 1% Retirement 1% 19% 5% Mix - needs 17% 6%
Q2 – Where should new homes go?
18% 24% Transport hubs Suburbs 29% 27% 5% Gardens Mix - character 3% 3% Urban extension 8% Conversion to flats 13% 4% 9% Village centres 6% Mix - Green belt 4% 26% 4% 17% Q3 - What do you value most about our local built environment?
8% 4% 16% Heritage assets 6% 3% Leafy apperance 18% 8% Mix of style 28% 30% Mix of scale 9% Village setting 11% Services and connectivity 4% Vitality 3% 23% 2% Village centres 27%
Q4 – What do you value most about our local natural environment?
14% 3% 15% Habitats 7% 2% Leisure 12% 22% Carbon absorption 1% 16% Gaps Escape from built environment 13% 26% Farming Views 9% 17% Escape from other people 7% 6% 30%
33 Appendix 3 – Detailed Responses Addendum
Q5 – What types of jobs should we encourage in our area? 3% 3% 11% Tourism and leisure 11% Restaurants, bars and cafes 7% 7% 29% Industrial 29% 4% Pharmaceuticals / computers 4% Home businesses Shopping 13% 13% 0% Health, community and education 0% 1% Self-employed (not at home) General office 1% 9% Mix - varied need 9% 23% 23%
Q6 – Would you like to see any of our village centres improved and how?
pecialist Specialist service service Other
Quality of shops of shops Sunningdale Sunninghill Walk around centre k around entre Ascot Leisure Leisure
Look and feel and feel
Traffic Traffic
Range of shops of shops
Parking Parking
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15
Consultation and launch event responses Charters responses
Q7 – What do you see as the biggest barriers to growth and sustainability for local businesses? 6% 2% Access and parking 3% 8% 20% 6% 15% Suitable local premises 6% 3% Affordable local premises High business rates 10% 13% Inability to adapt premises 11% Local infrastructure 22% Difficult to hire staff Expensive to hire staff 18%
29% 28% Q8 – What are the biggest problems that result from businesses in our area? 10% 1% 5% 11% 8% 7% Harms appearance 1% 8% Pollution 13% Traffic 11% Deliveries 24% Parking 14% 28% Messy / unsightly Impact on privacy Village setting / ambience 8% 17% 34%
34 Appendix 3 – Detailed Responses Addendum Q9 – What health services and facilities are most important to have locally? 5% 5% Doctors 1% 0%4% 40% 3% Dentists 4% A & E 40% 4% 14% Minor injuries unit Specialist NHS treatment 13% Private health care Drop-in clinic Care homes 11% 24% 8% 24%
Q10 – What are the main issues that you have with education in our area? 8% 1% 0%6% 19% School places 10% 19% 9% Catchment areas Traffic 6% Behaviour 8% Walking or cycling Public transport 19% 22% Teaching quality 15% School buildings
26% 7% 25%
Q11 – What types of open spaces do you value most, and what is missing or inadequate locally?
Consultation and launch event responses 4% 6% 6% 18% 18% Play areas 15% Sports Gardens 7% 26% 10% Golf 1% 2% Rural / semi-rural 27% 7% 7% Walking Greens 19% 27% Allotments Value Inadequate
Charters responses 7% 4% 16% 10% 24% Play areas 6% Sports 15% Gardens Golf 19% 3% Rural / semi-rural 12% Walking 4% 23% Greens 11% 11% 11% 4% Allotments Value Inadequate
35 Appendix 3 – Detailed Responses Addendum
Q12 – What community facilities are most important to you and which need improving?
Consultation and launch event responses 7% 11% 11% 7% Theatre 25% Library 11% Youth services 18% 22% Community hall 1% Day centres 9% Pubs /restaurants 23% 10% 13% Churches 7% 12% 13% Value Adult education Improve
Charters responses 5% 9% 15% Theatre 15% 13% Library 1% Youth services 10% 16% 22% 21% Community hall Day centres 10% Pubs /restaurants
6% 13% Churches 9% 10% 25% Value Adult education Improve
PTO for the detailed transport section responses
36 Appendix 3 – Detailed Responses Addendum
Q13 – How should we improve walking and cycling routes? 6% 12% On-road urban cycle routes 6% 5% 4% 21% Off-road urban cycle routes 10% On-road rural cycle routes 14% Off-road rural cycle routes 24% Cycle parking in villages / work 6% 7% Pavements 10% Rights of way 8% Road crossings 14% 7% Shared surfaces 7% 12% 3% 10% Cycle parking at stations 14%
Q14 – Should we improve our public transport, if so how and to where? 3% 12% 8% 8% Buses between villages 19% Buses to towns 11% Quicker routes Earlier, later and weekend buses 20% 6% Cheaper buses 33% 9% Pleasant buses 5% Train frequency 7% Train capacity Cheaper trains 13% 1% 12% Pleasant trains 2% 7% 10% 11% 3%
Q15 – How should we deal with traffic, speeding, parking and congestion issues? 11% 6% 21% More parking 7% Restrict parking 18% Restrict deliveries 35% 1% Speed traps Easier / cheaper not to use cars 1% Harder / pricier to use cars 16% 24% Alternative routes Bumps or obstacles 18%
10% 13% 10% 6% 3%
Q16 – What should our priorities be for improving how we get around? 19% 24% 16% Public Transport 29% Cycling Pedestrian Road safety 10% 15% Electric cars Reduce need 6% 16% Parking 4% Congestion 6% 14% 3% 6% 12% 7% 13%
37 Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
APPENDIX C – VISION CONSULTATION
Vision Consultation Report
July 2012
Contents
Introduction 3
The Consultation 3
Who responded 5
The Results: 7
• Overall 7
• Vision 7
• Key Priorities 9
• Housing and the Environment 12
• Economy 17
• Community 23
• Transport and Infrastructure 28
Appendices:
• Appendix 1 Analysis of responses to the three free text questions 32
• Appendix 2 Vision Consultation Questionnaire 48
2
Introduction
In April 2012 the Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group (ASS NP SG) invited local residents and businesses to have their say about planning in our area, including how it will look and feel in terms of:
• Choosing what new homes will be delivered, where they will be located and what they will look like. • The kind of new retail and business development we should have. • Issues we care about such as green spaces and the environment. • Strengthening the community by improving transport infrastructure, community services, and leisure and recreational facilities.
This document presents the results of this consultation.
The results will inform the Neighbourhood Plan team and guide the preparation of a series of planning and development options for our area. These will be put to a further community consultation in the 4th quarter of this year, and the results will be fed into the final Neighbourhood Plan.
The final plan will be presented to the local community in a referendum, and will require support from 50% of those who vote for it to be adopted.
The Consultation
The consultation document, which went to every household and local business in our area, is presented in Appendix 1.
It set out a vision for our area and a set of key priorities to deliver the vision, and invited community respondents to indicate, on a scale of 5 (strongly support) to 1
3 (don’t support at all), how much they were in favour of them. There was also the opportunity to say what they would add or take away from the vision and from the key priorities.
Respondents were also invited to indicate, on a scale of 5 to 1, how strongly they supported what the overall document was saying.
There were four sections covering Housing and the Environment, Economy, Community, and Transport and Infrastructure. Each section presented inputs from the community from earlier consultations, and a suggested approach to delivering each input. For each input respondents were asked to indicate the priority they gave to it on a scale of high, medium or low.
7, 764 copies of the consultation document were distributed, and a total of 550 completed questionnaires were received back, a phenomenal 7% response. This is nearly twice the highest response previously to borough consultations. Over 50% of respondents included comments in the 3 free text sections.
4 Who responded
5
The responses covered a wide age range, except from the under 24’s. We will seek to find ways of engaging with this age group in the Options Consultation, to be conducted towards the end of the year.
6 The Results.
Question 1: If you consider the content of this consultation paper overall, on a scale of 1 to 5, please indicate how strongly you support what it is saying.
[5 = strongly support and 1 = don’t support at all].
2% 1%
11% 5 (strongly support) 44% 4
3
2
42% 1 (don't support at all)
86% support or strongly support the paper overall, with only 1% not supporting it at all.
Question 2A: Looking at the vision statements specifically (and the associated map), on a scale of 1 to 5, please indicate how much you are in favour of them.
[5 = strongly support and 1 = don’t support at all].
1% 2%
11% 5 (very much in favour) 44% 4
3
2
42% 1 (de initely not in favour)
7 86% of respondents support or strongly support the vision with only 2.2% not supporting it at all.
For convenience the vision statements are presented below:
Vision
1. Maintain the distinct character of our three main villages and the separation between them, avoiding the creep of urban sprawl.
2. Preserve the green and leafy appearance of our surroundings for recreation and wellbeing, and to secure wildlife corridors to protect our flora and fauna.
3. Meet new housing demand in a way that is sympathetic to the area, maintaining a mix of housing types to include family homes, affordable housing, single person households and for our ageing population.
4. Move towards a low carbon emissions environment by locating new development close to transport hubs and routes and encouraging more energy-efficient buildings.
5. Create an economic environment that makes it attractive for micro, small and medium sized businesses and shops to locate and remain in the area, providing sustainable employment opportunities for those who live within and outside it.
6. Ensure our roads and streets provide safe and accessible routes, better balancing the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.
Question 2B: What would you add or take away in this vision for the future of Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale?
288 people answered this free text question.
There were also 2 other ‘free text’ questions:
Q3B: What would you add or take away from this list of priorities for the future of Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale?, and
Q8: Are there any other issues that you specifically would like to raise?
8 A review of the responses to each of these ‘free text’ questions showed a strong similarity in the themes of the responses to all 3 questions.
For this reason, and for simplicity and clarity of presentation, the free text responses to these 3 questions have been analysed together and the results are presented in Appendix 2.
Question 3A: Looking at the priorities suggested for delivering the vision, on a scale of 1 to 5, please indicate how much you are in favour of them.
[5 = Very much in favour and 1 = Definitely not in favour]
1% 1% 9% 5 (very much in favour)
46% 4
3
2 43% 1 (de initely not in favour)
89% of responses were in favour or very much in favour of the key priorities presented, with only 2% not in favour or definitely not in favour.
For convenience the Key Priorities to deliver the vision are reproduced below.
9
Key priorities to deliver the vision.
• Improve our village centres through appropriate sensitive development of Ascot High Street and Sunningdale, and the preservation and enhancement of Sunninghill. • Protect Green Belt land against development subject only to overarching community benefits and public support. • Encourage the market to deliver the right type of housing in the right locations to ensure a mixed and inclusive neighbourhood that fits with the local character and aspirations of the community. • Ensure attractive community green spaces in Ascot and Sunninghill similar to the Recreation Ground in Sunningdale. • Protect and encourage the diversity and specialisation of retail businesses in Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale, and in particularly smaller independents, to make it attractive for people to shop locally. • Provide sufficient, locally accessible, high quality health and care facilities for all ages and sections of the community. • Improve recreational and community facilities for all residents, especially groups under catered for such as 13-18 year olds and older people. • Retain the area’s appeal to families by ensuring that future development is matched by increased capacity in our schools and nurseries and appropriate transport plans. • Make our roads and pavements safer and more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists through lower speed limits, more cycle facilities and better paths and pavements. • Seek to reduce the reliance on cars but also to ensure we have adequately and efficiently managed on and off street parking facilities. • Ensure high quality fit for purpose utilities and infrastructure, including fast broadband, for local residents and businesses and to accommodate future growth.
Question 3B: What would you add or take away in the list of priorities for the future of Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale?
The responses and findings are presented in Appendix 2 .
They generally supported the priorities, with very few dissenting responses.
Questions 4 to 7:
The vision consultation presented key community inputs from earlier consultations under each of 4 topic areas, Housing and the Environment, the Economy, Community and Transport and Infrastructure and asked the community to indicate
10 the priority they would give each input, on a scale of H = High, M = Medium and L = Low.
On average 85% of all respondents completed all these questions.
The findings are presented below.
11 Question 4: Housing and the environment.
Q4A: Need for new housing while retaining distinct village feel.
Approach suggested was:
• Favour development within existing built areas and around transport hubs (Ascot and Sunningdale stations).
• Protect key open gaps between villages but take a flexible approach to other specific areas where there is genuine public support for some development.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
16%
High Medium Low
56% 28%
The ‘Free text’ responses specifically: • Favour developing brown field sites first. • Support the retention of open gaps between villages.
Q4B: Maintain separation between villages.
Approach suggested was:
• Identify key green gaps and areas of Green Belt or open space, which contribute to this with a view to ensuring their protection.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
12 8%
High 22% Medium Low
70%
The ‘Free Text’ responses support the retention of the green gaps shown on the map in the consultation document and proposed others for retention. They also support Green Belt protection and the retention of other green open space.
Q4C: Minimise impact of development on the natural and built environment.
Approach suggested was:
• Ensure developments are in keeping with the local area character and have full regard to national standards for the protection of wildlife, habitat and trees.
The relative priorities from the responses are: 3% 13%
High Medium Low
84%
The ‘free text’ responses express concern at the high densities of recent developments and reinforce the need to ensure new developments are in harmony with their immediate surroundings, be they village centres or their surrounding ‘suburbs’. There is a wish to retain and enhance the green and leafy appearance of
13 the area, stop the creeping urbanisation and resist town cloning. The protection of trees and their regeneration are a strong theme.
Q4D: Provide appropriate mix of housing.
Approach suggested was:
• Promote a greater mix of housing types and sizes, focusing apartments only in sustainable locations and close to transport hubs (stations), where local character allows.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
17% High Medium Low 46%
37%
The ‘free text’ responses are strongly against more flats and apartments, and against the number of large mansions being built. The major theme is the need for delivering a mix of homes, including homes that are affordable to local people – single, couples and families.
Q4E: Protect the natural environment.
Approach suggested was:
• Preserve Green Belt. • Preserve green and leafy appearance of our surroundings. • Create and protect wildlife corridors.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
14 2% 15%
High Medium Low
83%
The ‘free text’ responses strongly support the preservation of the Green Belt, while recognising that some green belt land has been developed already and can be considered for sensitive redevelopment. There is support for preserving existing green space and retaining the area’s green and leafy appearance of the area.
Q4F: Minimise our carbon footprint.
Approach suggested was;
Favour new development with high environmental standards.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
16%
High Medium 42% Low
42%
15 Relatively few of the ‘free text’ responses address this topic, and those that do are a mix between those who say “we can’t afford this” and those who support carbon neutral and environmentally sustainable new housing.
Q4G: Need for design quality:
Approach suggested was:
• Encourage development of high architectural quality that respects and enhances its specific location and contributes to a pleasant, safe living environment both inside and outside the development.
The relative priorities from the responses are: 8%
High Medium 27% Low
65%
The ‘free text’ responses don’t focus on the architectural design, but many stress the need for new developments to preserve the character of their surroundings, and the Borough’s Townscape Character Assessment is identified as a good reference point in this respect. There is concern at the trend for urbanisation and the high densities of recent developments.
16 Question 5: The Economy.
Q5A: Improve village centres at Ascot, Sunningdale and Sunninghill
Approach suggested was:
• Investigate options for appropriate sensitive development of Ascot High Street, the area around Ascot Station, the centre of Sunningdale, and to preserve and enhance Sunninghill
The relative priorities from the responses are:
7%
High Medium Low 26%
67%
The ‘free text’ responses reinforce the communities desire to see improvements to Ascot High Street and the adjoining area. There is a wish to make it a “destination in its own right” and a “focal point for the community”. There is a strong wish to support local independents and to avoid further ‘cloning’ / national chains.
Sunninghill was considered “very special”. The small independent retailers are thriving, and there is a desire to ensure they continue to do so.
Sunningdale is considered disjointed and suffers from parking and congestion. The redevelopment of Station Parade and the Station Car Park are suggested improvements.
Q5B: Capitalise on Ascot Racecourse brand to grow more non-racing business. And attract larger events and / or of longer duration to attract additional business.
Approach Suggested was:
17 • Encourage the Racecourse to develop new leisure initiatives to generate employment and business opportunities. Consider and promote options for a new hotel for race goers and for delegates / visitors to non-racing events.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
25% High 34% Medium Low
41%
The ‘free text’ responses on this are mixed. Some respondents suggest that the racecourse could provide community facilities / activities, but most respondents are concerned that more events at the racecourse will result in more noise and congestion, and feel the High Street struggles to achieve the right balance between the needs of the racecourse and the community.
Q5C: Make better use of land that may become available for re-development
Approach suggested was:
• Explore options for mixed use re-development schemes providing both housing and new business premises.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
18 16%
High Medium Low
38%
46%
The ‘free text’ responses did not address this question specifically.
Q5D: Redevelopment of Station Parade opposite Sunningdale Station.
Approach Suggested:
• Consider options for attracting more specialist retail and office businesses to the area when leases terminate, likely before 2020.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
24% 28% High Medium Low
48%
The ‘free text’ responses supported the redevelopment of Station Parade, but were not specific about the types of re-development.
Q5E: Ageing population will require greater levels of mental and physical care (within 15 years many “baby boomers” will be 80 years old).
19
Approach suggested was:
• Identify potential for additional home care and service businesses in the area for services to serve a local, ageing, affluent population.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
10%
High Medium Low
34% 56%
A few of the ‘free text’ responses reinforce the need for high quality care homes, including for dementia patients.
Q5F: Estimated 27 offices and premises are vacant in the area with a total rateable value of £900,000.
Approach suggested was:
• Refurbishment and development of flexible, affordable serviced offices for micro businesses to provide employment opportunities for the local professional, skilled workforce.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
20 14%
High Medium Low 48%
38%
The ‘free text’ responses do not support more business parks, but support the conversion of surplus office space to homes, where appropriate, or to facilities for micro-businesses and small businesses.
Q5G: Silwood Road is rundown with three retail premises vacant.
Approach suggested was:
• Explore potential redevelopment including rationalization of the various sheds, workshops, retain and commercial properties.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
14%
High 35% Medium Low
51%
None of the ‘free text” responses mentioned the re-development of Silwood Road.
Q5H: Undesirable homogenization of Ascot High Street and other retail areas.
21
Approach suggested was:
The relative priorities from the responses are:
14%
High Medium Low
53%
33%
A number of the ‘free text’ responses reinforce the concern at the expansion of national chains in the villages, and in particular at the number of coffee shops, betting shops and estate agents in Ascot High Street. There is a strong preference for encouraging small local independents. Sunninghill is valued because of the interesting mix of independent retailers.
22 Q6: Community.
Q6A: Access to open space for leisure pursuits most important. Current facilities for village greens and allotments inadequate.
Protect village feel and individuality.
Approach suggested was:
• Identify best locations / spaces in Ascot and Sunninghill to adopt and develop as community green space. • Develop related facilities associated with these that encourage their use as vibrant village hubs (play areas, meeting halls, mobile facilities). • Identify potential areas for more allotments.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
6%
High Medium 29% Low
65%
The ‘free text’ responses include suggestions for a range of additional recreational and community facilities, including a community hall, tennis club, swimming pool, skateboard park, cinema complex, a green space in Sunninghill S of the railway, a village green in Ascot. and bandstand.
Q6B: Improvement of community facilities, especially at Charters and Ascot and leisure facilities for 13-18 year olds.
Approach suggested was:
• Explore how and where best to provide community swimming pool and other facilities for the benefit of all residents in the area. • Establish leisure facilities such as a skatepark in the area and youth clubs in each community for 13-18 year olds.
23 The relative priorities from the responses are:
10%
High Medium Low
34% 56%
A number of the ‘free text’ respondants support a swimming pool, and more facilities for 13-18 year olds also had support, but there were also some against.
Q6C: Adult education in need of improvement.
Approach suggested was:
• Identify suitable locations and provider organisations (eg. U3A) to offer wide range of interesting adult educational and recreational programmes in each community.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
22% 29% High Medium Low
49%
No ‘free text’ responses mention the need for improved adult education.
24
Q6D: Concern regarding the future of Heatherwood Hospital and a strong desire to retain hospital services within the area.
Approach suggested was:
• Engage with all stakeholders and interest groups to contribute to and influence debate with a view to retaining hospital facilities at Heatherwood (but recognising that this decision is outside remit of NP team).
The relative priorities from the responses are:
9%
13% High Medium Low
78%
The ‘free text’ responses strongly reinforce the community’s wish to retain some health services at Heatherwood (40 specific responses).
Q6E: Ageing population will create pressure on available health and care resources.
Doctors’ surgeries valued as most important health service.
Approach suggested was:
• Ensure enough doctors’ surgeries, care homes and sheltered housing available to meet future development plans and increasing needs of ageing population.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
25 4%
24% High Medium Low
72%
A number of ‘free text’ responses consider the level of health provision in the area, including doctors’ surgeries and care homes, to be inadequate to support further homes.
Q6F: Lack of flexibility over school places at all levels, especially as population grows.
Approach suggested was:
• Ensure growth in new housing is matched by the provision of one new primary school in the area (with appropriate transport plan) and additional local authority nursery places within each community.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
15%
High Medium 45% Low
40%
The ‘free text’ responses reinforce the community concerns that our schools are already over subscribed and more places will be needed to support any new houses.
26
Q6G: Concerns over travel issues associated with schools in the area.
Approach suggested was:
• Make any future development or extensions to schools contingent on adequate school transport plans.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
14%
High Medium Low 47%
39%
There are no ‘free text’ responses on this topic.
27 Q7: Transport and Infrastructure
Q7A: Parking is a serious problem, particularly in village centres and close to railway stations.
Approach suggested was:
• Manage car parks and on street parking more effectively to benefit local shoppers, shop owners and rail passengers. • Investigate options for additional parking facilities where appropriate. • Investigate whether any under-used privately owned or commercial space could be made available for public parking at certain times or through such as www.parkatmyhouse.com.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
11%
High Medium Low 26%
63%
There are a considerable number of ‘free text’ comments reinforcing the concerns over parking, particularly in and around the villages and stations, and the need for new developments to avoid exacerbating the situation.
Q7B: Traffic congestion is a problem, examples being the Church Lane/A329 roundabout and the crossroads of Devenish and Bagshot Roads. Also, school hour traffic is a major problem.
Approach suggested was:
• Consider junction improvements and/or one way schemes to reduce congestion. • Encourage shift to other modes of transport (walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing) for many journeys, particularly for school runs and commuting. • Improve school transport plans, especially for any new schools or extensions to existing ones.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
28 10%
High Medium Low 52% 38%
The ‘free text’ responses identify a number of areas where congestion is a problem. Several suggestions for improvements were tabled. Deliveries and the high level of heavy goods vehicles on the roads are identified as a problem. There is strong support for measures that will reduce the reliance on cars, including more cycle routes, improved pedestrian routes, locating major developments near stations, and improving public transport.
Q7C: Greater use of buses and trains would help reduce traffic congestion. There is a demand for more bus links with other towns.
Approach suggested was:
• Engage with service providers and their customers to investigate improvement of services.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
13%
High Medium Low
52%
35%
29 Many of the ‘free text’ responses feel the area is poorly served by public transport, both within the area and connections to nearby towns and the hospitals.
Q7D: Roads and Pavements should be made safer and more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists.
Approach suggested was:
• Consider lower speed limits throughout the neighbourhood. • Create more traffic-free routes for pedestrians, rights of way through developments, more road crossings. • Establish cycle ways through and between our villages and increase facilities for cycle storage/anchorages. • Widen narrow pavements, especially on routes used by children walking to school.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
14%
High Medium Low
28% 58%
A number of ‘free text’ responses reinforce the concerns over the safety of pedestrians, owing to narrow pavements and a shortage of safe crossings.
Q7E: Other aspects of infrastructure are important both to the comfort of residents and to attract businesses to the area.
Approach suggested was:
• Ensure additional and improved infrastructure is provided in line with new development. This should include charging points for electric cars, fast broadband for homes and improved drainage where needed.
The relative priorities from the responses are:
30 19%
High 39% Medium Low
42%
Only a few ‘free text’ responses consider the utilities infrastructure inadequate.
31 Appendix 1: Examples of ‘Free Text’ responses to Questions 2B, 3B and 8.
1.0 Introduction:
The Vision Consultation document included 3 questions to which respondents were invited to add their own ‘free text’ responses:
• Q2B invited respondents to say what would add or take away from vision. • Q3B invited respondents to say what they would add or take away from the vision delivery priorities. • Q8 Invited respondents to say if there were any other issues they would like to raise.
A total of 834 free text comments were received in response to these 3 questions. A number of common themes ran through the responses. Also, a review of the responses suggests that some respondents made the same or similar responses to all 3 questions.
For this reason, and to avoid repetition and enhance understanding, the ‘free text’ comments have been grouped into a series of topic headings. Under each topic heading an overview of the responses is presented, followed by a representative sample of the comments.
Where there were contradictory responses we have strived to provide a representative balance in the comments included.
2.0 Housing: 2.1 House Types:
The community comments strongly support a mix of homes, including homes that are good value / affordable by local people - families, couples and single people of all ages. Only a few respondents don’t favour more affordable homes and one respondent feels the new housing is best left to the market to deliver the homes.
Comments included:
• More cheaper housing. • Strongly support the need to increase the availability of small to medium size housing stock and curb the proliferation of large expensive units. • We must have affordable only otherwise our families are driven away. • More good value housing and more facilities close to Ascot High Street. • I strongly believe there are far too many luxury apartments and multimillion pound mansions being built in this area. Where is the affordable housing for our children and the many other young families?
32 • Affordable housing for local people to remain in the area, not huge 5/6 bedroom £2m pound homes young people can’t afford this style of housing. • Encourage the market to deliver the right type of housing in the right locations to ensure a mixed and inclusive neighbourhood that fits with the local character and aspirations of the community. • This area doesn’t need more affordable or single person dwellings – there is enough already. …. • Not keen on lots of affordable housing. • I do not believe we require affordable housing or mixed developments.
Many recent developments have been flats and apartments. This has led to a strong resistance to more flats and apartments, especially those that replace a single house, on the basis that they there are too many, they are ‘over-development’, they change the character of the area and add significantly to the congestion and parking problems.
• Restrict the building of flats…….. • Add a restriction on number of flats being built and the number of houses being converted into flats. • The whole character of the area is changing with blocks of apartments being built on plots which previously contained houses. • No more executive flats. • No more apartment buildings. • There are too many apartment blocks and lack of parking facilities……… • …….In view of the vast increase in numbers of flats along A30 it is arguable that development should now cease.
There is also a resistance to more expensive “mansions” which are unaffordable for most local people, and which have proliferated in recent times at the expense of more modestly priced homes.
• Reduce the amount of expensive housing being built which makes the area too expensive for most. • Fewer mansions • No more large houses. • There are quite enough mega-single family dwellings. • Planning permission should not be given to mega mansions that are currently being built boundary to boundary leaving not much space between the houses for the establishment of trees. • Stop building of houses with large areas valued at £1m +. • Less building of £1m+ mansions and more regular family homes.
2.2 Housing Development Design in the context of the character of the area.
The community expressed a strong wish for new developments to preserve / enhance the character of their local area, including its semi-rural character, green and leafy appearance and character of our Victorian village centres (see below). Also to retain the green gaps between villages and other green spaces. Concern was also expressed at the density of recent developments and the lack of proper provision for parking and servicing
33
Preserve Green and leafy appearance and preserve the gaps between villages.:
• I believe it is very important to do all we can to preserve our green and leafy environment. • Need more specific plans for protecting existing trees and to encourage planting of more trees in the area. • Maintain green and leafy appearance. • Preserve all green open spaces, woodland, etc. • Maintain open green areas between the villages. • The vision to maintain the separation between the areas is supported.
Preserve overall character of our area:
• Any development must be in keeping with and not harmful to the established character of the area, existing neighbour amenity and the established street scene. This includes respecting existing housing densities. I suggest the RBWMs Townscape Assessment (is used as a guide). • Use the Townscape assessment criteria when planning housing. • Identify potential new conservation areas, eg. Sunninghill High Street, S Ascot, and Cheapside. Need gaps between Ascot and S Ascot, and Ascot and N Ascot.
Preserve Character of our village centres:
• Maintaining character of villages must be the key priority. • Keep residential development to scale in keeping with village height. • Preserve Edwardian buildings as well as Victorian and earlier buildings. • Consider architectural style in villages. • Improve the street scene in villages. • I would like the distinct character of S Ascot to be maintained. • Please keep Sunninghill the small lovely village it is. • I do believe where I live in S Ascot is really beautiful. As a resident I feel my quality of life has benefitted greatly by being semi-rural. I would want to see any developments …..maintain this. • Cheapside from the Thatched Tavern to entry to Sunninghill Park should be preserved in order to retain the character of its large amount of late 18th century housing. • I don’t care about maintaining the distinct character of the three villages
Stop urbanisation:
• Stop urbanisation of our area – allow development which is sympathetic with our area. • It seems it is too late as the borough is insisting on too high a density for the villages and are turning them into urban developments. • I think overall, keeping a sense of village and community is important. Sunningdale is changing from a quiet, leafy village to what we see as an increasingly busy, overcrowded town with far too many housing developments and flats.
34
Housing densities:
• Avoid overcrowding of housing. • Too much density on any building site. Insist on parking for 3 cars. • Protect gardens to prevent higher density housing in already established streets. • Protect against over dense development, eg. high density flats with inadequate parking / gardens. • Reduce demolition of houses which are being replaced by much larger numbers of homes / flats in same space, eg. Charters Road, Sunninghill Rd near roundabout. • Must be no over development. • Minimise high density development. • New application are becoming overly cramped with no separation of people and vehicles and without adequate visitor parking of access for service, delivery and maintenance vehicles.
2.3 House Locations
The free text responses provide strong community pointers to where developments should and should not be located.
The preference is for developments to be located close to railway stations, to reduce the reliance on cars, and to develop brown field sites first. There is a strong resistance to developments on green belt land, but some responses recognise that some is of very low quality. Respondents were keen to keep the separation between villages.
• Housing restricted to brown field sites. • No more garden grabbing. • Maintain open green areas between the villages. Only allow development on brown field sites. • I would prefer that development is never carried out on green belt land. • Protect green belt land against development without qualification. • I would strongly oppose the building of houses on the green fields of Sunningdale. • Gasholder site (Sunninghill) cries out for redevelopment. • Heatherwood is an area of opportunity for enhancement. • Provide new housing near Ascot station and High Street.
2.4 Housing Sustainability:
A significant number of respondents were against new development on the grounds that the education and health facilities and highways / parking provision cannot cope with the recent increase in housing numbers, let alone new housing developments.
Others emphasised the need for the health, education, community and highway infrastructure to be enhanced in line with the increasing number of new homes.
35 • More housing development is unsustainable. Schools, roads and NHS services are at bursting point • Before more housing increase capacity of facilities – eg.doctors, schools, buses, etc. • Not enough infrastructure to support what housing already here. More housing equals more cars, more traffic and even less parking. • Ensure that if the population increases, there are appropriate increases in the provision of doctors, dentists, schools and other critical community support services. • If more houses are built infrastructure needs attention – better roads, hospital, doctors, and schools required. • Infrastructure improvement lags new housing and flat developments. This is a major flaw in the manner in which new living accommodations are built. In recent years many flats were added in the area while infrastructure to support those moving in has never been improved or enlarged to support the influx of people. This has added to congestion and is lowering the quality of life. If we continue to allow the demolishing of houses to be rebuilt into flats, roads must be widened and parking must be placed underground…..
Of all the free text responses the greatest number were about parking and traffic concerns, lack of bus services and the lack of adequate provision of safe cycling and walking routes. These problems, which are evidenced below, reinforce the concerns about the area’s ability to sustain more houses unless these issues are addressed. In particular further development in the vicinity of Sunninghill High Street and it’s environs [within 1kM] must be considered with extreme care.
3.0 Environment
As evidenced above, the community values the area for its range of different characters, from the semi-rural feel to the village centres, and wishes new developments to respect this.
3.1 Green Belt
The green belt is highly valued, and there is a strong wish to protect it. Some respondents, however, recognised that some green belt land has already been developed and might be considered for redevelopment.
• Use more brown sites and not Green Belt. • Land within your blue circles (on the vision map) should be excluded from the green belt as some sites (e.g. Ascot High Street) are perfect for mixed schemes, providing say communities for ageing population… • I think the greenbelt countryside that surrounds the villages should be protected for both people and wildlife. However greenbelt is sometimes within built up areas that are surrounded by development and this not so important. • I strongly support the maintenance of the Green Belt. • Protect green belt land against development without qualification. • I would prefer that development is never carried our on green belt land.
36 3.2 Other environmental feedback includes:
• Add biodiversity as a specific priority. • Increase area of important gaps between villages. • Also preserve the areas between S Ascot and Woodland Rise and Coronation Road and Bagshot Road. • Improve the street scene in villages. • Ensure well preserved green space. • Need more specific plans for protecting existing trees and to encourage planting of more trees in the area. • The area needs to be preserved to provide the feel of the countryside.
4.0 Economy
4.1 General
With few exceptions there is good support for growing our local economy.
Comments include:
• Local Economy think tank to support ideas. • Providing sustainable employment opportunities must me a priority. • Formulate Partnerships with private sector to secure continuous plan of action. • Need policies to protect development land – e.g., closed down Honda site to remain as employment, and other sites in all places throughout the area. • More development of housing or commercial buildings in Sunningdale and the village as a whole. 4.2 Business Types:
Favoured business types include retail (small independents and specialist retailers), micro and small businesses, another ‘small unit’ business park and leisure facilities.
Comments include:
• More shops. Less offices, betting shops etc. • More small businesses – varied. No more betting shops, coffee shops, estate agents. • Encourage smaller suitable businesses, micro-businesses and encourage leisure facilities. • More variety of shops open later. • Due to success of small workshops in S Ascot I would like more of this type of unit. They employ local people who can walk to work. • More shops, especially in Ascot. • Better mix of shops. • Protect and encourage the diversity and specialization of retail business (in Sunninghill). • More varied shopping facilities in Ascot would be welcomed by local employees.
37
Businesses not favoured include betting shops, more coffee shops (Ascot), business parks, more offices and a hotel. The community is against ‘cloning’ of our High Streets by a further proliferation of national chains.
• Business parks should not be considered. • Less offices, betting shops etc. • No more betting shops, coffee shops, estate agents. • The rising number of High Street chains is a shame to us all. • I am strongly against a new hotel at Ascot racecourse. • Remove the influx of High Street chain stores. • No more eating places in Ascot. • No more betting or coffee shops in Ascot High Street. • Stop large high street stores. …These are causing unhealthy competition for smaller independents, ruining the village look and feel. • Reduce number of chain stores [Tesco, Costa, Starbucks, Subway etc].
One respondent felt that the economy must be left to market forces.
4.3 Suggested developments:
• Keep the Honda site as an employment site. • Redevelop Station Parade, Sunningdale. • Develop the area between Ascot Wood and the High Street, including for small units. • Redevelop car showrooms at corner of Kings Rd / Sunninghill Road, Sunninghill.
4.4 Suggestions to enhance our villages and make them more successful.
A number of respondents reinforced the first key priority to deliver the vision:
“improve our village centres through appropriate sensitive development of Ascot High Street and Sunningdale, and the preservation and enhancement of Sunninghill”
Ascot
• Make Ascot a destination in its own right. • Ascot High Street should become a focal point for the community. There are several sites ripe for development which could provide much needed community services and residential accommodation to energise the High Street. • Improve and extend Ascot High Street. • Enhancement of Ascot needs specifying in detail or it will loose out in comparison to Sunningdale and Sunninghill. • Provide leisure centre close to Ascot High Street catering for a range of age groups. • Would like to see more development in Ascot High Street to encourage the area to flourish and become a meeting place for the community.
38 • We would like to see a high quality senior community in Ascot centre with on site needs based care such as dementia etc. • Can we use the racecourse more – a community café / bar overlooking racecourse. Cinema clubs? • Redevelopment of Ascot High Street – high quality buildings and remove 60’s / 70’s monstrosities. • Invest in improving the appearance of the high street (Ascot) • Stop large corporate culture taking over the villages. [2a, 2b] • Like to see a development on Ascot High Street which gives Ascot’s community a ‘centre’. • Need a bypass to decrease pollution and reduce traffic going through the High Street.
Sunninghill
• I don’t think this area needs anything done to it. There are no empty shops in Sunninghill and many small independent businesses are thriving. No parking problems either. • Sunninghill is very special and needs to retain its community spirit and character. • Make Sunninghill between Queens Road and Kings Road a pedestrian zone with better parking places. • Eliminate eyesore of car showroom opposite Cordes Hall.
Sunningdale
• More development of housing or commercial buildings in Sunningdale….. • While vision 4 is desirable, further business development in Sunningdale would necessitate additional car parking facilities. Increase in traffic would further diminish the quality of Sunningdale’s environment (commuter car parking is already encroaching).
4.5 Constraints to Economic Growth:
Respondents identified a number of constraints to economic growth, including parking and congestion, business rates and rents and Ascot Racecourse.
Parking
• More parking urgently required in Sunningdale for Shoppers and commuters. • Further business development in Sunningdale would necessitate additional car parking facilities. • I would like more parking available in Sunninghill. Knock down the old telephone exchange and build a new car park facility. • Ascot needs better parking arrangements. • Ascot will need better and more parking – easily done by opening up public areas behind the shops.
39
Business Rents and Rates
• Reduce business rates – especially for those new businesses where high costs can be a deciding factor. • Business rates are extortionate, so businesses leave. • Consider more favourable rents for Ascot High Street so that more retail development can grow. If rental was more favourably priced Ascot High Street may have more reasonable boutiques and shops, not high end high priced shops.
Racecourse Concerns
• Restrict late night / over night activity at Ascot racecourse. • The local infrastructure cannot cope with the existing events held at Ascot Racecourse. Would be against considerable expansion e.g. a hotel and more events. • Totally opposed to any increase in activities at Ascot Racecourse. • Don’t need more racing or non-racing activities at Ascot racecourse. Will only bring degradation of our current environment with more noise, traffic, fumes and congestion. • Ascot racecourse…already detracts from the environment and a hotel will make things worse. • Better balance the needs of race goers with those of the local community. At present the racecourse is a nuisance, not an asset. • Further crowd-pulling events at racecourse to be discouraged and controlled. • Can we use the racecourse more – a community café / bar overlooking racecourse. Cinema clubs?
4.0 Community
4.1 No new housing without enhancing infrastructure and community facilities.
There was a strong feeling among the respondents that the current education and health and parking provision and our highways are inadequate to support the current population, and that any new houses must go hand in hand with improvements in these facilities – see the sustainability section of the Housing feedback, above.
Specific comments on the adequacy of the school and healthcare provision are presented below:
Schools
There is a general concern that our schools are already oversubscribed. A few respondents were against more spaces as this would encourage more housing.
• Education needs to be part of the vision. • School places are a major concern
40 • I think schools should be top of the list. Places are short at the moment without more houses/people in the area. • Schools can’t provide enough places. • Schools oversubscribed. • (need to) ensure enough class places both at primary and secondary schools. • The provision of another primary school. • Increasing capacity of schools does not appeal to families who are concerned about class sizes (primary). There are real issues with overstretched resources at secondary education level without introducing additional primaries. • Do not increase school sizes as will encourage new development.
Healthcare:
Many respondents (40, including possible repeats) wanted to retain health facilities at Heatherwood.
The general level of health provision in the area, including doctor’s surgeries and care homes, was considered inadequate for the current population, let alone new developments:
• Medical services need to increase greatly. • The wait to see GPs is intolerable. • Getting an appointment at the doctors [is difficult]. • I believe the area is in need of health facilities. • Ensure the area has adequate health care facilities. • Ensure adequate healthcare – doctors and hospital. • I would like to stress improvements to medical services (doctors & hospital). • A new Magnolia House Surgery as a modern medical centre. • Doctor surgeries too busy. • There is a lack of high quality care services for the elderly within Ascot for example assisted living so people can remain in their own homes. Ascot would also benefit from a high quality care home similar to Sunrise so older people don’t have to move out. • We would like to see a high quality senior community in Ascot centre with on site needs based care such as dementia etc. • Sites close to (Sunninghill) High Street should be used for high quality care homes which could deliver village green / community buildings, car parks.
Recreation, leisure and community facilities:
There is support for more recreational, leisure and community facilities, including for the younger and older members of our community. Ascot High Street is considered a good location as a focal point for new community facilities. Suggestions include a community centre, arts centre, leisure facilities, and a new care home.
• Add space for future upgrading of social facilities/community hall/bowling/tennis clubs/swimming pool. • Provide leisure centre close to Ascot High Street catering for a range of age groups.
41 • Would like to see more development in Ascot High Street to encourage the area to flourish and become a meeting place for the community. • Provide more meeting and central facility for communal interaction including for both the younger and older members of our community. • Less reliance on Victory fields for community use (access concerns). Transfer to Ascot High Street to provide a central place for community focus. • Add an attractive green space adjacent to Sunninghill High Street, possibly in place of St Michael’s school. • Prioritise a new community swimming pool at Charters. • Better recreational facilities for all ages is a must – we need a swimming pool and the gym at Charters is poor. • Add – building a skateboard park. • More facilities for 10-15 year olds. • More needs to be done to integrate young adults 25-35 into the community. • They (13-18 year olds) need something but need to balance this with the risk of making these forbidding to others. • We are seriously lacking any form of entertainment for teenagers. • Improve facilities for 13-18 year olds. • Add some high quality senior living and needs based community/accommodation (and maybe whoever develops it can pay for some local community works e.g. an arts centre or similar. • More facilities for elderly.
Other suggestions included a skatepark, bandstand, cinema complex, an arts and cultural centre and a green space south of the railway in Sunninghill.
Not all support a swimming pool, on the grounds of cost and of the availability of pools in Bracknell and Windsor.
Public Transport.
The bus services in the area were considered to be very poor, and many respondents wanted to see improvements – see Transport and Infrastructure section, below.
6.0 Transport and Infrastructure
This topic resulted in the largest number of responses, including on cycle lanes, pedestrians, parking, public transport and traffic.
6.1 Cycle Lanes
The provision of cycle lanes strongly supported [20 comments], including to provide safe cycle routes to schools, the stations, the Great Park and around the area in general.
• Add more cycle lanes • Much more emphasis on cycling for short local journeys. • Safe cycle routes from N Ascot to Charters. • Cycling to and from school is a must.
42 • Priority for cyclists (especially safe cycling for school children) will help the transport congestion. • Prioritise cycle paths around and through the parishes separate from roads / traffic. Routes need to be found to schools and stations. • Improve cycle paths particularly in congested areas. • Build more sensible cycle tracks. • A green cycle activity route in the green areas around the villages with a link to the great park. • Consider provision of bicycles, as London. • The hill on the road between Sunningdale and Sunninghill is a barrier to cycling – is there a cycling friendly route which could be opened up? • Prioritise building non-existent cycle paths [best local example is Bracknell. • Winkfield has no pavements from the racecourse to the mini-roundabout on Windsor Road. Cycling is too dangerous and prams, wheelchairs have to be in the road. With lorries and traffic it’s a serious accident waiting to happen.
6.2 Pedestrian facilities, safety
Respondents expressed concern regarding the safety of pedestrians owing to narrow pavements, particularly along walking routes to Charters, the absence of any pavements to some roads and a shortage of pedestrian crossings.
• Better provision for pedestrians and cyclists. At present at risk if you travel outside car. • Extend the improvement of pavements and cycle routes across the whole area. • Pavements are too narrow and there is no opportunity for children to walk or cycle safely to school, particularly Charters. • Make roads and pavements safer and more attractive for pedestrians…..seek to reduce reliance on cars. • Better pedestrian links between S Ascot and Ascot. • Biggest problem in whole area is the hugely dangerous stretch of A329 west of the Church Lane roundabout. Pedestrians walking to and from Ascot are in great peril. • Develop plans for Sunninghill bypass and make High Street pedestrian only. • Safer pavements for pedestrians. • Wider pavements for kids. • Pedestrian crossing in Sunninghill Road to enable people to cross safely from Kingswick. Improve pavements in Sunninghill. • Many pavements are made narrow by pavement parking. Policing is needed. • There is a dire shortage of safe crossing points on Devenish Road, given the volume of traffic. • So long as parking on pavements is tolerated widening pavements will merely allow greater encroachment (e.g. Kennel Rise east side). • Constant parking on zebra crossing (the one in Sunninghill High Street adjacent to Truss Hill Rd) must be stopped.
6.3 Parking:
A significant number of responses were about parking issues [21 comments]. It is a particular concern in and around our village High Streets, where it is considered to
43 impact on village viability, and close to the 2 stations. School run traffic is also a concern.
• More housing equals more cars more traffic and even less parking available. • Locals and residents should be given priority for parking….over non-local. • Ensure any new housing developments have appropriate parking / garages. Ascot has too many flats and inadequate parking. Planning granted seems to assume residents have only 1 car per flat whereas it’s often 2 and occasionally 3 or 4. • Ascot needs better parking arrangements. • Ascot will need better and more parking – easily done by opening up public areas behind the shops. • In favour of clearing all parking in Sunninghill High Street as always congested. • No parking in main roads in S Ascot and Sunninghill to relieve parking and congestion problems. • Ensure adequate parking maintained for both customers and business staff in Sunninghill. • Centre of Sunninghill could have less parking as it obstructs vehicle access. • More parking urgently required in Sunningdale for shoppers, shop keepers and commuters. • Parking has to be put in the plan otherwise Sunningdale will die. • Free parking close to bus and rail stations to encourage usage. • Don’t hammer commuters who park in Sunningdale and use the Station each day – it is an important issue for those living some distance away from the station. Surely better for them to use the train for at least some of journey. Parking in nearby residential roads should be endured within reason…….. • Working in Sunningdale causes concern over parking. The free car park doesn’t open until 8.45. You can only park on A30 between 10 and 5. Station Car Park charges are very high. Extra Parking is urgently needed. • Provide more on-street parking and eliminate many of the yellow lines which have recently appeared on Sunningdale Roads. • The decision to restrict parking along the A30 in Sunningdale and Ridgemount Road is the most remarkable example of “nimbyism” I have seen in a long while. • Continue to allow parking in Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale outside shops. • At peak school hours have no parking along Brockenhurst Road, between junctions with Oliver Road and Victoria Road. • Parking provision in recent developments has been inadequate. • Sunningdale needs more parking space if local shops to survive. • Proposed businesses must have adequate parking in their plans. • The new development of 4 houses instead of 2 in Cromwell Road creates parking problems as very little on-street parking. The parking is very limited today and the build and subsequent properties will cause further intolerable problems. • Take away increase in parking facilities- we have enough already.
6.4 Public Transport
Many respondents felt that our area is badly served by public transport, both within the neighbourhood and to surrounding towns and hospitals.
• More free buses.
44 • Better bus service from Sunninghill and Ascot to Slough. Also more frequent buses to Frimley Park and Bracknell. • Better bus service to and from Sunninghill. • Integrate current public transport. • We need MUCH better public transport. Currently it is abysmal and stops many people moving to the area. • Provide a reliable and comprehensive public transport system within and between local towns and villages. • Without a significant improvement in public transport there can be no reduction on the reliance on cars. • Reduce reliance on cars with better public transport. • Develop efficient transport system – at affordable rates. • Rail Station in Sunninghill. Also Want bus services to get to shops, hospital, • For people without cars Wexham Park is almost out of touch for Sunninghill residents. Public transport is required. • We need buses more regularly in Ascot, as near to the centre as possible, with direct link to Bracknell and Windsor. • I was recently made redundant and have found as a non-driver that my options in looking for work are very limited. Bus services in the Ascot area, especially S Ascot, are rare, but also extremely expensive forcing us onto rail services for simple trips to bank or post office. In a nearby town……. • I and many of my friends in the area work at Heathrow. It would be great to have a viable public Transport option. • Why does Woodside not have a bus service? • Bus route to Chobham and Woking needed. • Encourage Green Line to use (Ascot) High Street – London Road / Winkfield Road to link with train services.
6.5 Utilities:
A small number of respondents were concerned at the ability of utilities to cope with new development.
• I would be concerned as to if the utilities can cope with yet more development. • Reservoirs are inadequate. • Specific consultation for utilities electric, water, etc., upkeep. Seem to be victims of underinvestment. • We will need better water / sewerage facilities and energy supplies in the area. • Better street lighting.
6.6 Traffic:
Speeding is of concern and more enforcement sought, but not by all. A few respondents feel that cars will always be essential and drivers should not be penalised in favour of other travel options.
Respondents identified a number of junctions / locations for highway improvements.
• More traffic calming and speed limit enforcement.
45 • More enforcement of speed limits. • Enforce speed limits more strictly, especially in residential roads. • Need 20mph speed limit in Lower Village Road. • More speed cameras needed in village centres. • No more new speed limits. • Drivers make up the vast majority of travellers in this area and their needs must take primacy. • With 95% of transport being by private car I fail to see how the vision addresses the desires of the local majority. • Roads need smoothing and some one way systems introduced. • I would try to alter road systems to facilitate traffic flow but also maintain safe speed limits. • All roads and junctions need to cope with the additional capacity of vehicles – wider roads. • Create one way system to reduce congestion in Sunninghill High Street e.g. Petworth, West Sussex. • Sunninghill High Street is a nightmare at school run times. A new traffic system needs to be looked for. • Improvements to the B3383 / A329 junction. • Divert the main traffic away from Ascot. Make a new bypass. • The roundabout at Sunninghill Road where it joins the London Road is dangerous. Lorries and cars have to move to the wrong side of the road to negotiate the junction. The boundary to this road is unstable. • We have encouraged too much large industry in and around Ascot which has created a real nightmare of heavy goods vehicle travelling down Deveninsh Road at speed. • Consider effect of large delivery lorries on existing difficult traffic before granting planning permission (One Stop, Sunninghill. • A roundabout is needed at the junction with Silwood Road and Buckhurst Road. • Anything to alleviate the traffic bottleneck beside the Silwood Road would be an improvement. • Junction at Station Road and Broomhall Lane and Rise Road should be a compulsory stop. • Need a better by-pass to decrease pollution and reduce the traffic going through Ascot High Street. • A bridge over the railway /A30 Sunningdale – main problem with area. • Put a roundabout at the crossroads by the Berystede Hotel. A very dangerous junction [2 other similar comments] • Give higher priority to reducing reliance on cars.
46
Appendix 2
Vision Consultation Questionnaire
47
A Vision for the future of Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale
Our neighbourhood is a distinctly green and leafy area with some 18,000 residents, nestling between open Economically, the area is far from self-contained and is dependent for shopping, entertainment, jobs and local and wooded spaces that are mainly public access: Windsor Great Park, Chobham Common, Wentworth and labour on the nearby towns of Windsor, Woking, Camberley and Bracknell. Although recognised as a desirable Sunningdale golf courses and the more rugged Swinley Forest. place to live, many feel the area needs significant improvement and more facilities to create vibrant and strong local community identities. The area also enjoys the benefit of cultural assets such as Ascot Racecourse, Coworth Park, a theatre and several listed churches. Otherwise, it is a mainly residential area based around the original Victorian villages of The map and the six vision points below summarise how our area might evolve and develop to meet Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale and the smaller communities of South Ascot, North Ascot and Cheapside. future needs while remaining an attractive, safe and pleasant community in which to live. Identified on the map are some areas for possible enhancement. Vision
1. Maintain the distinct character of our three main villages and the separation between them, avoiding the creep of urban sprawl.
2. Preserve the green and leafy appearance of our surroundings for recreation and wellbeing, and to secure wildlife corridors to protect our flora and fauna.
3. Meet new housing demand in a way that is sympathetic to the area, maintaining a mix of housing types to include family homes, affordable housing, single person households and for our ageing population.
4. Move towards a low carbon emissions environment by locating new development close to transport hubs and routes and encouraging more energy-efficient buildings.
5. Create an economic environment that makes it attractive for micro, small and medium-sized businesses and shops to locate and remain in the area, providing sustainable employment opportunities for those who live within and outside it.
6. Ensure our roads and streets provide safe and accessible routes, better balancing the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.
Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
APPENDIX D – ASCOT CENTRE CONSULTATION
Ascot centre COMmUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 1 FEBRUARY 2013
2 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY
CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 4 SECTION 2. SUMMARY OF EVENTS 6 SECTION 3. SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK 7 SECTION 4. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS 8 SECTION 5. HIGH STREET & LOCAL ECONOMY 10 SECTION 6. TRANSPORT 12 section 7. INFRASTRUCTURE 14 SECTION 8. COMMUNITY AMENITIES 16 SECTION 9. HOUSING 18 SECTION 10.green belt implications 20 SECTION 11.Summary & NEXT STEPS 22
APPENDIX 24
THE PRINCE’S FOUNDATION for BUILDING COMMUNITY: TRANSFORMING LIVES through ENGAGING EDUCATING and EMPOWERING people
19—22 Charlotte Road London EC2A 3SG United Kingdom E [email protected] T +44 (0) 20 7613 8500 F +44 (0) 20 7613 8599 www.princes-foundation.org
President: HRH The Prince of Wales A Company Limited by guarantee No. 3579567 Registered Charity No. 1069969 VAT No. 839 8984 44
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR DIGITAL RELEASE ONLY
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 3 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The Prince’s Foundation was asked by the Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Planning Group to facilitate a community workshop to discuss the future for Ascot.
The Prince’s Foundation is working namely: NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING together with the Neighbourhood Single sided High Street due to Introduced through the Localism Planning Steering Group to develop green belt designation specific vision, strategies and plans Act, Neighbourhood Planning gives for the future of Ascot Centre. The congestion in the High Street local communities a statutory say in shaping development in their own Steering Group was set up in 2011 by Parking issues on the High Street the community, for the community, areas. For example: Most people travel to the high and have been developing a street by car • Choosing what new homes will be Neighbourhood Plan through public built, where they will be located engagement. There is no physical hub for the and what they will look like community This report is a summary of • Identification of desired retail lack of homes within easy walking and business development community workshops facilitated distance by The Prince’s Foundation in • Core community issues such as October 2012. Engaged in this As identified in the public green spaces and the environment consultations, these issues were the process were key stakeholders from • Improving transport the community, Royal Borough focus of the community workshops. infrastructure, community of Windsor and Maidenhead services, and leisure and It is intended that the outputs for (RBWM), and Ascot Racecourse. recreational facilities the Ascot Centre workshop will This exercise was an opportunity form parts of a Ascot, Sunninghill, The Prince’s Foundation has been for local stakeholders to continue and Sunningdale Neighbourhood helping communities across the momentum in the development of a Plan. This report is a summary of country in the development of Neighbourhood Plan. the work carried out by The Prince’s Neighbourhood Plans since the There are currently several issues Foundation’s team with the local Localism Bill was introduced in 2011. preventing Ascot High Street from community in October 2012. thriving as a proper High Street,
TOPIC GROUPS ESTABLISHED VISION OCT 2011 CONSULTATION Topic Groups of local APRIL 2012 residents working on Views on proposed Vision developing options for and priorities for the area. further consideration. 550 responded. 2011 2012
Launch ASCOT HIGH STREET event & CONSULTATION CONSULTATION SEPT 2011 AUGUST 2012 To familiarise community with Surveys and interviews for views on Neighbourhood Planning and gather High Street. 470 responded. initial feedback
4 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY ASCOT RACECOURSE
ASCOT HIGH STREET
ASCOT TRAIN STATION
AREA OF FOCUS FOR THE ASCOT CENTRE WORKSHOPS INSET: MAP OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AREA WITH ASCOT CIRCLED ASCOT CENTRE WORKSHOPS & CONSULTATIONS
october 2012 OPTIONS CONSULTATION Workshops to draft ideas and 3RD DECEMBER 2012 - 15TH proposals for Ascot. Over 200 attended. JANUARY 2013 Build consensus toward specific options and draft Neighbourhood Plan
2013 development of neighbourhood plan ASCOT HIGH STREET CONSULTATION AUGUST 2012 Surveys and interviews for views on High Street. 470 responded. Neighbourhood planning timeline TO DATE
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 5 SECTION 2. SUMMARY OF events
The Prince’s Foundation facilitated opening public SESSION a series of community events in October 2012, building on previous consultations, to develop specific plans, strategies and ideas.
08 october OVER 200 people attended
The Prince’s Foundation uses the community workshop process as a planning tool that brings together key stakeholders to collaborate on a vision for a place. The process assesses a complex range of design requirements for a development area or neighbourhood, with every issue Stakeholder workshop tested by being drawn.
For the Ascot Centre workshops, the existing public consultation work was used as a starting point. It was clear from the Neighbourhood Planning Area-wide Vision Consultation that Ascot was seen as an area that deserves to be looked at in greater detail. The Vision Consultation, held earlier in 2012, received support from 86% of all respondents and is 09 october summarised below: (ALSO YOUTH WORKSHOP)
Maintain the distinct character of our three main villages and the separation between them
Preserve the green and leafy appearance of our surroundings
Meet new housing demand in a way that is sympathetic to the area, public feedback session maintaining a mix of housing types
IMPROVE ASCOT
Create an economic environment that supports micro, small and medium businesses and shops
Ensure our roads and streets provide safe and accessible routes,
29 october OVER 250 people attended
6 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY SECTION 3. SUMMARY OF feedback
The public feedback from the solutions focused on safety and would like to have them in the area: Neighbourhood Planning Launch provide better access community centre, small cinema, art Event through to the Ascot Centre centre, sport clubs workshops is grouped into four Parking and loading zones on the categories below. This served as the High Street need to be sorted out Would like small park or open green basis from which designs, strategies, space Improve bus service and cycle lanes and plans were developed. Speed limit to make the streets more high street & local comfortable housing economy Better connections between villages, Green, leafy neighbourhoods Ascot High Street should be a focal emphasising cycling and bus routes, point for the community will bring people to the area Attractive, mixed housing that locals can afford Small, independent retail and other Would like easier access to the businesses should be encouraged countryside for pedestrians and Should preserve the local character cyclists The green belt designation has Concerned about higher density prevented development of the south housing side of the High Street. COMMUNITY AMENITIES
Another side is needed for the High The High Street should provide more Street to be complete. facilities for its community
The community spirit exists but transport & there’s no physical hub infrastructure There are other facilities that support Need traffic and infrastructure an active social life and people
‘post your ideas’ board at the opening public session
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 7 SECTION 4. the EXISTING CONDITIONS
The High Street suffers from having only one side and from having few homes within walking distance.
Currently, much of the land south of the High Street is designated as Green Belt. This land is used currently for parking on racedays and for car boot sales. These uses do not contribute to either the economic viability of the High Street or the community spirit of Ascot. At the same time, parts of Ascot Racecourse, namely the Grandstand, and the unused car showroom at the train station are also in the Green Belt.
All of these inconsistencies have led to the current situation in Ascot Centre: a world-class attraction in Ascot Racecourse with an adjacent High Street that is not meeting its potential.
While the original focus of these workshops included Heatherwood Hospital, it was agreed to focus on the High Street and surrounds because Heatherwood is being dealt with through a separate consultation by the NHS Trust. It is important that principles of mixed-use, walkability, community engagement, and connectivity to above: green belt land on the high street used for parking and car boot sales the station be incorporated into any redevelopment of the site.
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAs
ASCOT RACECOURSE
high street
CURRENT HEATHERWOOD HOSPITAL POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA
STATION REDEVELOPMENT AREA
MAP WITH GREEN BELT (in green) AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS
8 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY A ONE-SIDED HIGH STREET
Ascot High Street should be a thriving High Street during the day and in the evening. One of the main reasons it is not is because it is one sided. Retail and other businesses on High Streets are most viable when more businesses open in a close proximity. For example, existing restaurants do better once other restaurants open up next door.
Also, shoppers and other pedestrians typically like to walk in a loop, and a one-sided High Street does not have this continuity.
Parking is another issue, for example for locals on racedays. This issue has also made it harder for retail to EXISTING VIEW OF THE HIGH STREET, LOOKING TO THE EAST thrive.
THE FIVE MINUTE WALK
Typically, people will walk about 5-7 minutes to access their daily needs, e.g. a pint of milk. Beyond that, they are more likely to get into the car to get where they need to go. In this context, the ‘five minute pint test’ is a effective way to demonstrate a place’s walkability. Applying this walkable catchment to Ascot High Street clearly demonstrates how few residences are actually within reasonable walking distance.
This lack of homes is one of the main reasons the High Street is not living up to its potential, both as a viable E MINUTE WALK V retail centre and as a heart to the FI community.
FIGURE GROUND PLAN, SHOWING JUST THE BUILDINGS (HOUSES IN RED)
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 9 SECTION 5. high street & LOCAL ECONOMY Mixed use, infill buildings; small independents; a more integrated Racecourse; a fully-realised High Street.
overhead view of proposed high street A constant theme during the workshops was the desire to create more activity on the High Street both SMALL BUSINESS UNITS to during the day and in the evening. the south of the proposed berkshire Many ideas came from the public for house Square (see section 8) view shown how to create that activity, from more below right restaurants to a community centre to FLEXIBLE SPACES PED -ING X street trees. SHARED COMMON AREAS TO MINIMISE COST MIXED USE The following are examples of ideas, COMMUNITY / PROPOSED arts designs and initiatives that could Square CENTRE bring that vitality: a High Street full of independent retailers and restaurants that bring activity during the day and in the evening. MIXED USE MIXED USE on the high street
Mixed use buildings filling in gaps of high street - retail or other active use on ground floor, residential or office above Focus on small, independent retailers and small businesses by Promotion in new mixed use developments Strategies to provide affordable rent below: improvements at the station for retail units potential SMALL RACECOURSE ACTIVITIES (SEE RETAIL SECTION 8) potential EQUESTRIAN CENTRE potential hotel with public leisure centre (at site of current pavilion) providing community amenities more activity to benefit economic growth in the high Street
AT THE STATION IMPROVED potential CAR SHOWROOM DOUBLE DECK RESIDENTIAL DROP OFF small CAR PARK IMPROVED DROP OFF CIRCLE CIRCLE retail CAR showroom NEW SMALL, COMMUTER-FOCUSED RETAIL DOUBLE DECKER PUBLIC CAR PARK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE BOTTOM
10 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY SECTION 5. high street & LOCAL ECONOMY
character photos for high street overhead view of proposed high street
berkshire house
e
cycl
cycle / MIXED /
only only USE MIXED ped ped PED -ING COMMUNITY / X USE arts PED -ING CENTRE X PARKING MIXED USE
Petrol station
Above, artist’s impression of the proposed layout
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 11 SECTION 6. transport
Resolving High Street congestion issues will make the High Street safer, more comfortable and more viable.
During the workshops, traffic congestion and lack of parking centres of retail and social activity will have issues with on the High Street came out as top issues preventing the parking and congestion. Improved street layouts such High Street from reaching its potential. This is a day to day as shared space, wider pavements, and rationalised issue as well as on racedays, when the local community tend loading zones can enhance traffic flow whilst ensuring to stay away from the High Street. The shops on the High pedestrian safety and comfort. Street also tend to close on racedays. This counterintuitive situation is difficult to resolve, especially given the desire to create a more vibrant High Street with more shops on it and more homes around it. No matter what, attractive
GREEN CONNECTIONS BETTER CYCLE CONNECTIONS TO LOCAL VILLAGES
BETTER PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG HIGH STREET BETTER CYCLING/PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO HEATHERWOOD HOSPITAL SITE CYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ROUTE PARALLEL TO HIGH STREET HOPPER BUS SERVICES BETWEEN ALL THE VILLAGES IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT AND CYCLE PATH ON STATION HILL ROAD
IMPROVED CYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ROUTE AND WIDENING OF ST GEORGE’S LANE
diagram showing notional pedestrian and cycle routes
racecourse winkfield
road
high street
station
heatherwood st hill
hospital george
’
s
lane
station
12 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY High street layout WIDER PAVEMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF STREET
REMOVAL OF CENTRAL MEDIAN
LANDSCAPE ZONE (STREET TREES)
DEDICATED LOADING ZONES WITH RESTRICTED LOADING TIMES
‘SHARED SPACE’ THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE HIGH STREET. WELL-DESIGNED PAVING AND STREET FURNITURE.
DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WITH REMOVABLE BOLLARDS
REMOVABLE BOLLARDS ON HIGH STREET TO ALLOW TWO LANE TRAFFIC IN EACH DIRECTION PROPOSED STREET SECTION SHOWING LAYOUT
STATION HILL ROAD ROUNDABOUT
IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS high BETTER/WIDER PAVEMENTS street
WIDER LANES FOR BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW
station
hill
road plan of proposed STATION HILL ROAD roundabout
winkfield road WINKFIELD ROAD ROUNDABOUT
IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
BETTER/WIDER PAVEMENTS
WIDER LANES FOR BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW high PROPOSED PETROL STATION street
REDO ST GEORGE’S LANE ENTRY
proposed petrol station
plan of proposed winkfield road roundabout
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 13 SECTION 7. INFRASTRUCTURE
Car parking is essential for a successful, active High Street, but too much can be detrimental.
Parking on the High Street was an issue raised at the another shop, for example. At the same time, ignoring workshops. Car parking is always an issue in mixed-use the car and its importance can lead to High Streets developments. Shop owners want customers to be able to that are not active and retail that is not viable. In the park in front of their shop, and homeowners want to be able last 10-15 years, innovative transport engineers have to park their car close to their home. At the same time, found success in more integrated parking management congestion is also always an issue. So something has to give. strategies which properly accommodate the car but The tendency to overcompensate for the car has led to urban celebrate the pedestrian. Below are some of these locations becoming more suburban in nature. The inertia solutions that are tailored to Ascot Centre. needed to make places active and shops viable declines as more valuable space is devoted by car parking, instead of a
residential parking STRATEGY
The following strategy has worked successfully for a small-scale mixed use development in Dorset. This innovative approach provides the necessary parking for each home whilst allowing the streets to feel spacious and not cramped. A certain number of parked cars are good for residential streets because they slow moving cars down and create activity. And this then leads create safer, more comfortable streets for pedestrians and residents.
For each residence, at least:
( 1 ) PARKING SPACE IN PARKING COURTYARD WITHIN BLOCK BEHIND HOUSE
( 1 ) PARKING SPACE IN GARAGE ON PLOT ACCESSED FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE
( 1 ) PARKING SPACE ON STREET FOR EVERY TWO HOUSES (SO ALL THE HOUSES ON THE BLOCK SHARE THE PARKING)
IMAGES OF TYPICAL PARKING COURTYARD AND RESIDENTIAL STREET
14 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY retail parking short term parking and dedicated car source of energy could create a STRATEGY parks for longer term parking. more sustainable future for the Ascot community by providing local, SHORT TERM PARALLEL PARKING ALONG Successful urban High Streets HIGH STREET AND ON ALL SIDES OF VILLAGE renewable energy (see diagram will always have parking problems SQUARE below). because they are destinations. So LONGER TERM PARKING IN IDENTIFIED the challenge is how to strike the LARGER CAR PARKS JUST OFF HIGH STREET, balance that properly allows the retail (P) ON DIAGRAM BELOW (approximately and social activity to thrive whilst 5,000 square metres total area) providing enough parking for shops DEDICATED LOADING ZONES WITH to thrive. RESTRICTED LOADING TIMES
Whilst we must take into account that CAR PARK SET ASIDE FOR LOCAL COMMUNITY TO USE HIGH STREET ON most drive to the High Street now, we RACEDAYS must not accept this is a given in long term planning, especially considering other parallel initiatives that have been suggested, such as cycling potential small scale promotion and more houses within community ENERGY CENTRE walking distance to the High Street. There is currently a power supply The follow strategy takes ideas from problem for businesses on and near similarly sized High Streets that have the High Street. A small scale energy similar parking issues. It utilises a centre on Racecourse land could combination of on street parking for address this issue. A community
racecourse
PROPOSED GREEN
ENERGY CENTRE winkfield
road
p p high street existing p p p
p
existing p
STATION HILL ROAD
PARKING DIAGRAM WITH P DENOTING DEDICATED CAR PARK
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 15 SECTION 8. community amenities Development in Ascot Centre is not just for economic growth - it can deliver desired community amenities as well.
The community have called for more berkshire house amenities on the High Street to complement the existing, such as the high street Football Club and library. There was mixed use a desire for both a public gathering space and a community building. To justify development on the south side community of the street, there must be included village square centre elements of clear community benefit. mixed use station VILLAGE Square
A Village Square could be a proper hill view shown community gathering space. top right Importantly, it should be plotted to road maximise the existing large trees. mixed use It could be fronted by a community mixed use centre (see below) and two to three storey mixed use buildings with fire retail or other active uses on the station ground floor and residences above. SMALL Parallel parking could line all BUSINESS sides. This Village Square could UNITS give a physical heart to the Ascot community on the High Street. COMMUNITY CENTRE
A gathering space for all ages was a common idea during the workshops. diagram showing suggested village Square This community centre could have community space, an arts space, and is problematic because of limited Suitable Alternative Natural Green a cinema. This building should be 2-3 access, lack of size, and proximity to Space (SANG), open to the public for stories, the building footprint should industrial activity. As such, further recreation. be approximately 15m x 25m. An study is needed to prepare a school excellent model for this centre is The development brief which will inform There are also permissive rights Firestation Arts Centre in Windsor, the identification of the appropriate for people to take air and exercise which contains an auditorium, site. 364 days per year on Ascot Heath & studios, classrooms, and other potentially a Leisure Centre included flexible spaces. ENVIRONMENT, health & as part of the Ascot Racecourse hotel WELL-BEING project (see next section). PRIMARY school South & North of the High St, HOTEL WITH PUBLIC LEISURE During the workshops, a desire for a important mature trees will be CENTRE primary school near to Ascot Centre retained to form a nucleus of green was expressed. After consideration, it spaces for the enjoyment of residents Ascot is the venue for a wide range is suggested that it is not appropriate & visitors alike. (see section 9). of conference and events that take to identify a location at this stage. place throughout the year. Ascot is The school is best suited to be Long term, the vision is that the restricted in the range of conferences located near the High Street, though wood between Heatherwood Hospital it can hold by the absence of on-site locating it close to the High Street and the railway could become a hotel accommodation. It is therefore
16 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY ARTIST’S IMPRESSION OF THE VILLAGE square proposed to include a hotel on the OTHER racecourse The Royal Ascot Nursery School Ascot site which should: activities The Ascot facilities are also used by increased footfall for retailers on the local groups for a wide range of the high street The Racecourse, other than the racing activity, also provides a meetings, whilst Car Park 3 has been Assist the conference activity and wide range of essential community made available as a public car park allow for multi-day conferences on non-racedays. reducing the need to travel amenities. These include: Royal Ascot Golf Club EQUESTRIAN CENTRE It is preferable to locate this activity as close to the core of the village as Royal Ascot Cricket Club To be used for community for riding possible so that the economic benefits for disabled, school riding lessons Ascot United Football Club are optimised. and horse clubs. Also to be used for The Durning Library; and occasional international exhibitions.
ASCOT RACECOURSE EQUESTRIAN CENTRE SITE
hotel SITE GREEN with leisure SPACE centre
HIGH STREET SQUARE
GREEN SPACE GREEN SPACE
DIAGRAM SHOWING suggested community amenities
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 17 SECTION 9. HOUSING
Two large areas adjacent to the High Street could provide its vital walkable catchment.
One of main reasons the High Street has not reached its ‘Ascot Village’ concept is seen as a lower scale residential potential is a lack of homes within walking distance. The development, taking as precedent the scale of the homes two large areas to the north and south of the High Street on Course Road (see image below). To the south, the can address this issue. Responding to the call for a mix ‘Ascot Green’ concept is seen as a development tucked diagram of ascot green concept of housing, it is suggested to have a variety of housing into the landscape, taking advantage of the existing type and density across the two areas. To the north, the large trees that dominate.
diagram of housing mix
ASCOT RACECOURSE
winkfield
road
high street
st
a
tion
hill
road 1 Small residential 2 Medium residential 3
Large residential
Flats above shops
precedent for ascot village concept precedent for ascot GREEN concept diagram of ascot village concept
18 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY 1 ASCOT green concept
5.4 approximate hectares total area
1.5 hectares of green spaces high street 0.75 HECTARE VILLAGE Square Square
ALL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PLOTTED
TO KEEP EXISTING LARGE TREES AND st a
LANDSCAPE ti o n fire station
MEDIUM SIZE HOUSING TO THE EAST AND hill
LARGER SIZE HOUSING TO THE WEST r oa d
SOMETHING IN THE ORDER OF 24-28 HOUSING UNITS PER HECTARE green space or trees
suggested street/path
suggested frontage diagram of ascot green concept
artist’s impression of ascot village
2 ASCOT VILLAGE concept green space or trees ASCOT RACECOURSE 3.5 approximate hectares TOTAL area suggested street/path
0.8 HECTARE GREEN SPACE suggested frontage ALL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PLOTTED TO KEEP EXISTING LARGE TREES AND LANDSCAPE
TWO STORY TERRACE HOUSING
MIXED USE BUILDINGS ALONG THE HIGH STREET winkfield
PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE ACCESS ONLY TO HIGH
STREET road
SOMETHING IN THE ORDER OF 30 - 35 UNITS PER HECTARE
high street diagram of ascot village concept
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 19 section 10. GREEN BELT IMPLICATIONS
After an analysis the issues and consultation with the local community, a series of ideas have been suggested. These ideas have implications on the Green Belt. at the High street to exclude the track facilities, wheth- Ascot Centre specific Green Belt poli- er permanent or temporary. cies in the Royal Borough of Windsor Ascot Village developed intrinsically & Maidenhead Local Plan, which is as a service centre for the Racecourse. The racecourse has now been being developed at the moment. As Its stature reflects that evolution redeveloped (2003-2005) so the of this writing though, Department rather than a more holistic typical Green Belt should be reviewed to of Communities of Local Govern- English Village. This reflects in the maintain this continued position. ment (DCLG) have not clearly stated lack of scale and single-sided nature Ascot Racecourse in general has the how Neighbourhood Plans can best of the High Street. As a consequence, highest quality racing in the world. influence larger policy items, such as it suffers from a series of issues, as The Royal Meeting is world famous Green Belt. identified previously in the report: and all the activities at the racecourse have a positive impact on the local Land to the north and south of the Single sided High Street due to community and economy. High Street is suggested for release green belt designation from the Green Belt, however, its congestion in the High Street It is proposed that the Green Belt development should be subject to be re-aligned to continue the prior certain criteria. Parking issues on the High Street principle of retaining the majority Most people travel to the high of racecourse land in the Green Prior to the submission of any outline street by car Belt, but excluding those areas or detailed planning application, a There is no physical hub for the used operationally for racing on a masterplan for the area should be community consistent basis. prepared by the owner/developer and submitted to, and with partnership lack of homes within easy walking by the local community, the Parish distance Council, and the Royal Borough of at the train station If Ascot is to change into a more Windsor & Maidenhead for consul- sustainable, long term settlement, The existing car park and car show- tation and approval. The masterplan it needs to grow, albeit within sensi- room are located in the Green Belt. should comply with the policies of the ble parameters that reflect a more This counter-intutive situation, simi- neighbourhood plan and be clear on rational development. Development lar to the situation at the Racecourse, the quantum and total floor area of of the north and south elements at should be resolved as well. development, mix of uses and style of a similar scale to the existing village development. will provide a more cohesive centre Prior to implementation of the first whilst maintaining the integrity of house under the masterplan scheme, the Green Belt. Potential Policy Principles the owner/developer should pay an agreed amount toward the communi- There are different ways of address- ty buildings and should not complete at the racecourse ing the Green Belt designation. or occupy an agreed number of hous- Planning applications for the areas es until the commercial development Ascot Racecourse has been operating suggested in this report could be han- has commenced. in its current location since 1711. It dled on a case by case basis. Within A comprehensive parking analysis has been redeveloped a number of the Neighbourhood Plan, policies and strategy shall be included in the times since its original creation. The and principles regarding Green Belt masterplan for the area. Any plan- last redevelopment in the late 1950s at Ascot Centre could be included. ning application should adhere to preceded the current designation of Another option is there could be the Green Belt. When the Green Belt these parking provisions. was designated, it was clearly drawn
20 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAs
ASCOT RACECOURSE
high street
HEATHERWOOD HOSPITAL SITE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA
STATION DEVELOPMENT AREA
MAP WITH GREEN BELT (in green) AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 21 section 11. SUMMARY & NEXT STEPS
The community spirit is alive in Ascot and deserves a heart in an active, vibrant High Street.
With substantial community input, development and for 21st century pragmatic, innovative solutions have community-led neighbourhood been put forth to address issues planning. that could bring activity to the High Street, desired amenities to the community, and relief to congestion and parking. The community of Final public session Ascot are keen participants in the presentation HEATHERWOOD HOSPITAL SITE process of planning their future, The Prince’s Foundation presented which is a validation of the idea of first hypotheses at the Final Public Localism. Session, and the response was gen- The momentum gained through erally very positive. A summary of the workshops can be carrried the comments and questions can be found in the Appendix. A question- forward as the process moves toward POSSIBLE SUITABLE adoption of a Neighbourhood naire was also filled out by the public ALTERNATIVE NATURAL Plan. These workshops, as part of and is also in the Appendix. GREEN SPACE (SANG) SITE the Neighbourhood Plan, have the potential to turn Ascot Centre into an exemplar project for High Street
LEGEND
DEVELOPMENT SITE
GREEN SPACE
GREEN BELT
IMPROVED JUNCTION Neighbourhood planning next steps
PUBLIC CONSULTATION PERIODS
(1) six week public consultation on draft Neighbourhood Plan (facilitated by Parish Councils)
(2) second six week public consulation on final Neighbourhood Plan (facilitated by RBWM)
FIRST DRAFT PLAN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION In line with the local plan, EU legislation
In line with national policy
Proper public engagement and sound
22 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY evidence WINKFIELD ROAD
POSSIBLE EQUESTRIAN CENTRE SITE ASCOT RACECOURSE POSSIBLE GREEN ENERGY CENTRE SITE POSSIBLE HOTEL SITE
HIGH STREET
STATION HILL ROAD
POSSIBLE SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE NATURAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL GREEN SPACE (SANG) SITE USE (LONG TERM VISION)
STATION REDEVELOPMENT
ENHANCED CYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ROUTE
CYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ONLY ROUTE
MIXED USE FRONTAGE
SUGGESTED ROUTE
OVERALL ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
ADOPTION
INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION LOCAL REFERENDUM BY RBWM
In line with the local plan, EU A simple majority (over 50%) will be legislation required in order to pass the plan
In line with national policy
Proper public engagement and sound evidence ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 23 ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT APPENDICES - SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP AND CONSULTATIONS APPENDIX 1 WORKSHOP DETAILS AND SUMMARIES
APPENDIX 2 WORKSHOP DOTS EXERCISES
APPENDIX 3 ASCOT HIGH STREET VISITOR SURVEY RESPONSES
APPENDIX 4 ‘IDEA CARDS’ FROM 8 OCTOBER 2013 WORKSHOP
APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM PRINCE’S FOUNDATION PUBLIC WORKSHOP 2
APPENDIX 6 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES & SOME BASIC ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS CONSULTATION
24 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY APPENDIX 1 WORKSHOP DETAILS AND SUMMARIES
PRINCE’S FOUNDATION TEAM Each Group facilitated by The Prince’s Foundation
HANK DITTMAR, Chief Executive Transport Services/ Facilities MICHAEL ROMERO, Project Manager Planning, housing
IRINA VANCEA, Graduate Fellow Economy 14.30 Coffee and Tea break ANGELA KOCH, Facilitation Consultant 14.45 Group design sessions - look at delivering responses to the priorities BEN McCABE, Illustrative Artist 16.15 Groups present back to whole group
17.00 Close of day MANUELA BELLE, Graphics Assistant • PATRICK JAMES, Landscape Consultant Parallel Youth Session TRENTON WILLIAMS, Transport Consultant 16.00 Group Walkabout the High Street 16:30 Group Discussion (or split into two groups if needed) DETAILED WORKSHOP PROGRAMME 17:00 Close 8th October - 1st Public Session (19.00- • 21.00) 29th October – 2nd Public Session at the Pavilion at Ascot Racecourse (19.00-20.30) • at the Pavilion at Ascot Racecourse 19.00 Welcome and Introductions by Ascot High Street • Improvement Team 19.00 Welcome and Introductions by Ascot High Street 19.15 Presentation from The Prince’s Foundation about Improvement Team Process, Principles 19.15 Presentation from The Prince’s Foundation 20.15 Q&A on key issues 20.15 Q&A on key issues 21:00 Close 9th October – Stakeholder Workshop (9.00-17.00) at the Concourse at Ascot Racecourse • 09.00 Welcome and Introductions by Ascot High Street Improvement Team 09.10 Presentation from The Foundation on Process, Principles and Summary of public session 09.30 Technical Presentations History of Area - Planning – Planning Framework, applications Transport – Economy – Opportunities and issues Landscape – Green belt and other issues 10.30 Q and A 11.00 Group Walkabout the High Street 12.30 Lunch 13.00 Group break into teams (Identify key issues and priorities for their group)
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 25 PUBLIC OPENING SESSION Q & A 13 Definitely a community spirit in Ascot. Much support 1 The world comes to Ascot for the races. But what for the Save Heatherwood Hospital campaign. The local does the High Street offer currently? Perhaps add more independents could support but the chain stores could diversity in restaurants; promote small businesses for chefs not support. starting out. This would create opportunities and activity throughout the year A: Looking at solutions that promote and/or subsidise small businesses. An example is Marylebone High St in 2 Perhaps an arts centre. Better option than a hotel, London, owned by a trust. They found that by reducing which would perhaps be less beneficial to local commu- the rents on independent businesses they make the place nity. Location should perhaps be on the south side of the more attractive to residences above and around. High Street. 14 Land to the south of the high street has not been devel- 3 How can we promote development that does not pro- oped because of its green belt status. If you want develop- mote multiples, i.e. ‘clone town’? How do we stop private ment there, use your voice. developers developing inappropriate development? 15 Why can’t we pedestrianise the High Street? With a 4 Integration of transport – could there be a bus depot village green? here near the railway station which could increase bus service? A: A bit of a challenge by taking the cars away for the retailers. Perhaps a parallel route? 5 Maidenhead arts and cultural community centre - don’t have the same in Ascot. Don’t come here except for pint 16 Disagree with pedestrianising. Would like it to be of milk. Road from north Ascot to here is dangerous. accessible. Same to south Ascot. Not far, but feels further. Safety for kids and a reason to come here. Schools are oversub- 17 The notion of people taking care of the communi- scribed. ty. Little things like litter make it a difference. Perhaps a weight limit would make it more comfortable. Little 6 Time is of the essence. High Street is ‘in the dark ages’. things that we can all do to make it a better community. Bookmakers, chains, etc. What about a three year plan as Should not create space that people loiter at night. well as ten year plan? Why do we have a green belt with cars sitting on it or a sale on it? A: We could solve anti-social problems by design and proper overlooking and community engagement. 7 Difficult to get to/from between Ascot and Sunninghill/ Sunningdale. Teenagers are not safe on bicycles and bet- 18 Every Saturday there are 500 people visiting soccer ter bus connections to connect the communities. fields. What are we doing for young people? What facili- ties? Without that, the place will go nowhere. 8 Who does own the land south on the street? A: Youth session 4-6pm tomorrow to get ideas, here at A: It’s been kept in that use partly because it’s designated Ascot Racecourse. as ‘green belt’ though it can be looked at differently if the community puts together a case. 19 How do we know that being here tonight, talking about small and independent businesses, or part of a forum, will 9 There is no forum for communication to understand have any affect or influence on the council? what is going on in the community. A from local councillor: Clarify something about Tesco. A: Can either contact us via Twitter (Ascot_centre) or on When the planning application came in, we had 10 objec- Facebook or on the website: tions. www.ascotandthesunnings.com 20 Is it true that Tesco own the property? If so, they con- or trol it as it were. [email protected] A from Ward councillor: Tesco did not require any We do need help. Anyone who has given their email planning application. They could come and set up. We address will get information on upcoming events and fought them having the ability but were overruled in mag- otherwise. istrates’ court. 10 There is a community spirit. Would like to talk to 21 They should be something to do for young people. people. There is a passion. Ascot Racecourse is here. But what are they doing? Besides cause issues. High Tesco is here. Coffee shops are here and there are many. Street is used as a race track. Why can’t we have the street Budgens do it right because they do it in a family way and cleaned? Empty shops breed crime and leads to decay. community-based way. There are ways to involve chains and others in the same way. A: So what we can do in neighbourhood planning terms to shape the character of development to make the place 11 Tescos have raised the rents which is pushing out local more civilised? independents. 22 Bring the community together and teach lessons about 12 Totally agree that we do have spirit here. What we positive behaviour by doing volunteer litter pickup, for lack is a hub. An idea of a village green with shops and a example. pavilion. Houses that our children can afford so that they don’t have to move away. Could also there be a subsidy 23 Southall Park in Bracknell is a great community centre for small businesses. What about underground parking? for all ages. It would be good to have a smaller version of Thank you for Ascot Racecourse for community support. that here.
26 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY More sport facilities A: Creating community spirit will bring positive effect on youths Pop-up shops 24 We should focus on the good things of Ascot. Would Attractive housing rather have Tesco than the bar that was there previously. Coffee shops serves the business community. We host one Improve bus service, less traffic on High Street of the biggest sporting events yet car parking is an issue. Develop farmers market – volunteer activities included Need to work with all businesses that come in, including Tesco. Useful to have a petrol station but perhaps not directly on High Street 25 Agree that we do need more for young people to do. Need more fit-for-purpose venues. Youth would like to Access to the country side see small cinema, small arts centre, skate park. Have to engage them and encourage them to come to the High Safe environment Street. Accommodate housing (not flats) for both youth and not so young 26 We all have our different requirements, but we all want a heart in Ascot. We should thank the local group in organising and promoting neighbourhood planning. Stakeholder Workshop SUMMARY We should also have other uses that are sustainable so that • we can have these community amenities. There were common issues and options identified around 27 Ascot business park has been developed into 8 small all 4 tables business units, a couple start ups. Could fill up many more. Need small workshop units. Provide employment The groups appreciated the different ideas from the and opportunity here so that young professionals stay others (“that’s a good solution, why didn’t we think of here instead of commuting to London. it?”) 28 Opening up southern side of Ascot would open up a The groups were open minded about solving some of the lot of opportunities. It’s what this town needs. issues 29 It is a challenge to keep the young people occupied, People were approaching the issues in an ambitious but but they do have things to do, e.g. football club. Used to pragmatic way be a youth centre. Representatives from the Borough said to the residents that “having your plans already sitting on the tables” is 30 Sport is incredibly important to raising youth. There an extraordinary thing is a tennis club. The football club is important. Should build on positive momentum of the Olympics. The groups realised there should be a balance regarding the future of the green belt 31 Used to have cinema in Sunninghill. Car boot sales are unattractive. Never a quiet moment on the High Street. Perhaps the Racecourse could help residents for what they go through on racedays. Youth Session FEEDBACK SUMMARY www.ascotandthesunnings.com Include sport facilities – need to hear about events more [email protected] Open-air cinema at Racecourse and other events including food fair, Christmas, concerts, place for people advertising SUMMARY OF IDEA CARDS Lack of public sitting – south facing More retail both sides of road – to make it interesting Would like to practice tennis, swimming pool, bowling place to shop and other similar activities in one place A hotel with a leisure centre that residents can join at a Events for younger people discount No character to High Street Underground parking in High Street Need for buses with good prices Community Art Centre – film, speakers, clubs, education, youth Safety concerns No more TESCOs, more local shops Community space Affordable leisure centre Wish to see an ice cream shop Cycle lanes and more restaurants French courtyard Wide High Street Small park or open green space
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 27 PUBLIC FEEDBACK SESSION SUMMARY
1 How will this impact south ascot? A: Outside the walkable catchment 2 Lower business rates are needed on High Street A: For shops, perhaps the parish council can own some of the buildings to subsidize rates. 3 The plan looks terrific. What happens if we don’t pur- sue this? 4 Does the High Street need to be two sided? A: Yes. Community facilities need to be paid for develop- ment. Critical mass needed. 5 Need to move the petrol station though. A: We have suggested moving it to the end of the High Street in the long term. 6 Small businesses appear on the list, but too far down. Need to focus more, especially smaller businesses. Com- munity orientated. Less commuters.
7 The High Street needs more things going on. People come to expect more and there’s nothing here. 8 Energy centre. What does that mean? A: Small power plant. Anaerobic Digester or natural gas. Hope Engineering, near the High Street has trouble with power supply. 9 Could the energy centre be somewhere else? A: Yes but it makes sense to be on the racecourse land. And good for scale and proximity to the High Street. 10 Where will the ascot village people go to work? A: People will take longer trips for commuting. Hopper bus could work long term. 11 Commend the presentation. 30 years living here and it’s been a strip. Traffic is an issue. What about moving it? A: It’s local authority and highways authority issue be- cause it is an A road. 12 As a local historian, it is good to see the village. Should the school be a more in the community centre? 13 How much influence does this have? A: NP have to comply. Then they become part of the local plan. Especially here.
28 Prince’s FounDation FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY APPENDIX 2 WORKSHOP DOTS EXERCISES
8 october public session ‘where do you live?’ board - sunningdale parish area
8 october public session ‘where do you live?’ board - sunninghill and Ascot parish area 8 october public session ‘good and bad’ board. good=blue, bad=red.
ASCOT CENTRE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP REPORT 29 APPENDIX 3 SUMMARY RESPONSES - ASCOT HIGH STREET VISITOR SURVEY
Q1 - Current shops and services No. of Responses 250
200
150
100
50
0 Florist Library Chemist Off licence Off office design Chiropractor Petrol station Betting shops Supermarkets Car Boot Sale Car Showroom Car Hardware store Home & interior Farmers’ Market Dry Cleaner, etc. Newsagent / post Pubs / restaurants Small food retailer Estate Agents, etc. Antique / Art Dealer Small independents Hair / beauty salons Coffee shops / cafes Bank / cash machine 1 = not very important / I wouldn't miss them if they weren't here 2 = fairly important / I use because I am visiting anyway 3 = important / a reason I come to Ascot Q2 Problems or things lacking in the high Street No of Responses
250
200
150
100
50
0 friendly facilities outlets Unpleasant environment to do shops No community No Not pedestrian Limited nightlife Limited Choice of eating Parking problems Parking Traffic congestion No leisure facilities leisure No Nothing for children for Nothing Poor public transport Shops too expensive too Shops Not enough choice of choice enough Not Unattractive buildings Unattractive 1 = Not a problem 2 = Minor nuisance 3 = Big problem Q3 Facilities to improve the High Street No of Responses
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 A hotel A A market A A cinema A retailers pool space outlets Home design Home services/supply fashion, gift or More small food small More jewellery shops Independent A community hall hall community A More independent More A leisure centre leisure A and horseracing or jewellery shops National restaurant National A community green community A local royal heritage National fashion, gift fashion, National including a swimming A visitor attraction for attraction visitor A restaurants/cafes/bars Professional services services Professional
1 = Not of interest to me 2 = Nice to have / I might use if I were here anyway 3 = Really like / it would encourage me to visit more often APPENDIX 4 ‘IDEA CARDS’ - 8 OCTOBER 2013 WORKSHOP Ascot Centre Feedback from Public Meeting on 8 October 2012 (Post-it notes)
Cat no Category Comments 0 Broad Make Ascot a special place with grander shops in line with the racecourse, keeping the green space as open parkland with restaurant 0 Broad More restaurants, shops & cinema complex with attractive housing 0 Broad The redevelopment of Heatherwood should integrate with the High St, offering more facilities to residents 0 Broad Develop part of racecourse for young people, with a bigger cricket club & cinema/art centre taking kids away from the High St 0 Broad More leisure activities, pool, cinema, community centre is badly needed 0 Broad Underground Parking in High St in Field opposite shops & a village green with some affordable housing within the 5 min walk 0 Broad Town Square with Cafes & Bars 0 Broad Village Square with Leisure centre containing restaurants, community centre & pool 0 Broad Build a linear park along the southern side of High St with flowers, fountains, sculptures, seats, shelters, swings etc 0 Broad Cinema, bowling, shops & restaurants 1 High St Wider High St making it more attractive like Marlborough 1 High St Remove central reservation 1 High St Make the High St pedestianized like Windsor station area with some under cover shops 1 High St Pedestrianize the High St 1 High St Less traffic in the High St 1 High St By pass south of High St for through traffic with some under cover shops making it a special destination 1 High St Pedestrianize the Hgh St rerouting traffic 1 High St 2 sided High St with parking behind 1 High St Pedestrianize the High St 1 High St Make pedestrian crossings more visible 1 High St Make the High St Wider for cars 1 High St Litter should be collected along road from Heatherwood to High St 1 High St Build Road behind Budgens to the station & pedestrianize the High St, include a for much bigger car park facility 1 High St Dog Mess bins provided in High St 1 High St Better Road lighting between High St & Station 1 High St Light footpaths across racecourse to help 5 min walk, cycle lanes & places to leave bikes 1 High St More safe pavements/cycling with lighting connecting N Ascot to High St 1 High St Lighting on Ascot Heath so that kids can use it safely 1 High St Replace white shop facade with sympathetic brick & tile design 1 High St Complete High St along both sides of the road 1 High St Make the High St a safe place for families 1 High St Improve existing look of buildings 1 High St Extend High St opposite the shops where the fields are. 1 High St Keep unique one sided shopping 2 pedestrian Pedestrian path by railway station to businesses in Kings Ride 2 pedestrian Improve Pavements in High St 2 pedestrian Improved paving as in South Kensington 2 pedestrian Widen pavement on the south side & trim back holly bush 2 pedestrian Encourage more walking 3 Transport No lorries after 8am thro the High St 3 Transport Better transport network between villages, to Windsor, Virginia Water 3 Transport Integrated Bus & Rail Station 3 Transport Railway Station in Sunninghill linking the 3 villages 3 Transport Bus depot near rail station & improve bus services 3 Transport Operate a local bus service for the communities linking Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale 3 Transport A bus service that is a circuit thrugh housing & the High St/Station of Ascot & Sunningdale. If it was regular it would be used a lot 3 Transport Community Bus Service every 15 mins to serve all village centres 3 Transport shuttle Bus from Ascot to Sunninghill, Sunningdale on a constant timetable 3 Transport Reduce speed limits through out the Parishes 3 Transport 30 or 40mph speed limits to & from all villages 4 Cycling Cycle Lanes 4 cycling Cycle friendly environment 4 cycling Cyclists should have to pay for cycle routes 4 cycling Cyclepath linking Ascot to Windsor 4 cycling Cycle paths 4 cycling Stop cycling on the pavements 4 cycling Provide Boris Bikes in Ascot similar to London 4 cycling Safe bike routes 4 cycling Cycle Lanes away from main roads connecting High St with Rail Stations & all villages in the Sunnings 4 cycling Covered Cycle Park in High St 4 cycling Cycle Path down South Side of High St 5 Parking Well designed safe underground car parks in the High St 5 Parking Racecourse to open car parks when hosting non racecourse events to relieve parking on road & congestion 5 Parking Stop parking opposite vision splay of Course Road its dangerous! 5 Parking Underground parking. 5 Parking Make Clover leaf cars a multistorey car park for the station 5 Parking Council should subsidize parking at station in Ascot & Sunningdale 5 Parking Multistorey carpark up escarpment from station 5 Parking Carparks at either end of the High St with better shops & restaurants 6 Racecourse Racecourse needs to give back to the community we have to put up with race days 6 Racecourse Racecourse needs to give more back to the community, horses get treated better than locals 6 Racecourse Racecourse community events 6 Racecourse Racecourse should have a community centre 6 Racecourse Control drunks on race days, they are threatening the community especially in the evenings 6 Racecourse Find a way of moving drunk people from the High St day & night 6 Racecourse Anything beautiful we build has to be shared with drunk race goers. How can we be a normal community? 6 Racecourse Protect businesses from drunk racegoers 7 Housing Affordable starter homes for young professionals 7 Housing Housing for all 7 Housing Housing accommodation for the young 7 Housing Housing for severley injured soldiers 7 Housing Holiday Houses for injured service personnel 7 Housing Holiday Housng for injured service men & women 7 Housing Better community housing not flats costing £1m 7 Housing Stop building flats, build smaller houses 7 Housing Sheltered Housing on Cloverleaf Site 7 Housing Sheltered housing would bring residents to High St 8 work units Create small live work units for small business & startups 8 work units local hub area for small businesses to set up & network, renting desk space, with lockers, cafe, meeting rooms 8 work units Shops & work Space altogether 9 Hotel Hotel for the racecourse 9 Hotel Racecourse Hotel with Leisure Centre 9 Hotel Affordable Leisure Centre at Racecourse Hotel 9 Hotel If there is a hotel have a leisure centre incorporated that residents can join at discounted prices 10 Heatherwood Ensure Heatherwood Hospital stays open 10 Heatherwood What will replace Heatherwood? 10 Heatherwood Hospital 10 Heatherwood Keep Heatherwood Hospital for the community 11 Environment/GB More allotments 11 Environment/GB Rebuild back character/synergy of Ascot with Green Belt 11 Environment/GB Green Belt preserved with a sensible use 11 Environment/GB Don't lose leafy character building on both sides of the High St 11 Environment/GB Cut back overgrown holly bush across narrow pavement opposite the shops 11 Environment/GB Keep the leafy character of the High St & rebuild some of the 1950’s blandnesss 11 Environment/GB Retain Green Belt 11 Environment/GB Park or open green space 11 Environment/GB More seating & gardens 11 Environment/GB Can't develop green belt so utilise the racecourse with more overspill parking 12 Community More community events for families & locals in community centre 12 Community Parish Hall for community, youth & other social events 12 Community Community Farm run by volunteers to teach farming skills, 12 Community Village Hall 12 Community Community Arts Centre 12 Community Commmunity Arts Centre rather than hotel for visitors 12 Community Community facilities for all 12 Community Village Hall & Leisure centre opposite racecourse or shops 12 Community Better community integration between young & old 12 Community Community Hall for local clubs & events 13 "Art" Art House with film studio in racecourse complex 13 "Art" Arts centre with small cinema 13 "Art" Arts centre with theatre 13 "Art" Community Arts Centre with small cinema 13 "Art" Somewhere for music evenings & gigs 13 "Art" Arts Centre with small cinema, speakers, clubs, education, youth facilities in Racecourse 13 "Art" More cerebral cinema showing a range of films not the standard type available in Bracknell 13 "Art" Cinema , how will this be supported 13 "Art" Small cinema & arts centre 13 "Art" Arts centre which could be in racecourse 13 "Art" Arts centre with small community cinema, similar to Norden Farm Maidenhead for kids 13 "Art" small cinema, arts centre, theatre 13 "Art" Pop up shops for local arts & crafts with cheap rents 13 "Art" Arts Crafts Music centre like Southhill Park 13 "Art" open air cinema in the summer & bring a picnic 13 "Art" Small cinema 13 "Art" Venue for Live Bands & Orchestras 13 "Art" Arts Centre like Southhill Park for theatre,film, gallery etc 13 "Art" Community Centre with small cinema, keep fit & exercise classes, badminton club etc that locals can walk too 13 "Art" Stalls for selling arts & crafts to join Farmers Market 14 Leisure/sports facilities Facility for dancing, Zumba,Roller skating & Salsa 14 Leisure/sports facilities Swimming Pool off the High St 14 Leisure/sports facilities More sports facilities 14 Leisure/sports facilities Swimming Pool 14 Leisure/sports facilities Gym with access by bike 14 Leisure/sports facilities Swimming Pool etc 14 Leisure/sports facilities Improved facilities for youth, toddlers, juniors 7 seniors 14 Leisure/sports facilities Public swimming pool 14 Leisure/sports facilities More leisure facities 14 Leisure/sports facilities Indoor Leisure Centre better than Charters 14 Leisure/sports facilities Bowling 14 Leisure/sports facilities Sports & leisure centre for young people 14 Leisure/sports facilities Skate Park 14 Leisure/sports facilities Leisure Centre 14 Leisure/sports facilities Bowling Green 14 Leisure/sports facilities Swimming Pool & more sports facilities for all ages 14 Leisure/sports facilities Park opposite shops with outdoor gym 15 Retail outlets Stop Car Boot Sales 15 Retail outlets Limit to number of chains, more independants 15 Retail outlets limit to number of chains, to 5 15 Retail outlets Quality Shops like Waitrose & M&S Simply Food 15 Retail outlets More independant shops & destination for community 15 Retail outlets Smaller independant shops , not chains 15 Retail outlets Less coffee shops, wine bars & betting shops, & more smaller independant shops 15 Retail outlets Fishmongers 15 Retail outlets More Independant traders 15 Retail outlets No more coffee shops 15 Retail outlets Shopping Centre and market with parking within racecourse precinct 15 Retail outlets Allow development for small shops opposite current shops on unused land opposite Martins 15 Retail outlets smaller shops with low cost rents to assist new budding shop keepers or for specialist shops to be tried out 15 Retail outlets More independent shops & destination for community such as sports hall 15 Retail outlets Try to stop big business coming in & wiping out the small local ones 15 Retail outlets Stop chains. 15 Retail outlets Build shops & car park on green land opposite current High St 15 Retail outlets Why WH Smith why not independents? 15 Retail outlets Stop shops like Tesco taking over our High Streets 15 Retail outlets Subsidized rents for starup businesses & attract independents 15 Retail outlets Develop both sides of the High St with shops that will draw people in. 15 Retail outlets Fishmongers 15 Retail outlets No more large chains such as Tesco, more local independents 15 Retail outlets smaller independent shops to include a bookshop 15 Retail outlets Pop up shops for local arts & crafts 15 Retail outlets Too many betting shops 15 Retail outlets Re-site petrol station 15 Retail outlets Card & gift shop 15 Retail outlets More privately owned independant shops like Bath where chains are limited 15 Retail outlets Planning to stop chains pushing out independants 15 Retail outlets More Small Shops & Leisure places such as a park 15 Retail outlets No more betting Shops 15 Retail outlets More retail both sides of the road would make it more interesting place to visit 15 Retail outlets Stalls, crafts leisure, etc at the racecourse 15 Retail outlets More community discussion on why shops close 15 Retail outlets Why subway & Car Boot Sales? 16 Food outlets Develop Farmers Market 16 Food outlets weekly Food market near to High St 16 Food outlets Saturday Market like Lymington for example 16 Food outlets Restaurants but not chains, with an under cover food hall 16 Food outlets More trendy restaurants & leisure activities rather than more shops 16 Food outlets Wine bar & more restaurants 16 Food outlets Pizzeria 16 Food outlets Italian Icecream shop/Cafe 16 Food outlets Creperie 16 Food outlets No more cofffee shops, wine bars, estate agents 16 Food outlets Make shops, bars retaurants more affordable 16 Food outlets Cafe/Restaurant on racecourse that doesnt look like car park, sitting on the High St is like sitting in a car park or on a road 17 Misc Council Office in Maidenhead too detached 17 Misc Don't undermine existing centre 17 Misc Restrict development from being crammed in to reflect existing density. 17 Misc How can meaningful improvements be made - planning authority makes all decisions & is in the pocket of developers! 17 Misc Community Energy generation, solar, wind & waste 17 Misc The Borough needs to better represent needs of Ascot people 17 Misc People don't live in Ascot they are in communities away from the centre 17 Misc We need government commitment & spending, think about making the centre a safe place at night 17 Misc Communicate more through your website, encourage debate & ideas like tonights forum 17 Misc Get better response from under 45’s they are the future of Ascot 17 Misc better access to countryside walks/farms etc 17 Misc Ask the children what they want - they are the future 17 Misc Current policy will not allow change unless the Council has something to gain from developers, this stops local employment opportunities 17 Misc look at the bigger picture, fight crime 17 Misc Discourage recycling plants APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES - PRINCE’S FOUNDATION PUBLIC WORKSHOP 2 Ascot Centre Prince's Foundation Concept Plan
1. I am responding as
Response Response
Percent Count
An individual 93.5% 230
A business/organisation 6.5% 16
answered question 246
skipped question 1
2. Please provide your postcode
Response
Count
247
answered question 247
skipped question 0
1 of 7 3. Do you support the suggested ideas for Transport / High Street in Ascot Centre?
Response Support Neutral Do not support Count
Improved junctions 87.2% (211) 12.4% (30) 0.4% (1) 242
Shared space for whole of the High 78.1% (185) 21.1% (50) 0.8% (2) 237 Street
Cycle route parrallel to the High 65.6% (160) 30.3% (74) 4.1% (10) 244 Street and link to the station
Remove median and reorganise layout of street, including proper 83.5% (202) 11.6% (28) 5.0% (12) 242 pedestrian crossings
More parking 76.5% (186) 20.2% (49) 3.3% (8) 243
answered question 245
skipped question 2
2 of 7 4. Do you support the suggested ideas for community amenities in Ascot Centre?
Response Support Neutral Do not support Count
Village square 86.8% (210) 8.3% (20) 5.0% (12) 242
Community / art centre 71.2% (173) 21.4% (52) 7.4% (18) 243
'Ascot Village' green 74.5% (181) 17.7% (43) 7.8% (19) 243
'Ascot Wood' park 62.8% (152) 27.7% (67) 9.5% (23) 242
Primary School 48.1% (117) 41.2% (100) 10.7% (26) 243
Hotel with leisure facilities at 56.4% (137) 34.6% (84) 9.1% (22) 243 racecourse
answered question 245
skipped question 2
3 of 7 5. Do you support the suggested ideas for local economy in Ascot Centre?
Response Support Neutral Do not support Count
More restaurants & shops on the 84.0% (204) 10.7% (26) 5.3% (13) 243 High Street
Small business units near the 72.2% (177) 20.4% (50) 7.3% (18) 245 Village Square
Commuter-related retail at the train 68.2% (165) 26.9% (65) 5.0% (12) 242 station
Energy Centre 36.9% (89) 48.1% (116) 14.9% (36) 241
Equestrian Centre 27.9% (68) 46.3% (113) 25.8% (63) 244
answered question 245
skipped question 2
4 of 7 6. Do you support the suggested ideas for housing in Ascot Centre?
Response Support Neutral Do not support Count
A mixed range of housing in Ascot 76.8% (185) 16.2% (39) 7.1% (17) 241 Centre
'Ascot Village' concept 67.8% (164) 19.4% (47) 12.8% (31) 242
'Ascot Wood' concept 60.7% (147) 24.4% (59) 14.9% (36) 242
Some housi9ng at the station 67.5% (164) 22.6% (55) 9.9% (24) 243
answered question 244
skipped question 3
7. Is there anything you would like to add by way of feedback?
Response
Count
168
answered question 168
skipped question 79
5 of 7 8. I live (or, if a business, am located in):
Response Response
Percent Count
Ascot 34.9% 84
South Ascot 20.7% 50
North Ascot 10.8% 26
Sunninghill 14.9% 36
Sunningdale 7.1% 17
Cheapside 9.1% 22
Outside the area 2.5% 6
answered question 241
skipped question 6
6 of 7 9. Gender
Response Response
Percent Count
Male 55.5% 131
Female 44.5% 105
answered question 236
skipped question 11
10. Age group:
Response Response
Percent Count
15 or under 0.0% 0
16-24 0.8% 2
25-44 14.1% 34
45-64 57.3% 138
65-74 22.4% 54
75+ 5.4% 13
answered question 241
skipped question 6
7 of 7 APPENDIX 6 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES & SOME BASIC ANALYSIS - OPTIONS CONSULTATION
Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
APPENDIX E – OPTIONS CONSULTATION Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan Appendix 2.4/D: Op ons Results and FINAL REPORT
May 2013
1 Contents
. Introduc on . Respondents
. Consulta on results
. Appendix A: Analysis of Free Text Responses
. Appendix B: Individual responses to Op ons consulta on
. Other documents to cross-reference:
. Appendix 2.4/A Op ons consulta on Planning and Prepara on
. Appendix 2.4/B Op ons consulta on materials (mul ple documents which include Printed Ques onnaire)
. Appendix 2.4/C Op ons consulta on publicity material
. RBWM 2013 Local Plan Consulta on
2 Introduc on
This documents presents the results of the Op ons consulta on which was conducted between 3rd December 2012 and 15th January 2013. Because of the scope and complexity of many of the issues being consulted on, it was decided that the best way of doing the consulta on was in a presenta on format, during which each issue was summarised, using maps where necessary for clarity, and then the related ques on posed. Similarly, it is felt that the best way of presen ng the results is to use the same presenta on, interleaving the responses received on each ques on. Full details on how the consulta on was publicised is included in the main body of the Statement of Consulta on document. In summary however, the presenta on was available online on our website, with a linked on-line ques onnaire and hard copies were also available in parish offices and libraries with printed copies of the ques onnaire. A copy of the printed Ques onnaire is included at the end of this document. There were 2 free text ques ons included: one regarding possible loca ons for flats/apartments (one of the issues of greatest concern in previous consulta ons) and a general one at the end. A summary is included in this report and a more detailed analysis forms Appendix A to this report (a separate document). We also received a small number of direct submissions by email – included as Appendix B to this report (a separate document).
3 Respondents
. 510 people responded – an excellent response rate, especially in view of the length and complexity of the ques ons
. 6.8% of responses were from businesses or organisa ons
. There was a fairly even split between Male (51.2%) and Female (48.8%)
. 81 respondents were under 24 years (18.4%), reflec ng our concerted effort to try to reach younger people
4 Respondents
. There was a good spread of respondents across the neighbourhood area
5 Op ons Consulta on
What follows is a copy of the consulta on text and ques ons with the related results/responses
6 What this consulta on is about
. A Neighbourhood Plan is our opportunity as local residents to shape through planning policies the way our area will develop and look over the next 15 years . A team of volunteers has been working towards delivering this for the last 18 months . This is now the last of the consulta ons we’re having before actually wri ng our local area Neighbourhood Plan . Once wri en, you (the community) will have a final chance to comment on it (Spring 2013) before it’s submi ed to RBWM, followed by submission to an Examiner . It will then be put to the whole community to vote on in a Referendum (mid 2013); if passed, it will become core planning policy
7 About this Op ons consulta on
. We’ve listened to what the community told us in previous consulta ons to guide how we develop the detailed Plan
. We now seek more feedback from you before finalising it
. Please respond; it is important to all of us: “We can effect change, or be affected by change… the choice is ours” Firstly, some key points:
. We must accept that we have to plan for some new development – the government mandates this. Our aim is to influence where and what
. The Plan we’re wri ng is for the next 15 years up to 2026 - not all development will happen now!
. We’re consul ng on policies we believe are important to include
. And also invi ng your feedback and views on the larger poten al development sites
8 The overall picture
You told us:
. You want to improve the centres of Ascot and Sunningdale
. And to preserve and enhance Sunninghill
. Also to encourage the market to deliver a mix of housing types and in the right loca ons . And to preserve jobs locally but concentrated mainly in exis ng economy loca ons . It is very important to preserve the character of the area, gaps between villages, open spaces, our green and leafy environment and the Green Belt
9 Proposed overall strategy
. To concentrate new development in the more sustainable loca ons, near the two sta ons, near shops . In the commercial centre of Sunningdale
. And in Ascot, using the opportunity to regenerate and enhance both sides of the High Street to create a vibrant centre . To control the amount of development in Sunninghill
. And prevent development in the gaps between the villages and in green corridors
10 An overview on housing numbers
. The government has made it clear that we have to plan for new homes
. RBWM have released a provisional housing target for the total number of new homes that have to be provided for across the Borough of 290 to 350 dwellings per annum . The Plan we are wri ng is for a 15 year period but for purposes of coun ng housing numbers, the start is back-dated to 2011 . But the actual housing numbers target for our Neighbourhood Plan area has not yet been confirmed . As local residents, our aim with our Neighbourhood Plan is to ensure that new development is sustainable, in the right loca ons and with the right mix of different types of housing
11 Ascot centre Ascot has already been the subject of two public mee ngs at which considerable feedback was received and, with the help of The Prince’s Founda on, a Vision for the future of a vibrant, new centre for Ascot is evolving
Area under considera on:
12 Vision for Ascot centre
. Widening of the High Street on south side and improvements to both roundabouts to ease traffic flow while retaining on-street parking
. Improved pavements and cycle routes, including to/from the sta on South of Ascot High Street (“Ascot Green”):
. Involves development on Green Belt land but retaining important mature trees
. Extend retail development to Winkfield Rd roundabout, poten ally with flats above. Retail to focus on units suitable for smaller independents
. A community hall/arts centre/cinema and community open space
. More restaurant/café/food outlets to encourage a vibrant evening economy
. Provision made for space for a new primary school, should one be required
. New housing development south of the High Street – mix of family and execu ve homes
. Important to recognise that commercial and housing development is necessary in order to fund the community benefits and transport improvements
13 Vision for Ascot centre North of Ascot High Street (“Ascot Village”): . Modest terraced houses similar in scale to exis ng (eg. Course Rd) with parking and open space and retaining important trees . A hotel for the racecourse with leisure facili es available to residents and underground car parking (on racecourse land) . A small scale power/energy centre (on racecourse land) to address current power supply problems and provide local, renewable energy to the racecourse, Ascot homes and local businesses . Loca ons for some small studio/business units
. Recognise that racecourse parking needs to be sorted out to deliver the above
14 Ascot Centre Responses
Ques on Q3: Please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral overall on this proposed vision for Ascot centre.
• This is a significant level of support (with only 22% not suppor ng), especially in view of the fact that this vision involves development on Green Belt land. This also reflects the feedback received in the Ascot specific consulta ons.
It should also be noted that the Borough ran a public consulta on during this same me period which also included a ques on regarding Ascot High Street – asking whether there was support for RBWM assis ng the community-led proposals to rejuvenate Ascot High Street. This showed a remarkably high level (93%) support (among local residents, not just Borough-wide). Comments included: - The town is in danger of becoming a dormitory – to bring life to the area - Selec ve use of Green Belt to create new community benefits is acceptable - Sustainable loca on for addi onal housing, and addressing other issues with the High Street - Idea of a ‘community centre/hub’ is excellent - Neighbourhood Plan for Ascot has the support of the community 15 Ascot Sta on redevelopment
. Redevelopment of sta on area to enhance it and provide be er access
. Double decked car park to provide at least as much parking as currently, ideally more . Small convenience retail outlets
. New pres gious car showroom . Use overflow car park area along Sta on Hill for development of houses/
flats
. Design of sta on area redevelopment to recognise its role as gateway to Ascot
. NB. All this area is “previously developed land” that is all in Green Belt
16 Ascot Sta on responses Ques on Q4: Please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral overall on this proposed vision for Ascot Sta on.
Responses from the parallel Borough consulta on showed 81% supported redevelopment of the site with 31% saying that this would fit in with the local character.
NB. A copy of all the results of this Borough consulta on is available; the results have been highlighted in the cases of Ascot High Street and Ascot Sta on because of the significance of both involving development in Green Belt.
17 Heatherwood
You told us:
. You want to keep hospital services on the Heatherwood site What we know:
. NHS Berkshire want to re-build Heatherwood to provide high quality hospital/medical facili es . What these hospital/medical facili es will be is s ll subject to consulta on/confirma on . However, it has been made clear that any of this will only be possible if the land that is not required for the above is released for development
18 Heatherwood
What we can and can’t do: . Neighbourhood Plan has no control over what medical services are offered at Heatherwood but we con nue to do our best to represent the strongly expressed wishes of the community . The area being earmarked for development is “already developed land in Green Belt” (mainly empty or underused buildings) . As such, we can do nothing to stop it being developed
. BUT, through Neighbourhood Plan, we can influence how and what is developed . The rest of the area is “not developed Green Belt” and is protected by Green Belt policies, which we endorse
19 Heatherwood site map
20 Heatherwood development op ons
. The development should include a mix of different households such as for families, single people and the older popula on
. The design of any development should reflect the fact that Heatherwood is a gateway loca on for Ascot
. Which includes buildings being set back from the road to ensure that their visual impact is not overwhelming
. Development must also allow for improved cycling & pedestrian facili es, including easy access to Ascot sta on
. Plus adequate parking for residents (as well as hospital staff and pa ents/visitors)
21 Heatherwood development responses Ques on Q5: The following are various op ons for how the site could be developed. So that we can influence the mix of housing that is developed, for each op on below, please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral: Q5(a): A mix of private owner occupied housing Q5(b): 3-4 bedroom modest houses for families and socially rented housing
Q5(c): 4+ bedroom larger execu ve houses Q5(d): Re rement homes for older people
22 Heatherwood development responses
Q5(e): Small/terraced housing for young couples or Q5(f): Flats for single people households (eg. single people (eg. young professionals) young professionals or older people
• 3-4 bedroom family houses, re rement homes and small/terraced housing all received similar high levels of support (60+%)
• Mix of private and socially rented housing, larger execu ve homes and flats received lower support although only one third of respondents specifically did not support them
23 Heatherwood development responses
Q5(g): Buildings being no more than 2½ storeys Q5(h) Buildings being no more than 3 storeys High high (poten ally allows for more flats)
Q5(i): Live/work units combining living and professional workspace in the same building (our research shows • Very clear preference for lower rise buildings but there is strong demand for businesses run from home) it is acknowledged that this was probably influenced by the reference made to more flats
• Live/work units if commercially viable would be acceptable
24 Sunningdale centre
You told us:
. Parking is a serious problem in Sunningdale – for residents, shoppers, workers and commuters
. There is a need to improve the village centre and the retail offering
. You wish to preserve the character of the area Another factor:
. Proposed new development on the DERA site on Chobham Common (outside our area) is likely to significantly increase the pressure on parking and traffic conges on in Sunningdale – although it may also bring in more shoppers and benefit the economy
Presented on the following pages are a number of op ons for adding car parking capacity in Sunningdale, although some are also likely to have associated impacts, such as an increase in traffic on already congested areas.
25 Sunningdale sta on and Waitrose parking responses
Ques on Q6: For each op on below, please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral Q6(a): To provide addi onal car parking by adding a Q6(b): To provide addi onal car parking by adding a second deck of parking to Sunningdale Sta on car second deck of parking to both Sunningdale Sta on car park, in par cular for commuters park (for commuters) and to Waitrose car park (for staff and shoppers), while recognising that this will result in a very significant increase in traffic in and out of a very busy and congested junc on
Q6(c): To provide addi onal • Support for addi onal car parking at the car parking to Sunningdale sta on was even stronger among S’dale Sta on car park as in ques on residents @ 62%
Q6)a) above but also include • It is acknowledged that Waitrose car parking a single level of flats, which responses probably influenced by comments on will mean some of the car traffic impact park spaces will be allocated • The op on of flats clearly rejected – even to residents more strongly among S’dale residents (78% against) 26 Sunningdale RBWM car park area proposals
To provide addi onal parking by adding a second deck to the present RBWM car park and extending the parking area to some land behind, to accommodate c. 300 cars vs. current capacity of c. 100.
To finance this however, new retail
and housing development would be required, which would also extend to include some of the exis ng shops and some of the land behind them – as shown on the map.
What follows are different op ons for what this development could involve.
27 Sunningdale RBWM car park area responses
Ques on Q7:
For each op on below, please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral:
Q7(a): To provide addi onal car parking, financed Q7(b): To provide the addi onal car parking by development that includes an “anchor” store described above, financed by development that (eg. a supermarket), plus addi onal mixed retail does NOT includes an “anchor” store but has a space for smaller independents, plus some greater propor on of housing rela ve to the housing, while recognising the very considerable previous op on extra traffic and large vehicle deliveries that this will generate
28 Sunningdale RBWM car park area responses
Q7(c): To provide less addi onal car parking, with Q7(d): To accommodate within the developments a smaller scale development which includes described above a Medical Centre/GP Surgery, smaller retailers and housing while recognising that this will use a significant number of the car parking spaces available
• Development that would include an anchor store definitely NOT supported. Do not Support among S’dale residents even higher @ 73%
• Smaller scale development clearly the preferred op on
29 Sunningdale on-street parking
Proposal:
. To review and amend on-street parking capacity, availability and enforcement to be er balance the needs of workers, shoppers and residents
Ques on Q8: Please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral on this proposal for Sunningdale on-street parking
30 Managing new development in Sunninghill village centre You told us:
. You want to preserve the very dis nct character of Sunninghill village
. And are concerned about the already high levels of traffic conges on and parking problems Proposed policies:
. For any new housing development in proximity to Sunninghill High Street to be approved, it will be required to provide convincing evidence that it will mi gate any nega ve impact of conges on on the High Street
. In order to encourage independent retailers, expansion or merging of retail outlets in the centre of Sunninghill will only be allowed provided it will not result in an intensifica on of traffic and, especially, of deliveries in the area
31 Managing new development in Sunninghill village centre responses Ques on Q9: Please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral on these proposed policies for Sunninghill village centre.
• Very strong support for managing development in Sunninghill, reflec ng concerns over traffic conges on and lack of parking
32 Sunninghill Gasometer site
. A number of local residents have suggested this site as a poten al one for development
. The site includes an old gasholder which is an eyesore and some contaminated land, which we would prefer to see cleaned up
. The owners, Na onal Grid, have confirmed that they wish to redevelop the site for housing
. It is a brownfield site so, in any event, we cannot stop them from doing so
. But, through our Neighbourhood Plan we can influence some aspects of the development that takes place
33 Sunninghill Gasometer
. RBWM have earmarked this site for development of between 56 and 89 houses
. As Neighbourhood Plan, we believe that only the lowest end of this range is sustainable
. On the basis that (a) the site is not near a sta on and (b) in terms of the increase in traffic on the already very congested High Street that this development will create
. On the same basis, we do not consider this site suitable for flats
. As part of development a green space equivalent to 15-16% of total area will be provided for the benefit of the community, with a play area and seats
34 Sunninghill Gasometer site access op ons
. Na onal Grid’s preferred vehicle access to the site is through Bridge Road
. As a way of mi ga ng the traffic impact, we would like to see dual access, with development poten ally being split in two, each with its own access
35 Sunninghill Gasometer site access responses Ques on Q10: For each op on below for Gasometer site access, please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral:
Q(10a): Single access through Bridge Rd, with Q(10b): Dual access through Bridge Rd and either improvements made to entry/exit onto the High Cavendish Meads or (possibly) Charters Lane Street
• Single access through Bridge Road clearly not Q(10c): Site split in supported two, each with its own access • Either of the other two op ons acceptable
36 Sunninghill Gasometer housing mix responses
Ques on Q11: The following are various op ons for how the Gasometer site could be developed. For each op on below, please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral so that we can influence what happens: Q11(a): Overall across the site, a smaller number of Q11(b): Overall across the site, a larger number of larger homes such as 4+ bedroom fully detached smaller homes such as 3-4 bedroom houses execu ve/family houses with gardens (fewer (houses more affordable but higher density will houses means less impact on traffic and result in more traffic) conges on)
37 Sunninghill Gasometer housing mix responses Q11(c): A mix of houses with larger homes at Q11(d): Buildings being no more than 2½ storeys Cavendish Meads end of site and smaller houses at high Bridge Road end of site
• Definite preference for a mix of houses - Q11(e): Buildings op on (c) being no more than 3-3½ storeys high • Also strong support for lower rise buildings (eg. town houses) vs taller town house types
38 Policies consulta on
. There are a number of important overarching policies we wish to consult on, including some likely to have a significant impact on our area and how it is developed and/or which may be considered conten ous
. All these policies are based on what you have told us in previous consulta ons is important to you
. On the Ques onnaire, for each policy, we’re asking you to say whether you Support it, Do not Support it or are Neutral
. (Many) more detailed policies will be wri en into the NP and will be available to comment on in the final dra
39 Protec on of the Green Belt You told us:
. You want to protect the Green Belt from being built upon
. But there is also support for the rejuvena on of Ascot, as aired at two public mee ngs recently, which involves some development on Green Belt Proposed policy:
. To promote appropriate development on Green Belt in Ascot (as described in the Ascot sec on) as a way of delivering the community, economy and infrastructure benefits that this will bring
. With this excep on, the exis ng RBWM policy that protects the Green Belt from development will apply
. In addi on, all applica ons asking for exemp on from the above on the basis of “very special circumstances”, will be approved only provided they can clearly demonstrate they have overwhelming community support
40 Protec on of the Green Belt responses Ques on Q12: Please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral on this proposed policy for Protec on of the Green Belt
• Not surprisingly, very strong support for protec ng the Green Belt
• But important to note that this included the stated intent to promote development on the Green Belt in Ascot
41 Protec ng gaps between villages You told us:
. You want to retain the dis nct character of our three main villages and the separa on between them and to protect the key open gaps that achieve this Proposed policy:
. We have defined six “gaps between villages” on a map
. Most of these areas designated as gaps are in the Green Belt and subject to our Green Belt policy
. For those sec ons that are not, development will be allowed only subject to the same criteria as those which apply to our policy for development in the Green Belt
42 Defining the gaps between villages
43 Protec ng gaps between villages Ques on Q13: For each Gap iden fied on the map, please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral on this proposed policy
44 Protec ng gaps between villages responses Q13(a): Ascot to Cheapside Q13(b): Ascot to South Ascot Q13(c): South Ascot
Q13(d): Sunninghill to Ascot Q13(e): Sunninghill to Q13(f): Old Sunningdale to (new) Sunningdale Sunningdale
• Strong support for protec ng all the iden fied gaps
45 Managing development of flats/apartments
You told us:
. You want to restrict (or stop) the building of more flats and apartments Proposed policy:
. Developments of flats or apartments are permi ed in sustainable loca ons that are close to sta ons and shops, provided only that they will not harm the character of the area
. The roads/areas that meet these criteria in our NP area have been iden fied and are marked clearly on the map
. Applica ons to convert exis ng single dwellings into flats or apartments will also only be allowed in these specified zones iden fied on the map
. Redevelopment on plots on which flats/apartments exist already will be allowed provided it is on the same footprint, scale and mass as the exis ng development 46 Managing development of flats responses
Ques on Q14(a):
Please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral on this proposal for controlling development of flats/apartments
• Clear support for this policy – but see also next ques on which invited people to write specific comments
47 Managing development of flats responses Ques on Q14(b): In the free text space on the Ques onnaire, please add any areas where you feel flats/apartments should be included or any currently shown where you feel they would be inappropriate
Detailed analysis to responses to this ques on are in Appendix A “Analysis of Free Text Responses” but below is a summary:
• 25% of all respondents wrote something in response to this ques on
• Of these, 27% said they were against the policy because it was too open or generous (“no more” or “too many already”)
• A further 27% said “but not in all the sites suggested”
• Just 6 respondents (5%) said they did not support the policy and wanted it le to market forces
• NB. This is totally reflec ve of comments received from previous consulta ons also
48 Proposed cycle route from Ascot to Sunninghill and Sunningdale
You told us:
. You want be er cycle routes to connect our villages and – ideally – to make it safe for children to cycle to Charters school Issues:
. It is difficult to plan cycle routes that do not go through private property or use busy roads
. Devenish Rd and its footpaths are currently inadequate for the traffic & pedestrians using them; to add a cycle lane would require land purchase which is expensive and lengthy so imprac cal at least short term . Redirec ng cycle traffic to clearly signed routes, even if not the most direct, offers the best strategy
49 Proposed cycle route from Ascot to Sunninghill and Sunningdale
. Proposal for one through cycle route that links the villages
. Choosing roads with
fewer and slower traffic movements and taking
advantage of exis ng by- ways and footpaths
50
Proposed cycle route from Ascot to Sunninghill and Sunningdale responses
Ques on Q15: Please indicate whether you Support, Do not Support or are Neutral on this proposal for a cycle route.
• Clear support for a cycle route
51 Other issues – free text ques on
Ques on Q16: Are there any other issues you would specifically like to raise? Detailed analysis to responses to this ques on are in Appendix A “Analysis of Free Text Responses” but below is a summary:
. A total of 192 people filled in responses to this ques on (38% of all respondents)
. 23% raised concerns about safety issues, parking and traffic conges on
. 38% were concerned whether local infrastructure and schools could cope with the level of new development
. 8% repeated their views about over-development and the need to limit new flats
52 For more informa on
For more informa on about previous consulta ons and the work that the Neighbourhood Plan team has been doing, please visit our website: www.ascotandthesunnings.com
Please note:
This public consulta on is one of a number of steps in the prepara on of the Neighbourhood Plan. The inten on is to enable the community to provide feedback on some of the more far-reaching elements that are currently being considered for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan.
The content of the Neighbourhood Plan will depend upon a number of factors including the outcome of this consulta on as well as con nuing inves ga ons into the deliverability of these op ons. There is no guarantee that the Neighbourhood Plan will include any of the op ons being put forward in this consulta on either in the form presented, in a modified form or, indeed, at all.
53 End of Op ons Consulta on presenta on
54 Copy of printed Ques onnaire
55 Copy of printed Ques onnaire
56 APPENDIX 2.4/D Options consultation Results and final Report
Appendix A: Options Consultation ‘Free Text’ Questionnaire Responses
The Options Consultation included two questions to which respondents were invited to add their own ‘free text’ responses:
1. Managing Development of Flats / Apartments
o Question Q14(b): invited respondents to add any areas where they felt flats / apartments should be included or any currently shown where they felt they would be inappropriate
2. Any Other Issues
o Question 16 invited respondents to include any issues that they specifically would like to raise
In reviewing the responses, many were lengthy and detailed, and some raised more than one area of interest.
Q14(b): Managing Development of Flats / Apartments
132 respondents wrote something in response to this question out of 510 in total (25%):
o 36 (27% of those who responded) were against the policy as being too open or generous (saying “no more” or “too many already”)
o 26 of those who supported the policy and a further 9 who did not or were neutral said “but not in all sites suggested”
o A further 11 of those who supported still expressed concern about harm to the character of the area
o 6 (5%) did not support the policy and wanted it left to market forces
o 20 were concerned about infrastructure (split roughly equally between supporters and non)
o (16 were non-comments or could not be interpreted)
A selection of the comments follows:
o NO MORE FLATS! No more development on sites which increases density significantly o There is just NO MORE ROOM in Sunningdale - it's jam-packed to the gills as it is o No more flats please o Too many flats are being built now where single houses used to be o The construction of blocks of apartments that will impact heavily on traffic flow and the infrastructure of the area with many More residents than at present More flats mean more cars which means more congestion o The area has become over-developed and flats are a major contributor to the degradation of the environment o Current planning policies are destroying the area o At the moment the entire area is struggling to meet the demand for schooling o [Flats] Not appropriate for the whole of the Heatherwood redevelopment o [Flats good] in walking distance of Sunninghill High Street o [Flats] Near to transport, in particular, Ascot Station and Sunningdale Station. o I feel flats/apartments are inappropriate in Ascot High Street. o Provided they are externally attractive and well maintained, I have no objections to any flats up to 3 storeys high o Flats should be allowed wherever the market feels they are appropriate. They add to the diversity of housing choice
Overall, 102 of the 117 comments which could be interpreted were in overall support of having such a policy, albeit some would prefer it to be more restrictive.
Q16: Any Other Issues
192 respondents (38% of all those who completed the questionnaire) provided information in response to this question asking for any other comments that they wished to add. Many understandably covered a wide range of interests and have been grouped accordingly.
o 45 respondents (23% of the total) raised concerns about safety issues, parking and congestion that might arise
o 29 (23%) were concerned about sustainability and the need to ensure that the neighbourhood infrastructure could cope
o 23 (15%) wanted community facilities such as schools (particularly) to be central to any plans
o 23 (15%) felt the plans were detrimental to the area or wanted to retain the status quo
o 10 wanted to ensure there was adequate protection for the Green Belt
o 15 were supportive of the initiative to develop cycle lanes and facilities
o 8 were concerned about local and central government policy
o 10 saw a threat to local and independent business from national concerns
o And 16 came back again on the earlier question of flats and over development
A selection of the comments follows:
o The negative effect [of building on land which is woodlands] to the scenery and to the wildlife caused by removing/loss of their habitat o Many old and characterful houses are being demolished in our neighbourhood. Policy needs to address this issue to retain a sense of history and its rightful place o It is important to create ample parking facilities and even over compensate for parking for the full benefits of the scheme to be realised o Traffic is probably THE most important issue o There is no mention of communications whether mobile or fibre or copper wire o Why is there no bus (smaller size) route terminating/starting at Ascot Railway Station and visiting all local roads to co-ordinate with train times? o Should look at improving the roads to take the existing traffic before further construction. Using the Green Belt for cycle routes o The area at present not enough primary school places so schools need to be a priority BEFORE families move in o We have no swimming pool in the area and the quality [of sports facilities] is of a lower standard. o A major focus on building residential and retail property in the villages [but lack of thought for] schools, medical facilities, public use buildings, and recreational areas o Housing for young professionals and for the frail elderly with associated, accessible facilities to enable the generations to stay together within the area o The Bronze age tumulus at Heatherwood must be well protected; access to it for visitors to retain some historical memory of this in the development. o Has any new SANG land been identified which would allow future development? o We do NOT NEED more town houses being crammed in, any more than flats o Stop the decline in large houses and their gardens in Ascot and Sunningdale/hill. More flats mean more congestion and a less enjoyable family environment o Leave the area alone and build somewhere else o Part of the beauty of Ascot is its green spaces. I and many others do not want them built upon o No building anywhere on green belt land - there are no "special circumstances" as this allows further destruction of our already endangered green belt, o Protection of the Green Belt only valid when it is of clear amenity value. Inclusion of the Station in the green belt is clearly absurd o Cycle lanes are a great and safe idea. Please do this. o Cycle route - all good, but have a slight concern that if these are on wide pavements then they are not cleaned regularly enough {resulting road use by cyclists] o Please make provision for good quality retirement properties close to shops, public transport e.g. Heatherwood Site o Am appalled at how developers can jump over local planning rules and get the government to overturn local authority decisions and build what they like o RBWM … run scared from bully boy developers and government pressure. [skepticism that NP] will become the reality promised by the localism act o Whatever action is possible to encourage local independent retailers and discourage nationally branded stores should be taken o The public are fooling themselves if they think that independent and small shops can survive in Ascot High Street if it is redeveloped. The major names will dominate o Encouraging small independent retailers into the areas [is good] but with the current business rate strategy it is almost not viable to have business premises
Encouragingly, comments were made in recognition of the time and effort that the neighbourhood plan team had put into the whole process Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
APPENDIX F – LIST OF STATUTORY CONSULTEES
Statutory Consultees for A, S & S NP
RBWM [email protected] Bracknell Forest Council [email protected] Surrey Heath Borough Council [email protected] Runnymede Borough Council [email protected] Winkfield Parish Council [email protected] Windlesham parish council [email protected] Chobham Parish Council [email protected] Old Windsor Parish Council [email protected]
Homes & Communities Agency [email protected] Natural England [email protected] Environmental Agency [email protected] English Heritage [email protected] Network Rail Infrastructure Co. [email protected] Highways Agency [email protected]
Heatherwood &Wexham Park NHS Foundation Trust [email protected] Bracknell & Ascot Clinical Commissioning Group [email protected] Windsor Ascot & Maidenhead CCG [email protected]
Electricity [email protected] British Gas (Centrica) [email protected] Affinity Water [email protected] Thames Water [email protected] OpenReach(BT) [email protected]
Voluntary Bodies SPAE [email protected] Ascot Cluster of Churches [email protected] CPRE [email protected]
Windsor District Chamber of Commerce [email protected] Federation of Small Businesses [email protected] Thames Valley Berkshire LEP [email protected]
Late Addition:
Surrey County Council Highways [email protected]
Ascot, Sunninghill & Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION
APPENDIX G – PRE‐SUBMISSION CONSULTATION
25 A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES
This document summarises the responses received from the public and from statutory consultees to the pre-submission consultation of the A, S & S Neighbourhood Plan. While every effort has been made to reflect the representations in a full, fair and balanced manner, this document is only intended to provide a summary (the representations are also available in their entirety, referenced by Number). This document also sets out the A, S & S NP’s Steering Group’s comments to the responses received and any outcomes resulting.
NB. The NPPF is available for download from NPPF, the Borough Local Plan and the RBWM Townscape Assessment are available for download from the RBWM website www.rbwm.gov.uk.
SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
1. SL5 7DY Kitty Hooey Thank you for this. Thank you. Amazing amount of work has been done and I congratulate the Team and Volunteers. No action required.
2. SL5 7JY Dr. Joanna General congratulations. Believe sound basis for Thank you. Le Metais assessing future planning applications. No action required.
3. SL5 7AU Miles I congratulate you all on this document which has Thank you. Thomson my unqualified support. No action required.
4. (Boyer Tim Burden Query Section 9.2 Map 18 should be Map 19; 9.2 Map numbering has changed in Draft Plan. Planning also Map doesn't identify potential SANG area Area for potential SANG at Heatherwood is ) shown.
5. Christine 1. Support all of Plan in principle. And support 8.1 Support appreciated, thank you. Weightman Ascot scheme. Highlight danger of large amount of building at one time becoming homogenised Comment also noted. While this is and dull. Trees and green spaces not the only something we will do our best to encourage, answer; create variety of styles and sizes. Could it will ultimately be market forces that decide. plots with services be sold on to smaller builders and to individuals to add to local employment and individuality as is done in Belgium and France?
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
2. Lived here for nearly 30 years. High level of 8.1 Agreed and noted. older people in area - good close parking facility important
3. Pleased there will be mix of residential and 8.1 Your comments are noted. business, shops and flats and houses all together. Even better if school and medical centre also close by
6. SL5 Adrian Keal Request that Gap between Old Sunningdale and NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to 0UA Sunningdale be extended to include east up to include field north of Cedar Drive. Broomhall Lane.
See no justification for increasing capacity of NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised railway station car park. Noise and disturbance to concern about the lack of parking in S’dale residential properties at E end. overall. And, with forecast growth in population, increased train use is likely, adding pressure to available parking at S’dale station. While we respect the concerns of the local residents directly neighbouring this area, this location does remain an appropriate and sustainable location to provide more parking.
The option of double decking the Station car park received overall support in our Options consultation.
No change to SS7 proposed.
7. SL5 0UA Sue & Mark Support idea in principle. Request to include field NP/EN2 Support noted, thank you. Klincewicz behind Cedar Drive in gap between Old Sunningdale and Sunningdale. Gap has been reviewed and amended to include field north of Cedar Drive.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Policy XIP/SS7 re car parking at station: NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised understand it for Waitrose but do not think concern about the lack of parking in S’dale commuter parking is an issue. Put pressure on overall. And, with forecast growth in Longcross development to provide parking there. population, increased train use is likely, adding pressure to available parking at S’dale station. Comment re Longcross noted but outside remit of our NP.
The option of double decking the Station car park received overall support in our Options consultation.
No change to SS7 proposed.
8. SL5 0UA Adrian and Support principles of NP and many of policies but NP/EN2 Support noted, thank you. Grace Keal object to two: Gap has been reviewed and amended to 1. Old Sunningdale to Sunningdale gap should include field north of Cedar Drive. include all of the field to the north of Cedar Drive (map annotation provided)
2. Sunningdale Station and Waitrose Car Parks: NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised no justification for increasing capacity of Station concern about the lack of parking in S’dale car park - will increase noise and disturbance to overall. And, with forecast growth in adjacent residential properties population, increased train use is likely, adding pressure to available parking at S’dale station. While we respect the concerns of the local residents directly neighbouring this area, this location does remain an appropriate and sustainable location to provide more parking.
The option of double decking the Station car park received overall support in our Options consultation.
No change to SS7 proposed. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
9. SL5 0UA Helen Support principles of the Plan - except: NP/EN2 Support noted, thank you. Knight and Kevin 1. Old Sunningdale to Sunningdale gap should Gap has been reviewed and amended to Carter include all of field to north of Cedar Drive (map include field north of Cedar Drive. included)
2. Sunningdale Station and Waitrose Car Parks X1P/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised no justification for increasing capacity and extra concern about the lack of parking in S’dale deck will increase noise and disturbance to overall. And, with forecast growth in residents of Cedar Drive. Plus problem of light population, increased train use is likely, pollution. adding pressure to available parking at S’dale station. While we respect the concerns of the local residents directly neighbouring this area, this location does remain an appropriate and sustainable location to provide more parking.
The option of double decking the Station car park received overall support in our Options consultation.
No change to SS7 proposed.
10. SL5 0UA Michael Hill Congratulations on the NP and the work that's Support appreciated, thank you. been put into it.
Field bordered by north of Cedar Drive and NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to Broomhall Lane is not included - please confirm include field north of Cedar Drive. this is an oversight
Pleased to see local Hopper bus scheme being Section 9 Noted. suggested. Encourage good co-operation Project between Surrey and RBWM. Integrate with While Bus schedules
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
11. SL5 0UB Jo James Please amend Gap between Old Sunningdale NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to and Sunningdale to include field to north of include field north of Cedar Drive. Cedar Drive.
Also object to increased parking at Sunningdale NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised station and Waitrose concern about the lack of parking in S’dale overall. And, with forecast growth in population, increased train use is likely, adding pressure to available parking at S’dale station. Location is an appropriate and sustainable location to provide more parking and this option received overall support in our Options consultation.
No change to SS7 proposed.
12. SL5 0UA Eric & Lynn Thank you for your very hard work. But concern NP/EN2 Thank you for your appreciation. Eastlund re proposed gap between Old Sunningdale and Sunningdale. Please include all of field north of Gap has been reviewed and amended to Cedar Drive include field north of Cedar Drive.
13. SL5 0UA Debbie While being supportive of the NP, propose NP/EN2 Support noted, thank you. Cook amendment to the Gap between Old Sunningdale and Sunningdale to include whole Gap has been reviewed and amended to field north of Cedar Drive. include field north of Cedar Drive.
14. SL5 0UB Steve and Two objections: Request the Gap between Old NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to Rachel Sunningdale and Sunningdale be extended to include field north of Cedar Drive. Allen include all the field north of Cedar Drive.
Object to proposed double decking of NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised Sunningdale Station car park on basis will lead to concern about the lack of parking in S’dale increased noise and congestion at an already overall. While we respect the concerns of the busy and noisy station. local residents directly neighbouring this area, this location does remain an appropriate and sustainable location to provide more parking. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
The option of double decking the Station car park received overall support in our Options consultation.
No change to SS7 proposed.
15. SL5 0UA Olive I support the Plan but object to policy on Gap NP/EN2 Support noted, thank you. Petheram between Old Sunningdale and Sunningdale - it should include the whole of the field north of Gap has been reviewed and amended to Cedar Drive. include field north of Cedar Drive.
16. SL5 0UB David Green field behind our apartments (north of NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to Martin Cedar Drive) should remain protected and it is include field north of Cedar Drive. unacceptable that it might be open to development in the future.
17. SL5 0UA Vera Strongly object to field to north of my house NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to Woods being included for proposed housing include field north of Cedar Drive. development (field north of Cedar Drive). Whole of this field should be protected.
18. SL5 0UB Thomas Register concern re exclusion of field behind NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to Gray Cedar Drive from strategic gap. include field north of Cedar Drive.
Proposal for 2 level car park for Waitrose and NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised Station would only encourage more traffic in concern about the lack of parking in S’dale Sunningdale which is already at an unacceptable overall and the option of double decking the level. Station car park received overall support in our Options consultation.
While we recognise the concern over encouraging more traffic, no change to SS7 is proposed.
19. SL5 0UA Geoffrey Object to 2 policies: Gap between Old NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to Irons Sunningdale and Sunningdale should include include field north of Cedar Drive. entire field north of Cedar Drive A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Increasing capacity of Station Car Park by NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised double decking will add to migration of concern about the lack of parking in S’dale commuters from other areas and increase noise overall. While we respect the concerns of the and disturbance to existing properties. Request local residents directly neighbouring this deletion area, this location does remain an appropriate and sustainable location to provide more parking.
The option of double decking the Station car park received overall support in our Options consultation.
No change to SS7 proposed.
20. SL5 0LZ Alan Holy Trinity Church viewed from A30 an iconic NP/DG4 Holy Trinity Church is designated as a Knuckey view - not clear this is safeguarded Landmark building and view. The policy seeks to protect these attributes. No change needed.
Gap should include section along A30 adjacent NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to to former police houses and opposite Redwood include field north of Cedar Drive. Drive. Why does gap between Old S’dale and S’dale station not extend to A30? Gap not extended to A30 as there is already development there. Contrary to methodology used for identifying gaps. No change proposed.
Station car park rarely if ever full and Waitrose NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised car par only full at real peak times of year - concern about the lack of parking in S’dale schemes to double deck car park would totally overall. This location is an appropriate and disfigure the area sustainable location to provide more parking.
The option of double decking the Station car park received overall support in our Options consultation.
No change to SS7 proposed. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Proposals to be selective in deciding some areas NP/SS1 Noted but there is overall community support of GB can be dispensed with (eg Ascot centre) ill and for proposed development. This will enable conceived and dangerous as could set NP/EN1 us to better protect other Green Belt areas. precedents.
21. not given Alan A, S & S NP cc'd on email addressed to Chair of NP/EN2 Gap has been reviewed and amended to Skipworth PC and Cllr. Concern that land North of Cedar include field north of Cedar Drive. Drive already earmarked for development and hence reason for not being included within the Gap area. Add this area to the gap.
22. SL5 0UA Jane and Support principles of NP and most of the policies NP/EN2 Support noted, thank you. Robert Hay but: Gap has been reviewed and amended to Deep concern re Gap between Old Sunningdale include field north of Cedar Drive. and Sunningdale and possibility of housing development on field north to Cedar Drive. Whole of field should be in protected area. Any housing here would compromise the infrastructure of the area.
Re Sunningdale and Waitrose Car Parks, there NP/SS7 Community consultations repeatedly raised seems at the moment to be sufficient spaces, the and SS6 concern about the lack of parking in S’dale T-junction is an accident black spot. And how overall. And, with forecast growth in can the two parades of shops be "joined"? population, increased train use is likely, Always been 2 sides, easily accessed by a short adding pressure to available parking at stroll. S’dale station.
One objective in the Plan is to improve pedestrian links between the two parades of shops.
No change to SS7 proposed.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
23. Cala Wish to commend NP team in its preparation of Thank you for the comments. Homes this document. For most part it is a comprehensive analysis of the area, with extensive and in-depth assessment of spatial and related issues, with sensible objectives and intelligent proposals to meet these aims.
Notable exception is stark absence of any explicit NPPF para 184, 185 Setting a housing target is a matter for housing target. Nor any strategic requirement and 215 general RBWM. The new Local Plan currently being derived from a Borough-wide or ‘bottom-up’ conformity with developed will determine housing targets assessment of housing need. It rightly aims to strategic policies and based on assessments of housing need. meet new housing demand in a way sympathetic implementation to the area but makes no attempt to quantify that DCLG have confirmed that there is no barrier demand. Any evaluation of the Plan’s progress in to NPs coming forward before the Local meeting this aim is therefore difficult. Planning Authority has produced its LP, nor is it a requirement for NPs to include housing Also, no housing capacity figures given for the targets if these are not available - provided identified strategic sites so plan provides no clear that discussions have taken place with the policy context for housing provision in the area. Local Planning Authority and every effort has been made to ensure the policies in the NP Accept that emerging Borough plan will address will not conflict with those being progressed this but in mean time hope the final NP will in the Borough LP. Confirmation that these provide greater clarity with, if only on interim discussions have taken place with RBWM is basis, an assessment of housing demand and included in their response to this pre- supply. submission consultation.
Note that all identified strategic sites all Not all the strategic sites are brownfield and brownfield. While reuse of previously developed some are in GB. An important part of site land may usually be preferable to release of GB assessments was the sustainability of their sites, such locations aren’t necessarily the most location. sustainable. Also not entirely clear whether the sites are fully available, viable and capable of Discussions have taken place with site accommodating the form of development sought. landowners and/or their representatives in relation to their viability and deliverability.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Once comprehensive housing assessment Suggestion noted. As a result of responses undertaken, if additional land for housing received in this consultation, the land required, we urge you to consider again land off referred to off Broomhall Lane, including the Broomhall Lane, S’dale. Development here field north of Cedar Drive, has been would provide range of housing types and a reviewed and has now been included within SANG on-site of an appropriate scale and the Old Sunningdale to Sunningdale Gap. It respect the newly identified Old S’dale to S’dale will therefore be subject to our Gaps policy. gap providing a permanent defensive boundary to this part of settlement.
24. Shorts Welcome support for relocation NP/SS4 Noted. Group Limited
Not economically viable to redevelop as NP/SS4 No evidence provided. Note that “employment” in the context of our employment use, specifically light industrial units. NP is used to indicate any use which NPPF para 89 re provides jobs with the exception of Retail – a Residential development is only viable alternative development in GB. definition has now been included in the Plan. use. Promoted to RBWM for 50-70 dwellings RBWM Policy E5 re Policy SS4 has been amended to set out Loss of land in conditions for any redevelopment of the site. employment areas.
Community consultation clearly supports retention of employment sites in the area.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Not for NP to define what is “very special NP/EN1 NPPF para 81 ref Protection of GB is of great importance to the circumstances”. Circumstances that are “very planning positively to local community and there is very strong special” may differ and need not be rare enhance beneficial desire to protect it from development (other use of GB. than as consulted on and designated in Ascot Centre/HS and Ascot Station). NPPF para 88 ref Argument re “Very special circumstances” application of “very provision noted and policy amended to special include clear demonstrable benefits for the circumstances” community.
NPPF para 89 ref Clarification included that EN1 applies to inappropriate “inappropriate development”. development in GB
We own and operate land within the GB so NPPF para 17 ref Our NP has carefully considered the unacceptable for NP to seek to restrict planning should be implications of a range of developments in arguments that may be put forward for future use genuinely plan-led, our area. This includes the type and the of that land. empowering local location of this development and its people to shape their sustainability implications. Our Plan focuses surroundings. on delivering development at specific locations to maximise infrastructure delivery NPPF para 183 ref and to focus development near to public Neighbourhood transport hubs, and in turn looks to protect Planning giving other areas from development that is communities power to considered to be harmful to the character, develop vision for their identity and social fabric of our communities. area and deliver sustainable It also looks to ensure that greater protection development. is provided for our natural environment. Our policies do not restrict, instead they challenge developers to deliver development that responds to its surroundings and is appropriate for our area.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Text on Major Developed Sites in Green Belt 6.1.1 NPPF paras 89 ref Noted. For purposes of clarity and accuracy, incorrect as NPPF does not refer to Major development in GB relevant wording in 6.1.1 has been developed Sites in Green Belt and allows for amended. redevelopment of brownfield land in the Green RBWM Policy GB9 Belt
Vague, uncertain and undefined policy. No NP/H2 NPPF para 50 ref NPPF para 50 does not require a NP to housing needs analysis by Borough or NP. delivering a wide include a housing needs analysis. Other NPs Contrary to para 50 NPPF. Developers respond choice of homes and are going forward without housing numbers. to market demand. meeting housing needs. Our housing needs will emerge as progress is made on the emerging BLP but these are not yet known. Housing targets a strategic issue for RBWM.
Unreasonable interference with the housing NP/H3 NPPF para 17 ref Evidence has been compiled as part of market. Flats are part of the housing mix and are planning should be developing policies; this is available in the important in providing affordable properties. No genuinely plan-led, Evidence pack that will be submitted evidence to support policy empowering local alongside the Neighbourhood Plan. people to shape their surroundings.
NPPF para 183 ref Neighbourhood Planning giving communities power to develop vision for their area and deliver sustainable development.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
New housing will be just the same as that which NP/DG1 NPPF paras 183-185 Disagree. The community’s priority, made already exists in form, appearance and density. and ref Neighbourhood clear through consultation, is to retain the Too restrictive and prescriptive contrary to NPPF. NP/DG2 Planning and paras key aspects that determine the character of Policy wording could prevent development of 56-61 ref requiring our area, hence the focus on Density, windfall sites. good design. Footprint, Separation, Scale and Bulk. Our policies encourage innovative, good design; Only NPPF plus NP/DG3 is required. RBWM policies H10 they do not restrict development but instead and H11 challenge developers to deliver development that responds to its surroundings and is appropriate for our area.
12 months marketing an unreasonable burden on NP/E1 NPPF para 22 re Comment noted. the property owner. Other evidence may be avoiding long term appropriate protection of sites where no reasonable prospect exists for their use.
RBWM Policy E5 ref loss of land in employment areas
Vague requirement of “significant development”. NP/SV1 Expression “significant No change proposed to SV1 on these development” used in grounds. Policy wording has been amended NPPF paras 17 and to aid clarity. 112
Object to providing parking for residents, visitors NP/T1 NPPF para 39 ref There is serious community concern and tradesmen. Meet Borough’s standards not issues that should be regarding on-street parking on our narrow additional. taken into account congested Victorian roads creating when setting congestion and safety risk and about lack of standards for parking overall. residential development. Proposed policy is proportionate having regard to the acknowledged parking NPPF para 10 ref problems in our area. Plans taking local circumstances into A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
account
RBWM DG1(7) ref parking policy.
Clearly concerns about traffic congestion in the NP/SV1 NPPF para 10 ref Development in an area cannot be divorced area. Unfair to require development in Plans taking local from consequences on traffic management Sunninghill to have additional requirements for circumstances into or other sustainability criteria. Proposed traffic management and parking account policy is proportionate having regard to the acknowledged traffic problems in S’hill.
25. SL5 9DH Natascha No problem with development on acreage owned Appendix Proposed strip of land forms a natural Sole by Ascot Car Parks and in favour of Village Section 8, boundary and has now been included in the Square idea. But concern that some of my land p16 “Ascot Green” area. will remain GB and hence not provide an income - wish narrow strip to be included.
Concern that small biz units will make area Any development will be subject to design around my property very unattractive considerations in accordance with our policies.
Concerned I am funding 65% of entire GB strip Issue of funding for private GB land not a NP between Ascot and South Ascot/Sunninghill. NP matter. proposals will mean loss of income from Car Boots leaving little funding for Ascot Wood GB. In Any application on this site will be subject to return would like an area of land de-gazetted so Neighbourhood Plan and Borough policies. that I can apply for planning permission to build a house.
26. Paul Butt ACCP and the Sole family welcome preparation Offer noted. for Ascot of the Plan and are supporting of its aims for the Central Car site in their ownership as part of Ascot Parks and rejuvenation. In particular, ACCP keen to provide the Sole a physical hub or centre for the community on family their site. Some detailed comments:
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
No need for a joint agreement and equalisation; Bottom p. This wording has been amended. and it can cause delays. Suggested modification 55 to bottom of p. 55: “To achieve this vision, it is important that we adopt a holistic versus a piecemeal approach to development, by promoting close collaboration between landowners and developers”.
Requirement for a single planning application NP/SS1.1 Policy has been amended. and a Development Brief likely to delay delivery of the heart of Ascot. It is sufficient to say that areas within Strategic Site as a whole could come forward independently provided they do not compromise delivery of the remainder. Suggested modification to NP/SS1.1: “Any development proposals for Ascot Centre and Ascot High Street must show how the key issues and intent for the entire Ascot Rejuvenation area comprising the High Street, South of Ascot High Street (“Ascot Green”) and North of Ascot High Street (“Ascot Village”) as defined on Map 15 have been addressed, and be accompanied by a Development Brief as set out in Appendix D, and to have actively engaged in consultation with the Parish Council and the community as part of the design process prior to any planning application being submitted.”
As matter of public policy not possible for a LPA NP/SS1.5 Policy clause on phasing has been to invalidate a planning appn on the NP/SS1.5 amended. ground that phasing had not been agreed by RBWM and the PC. Suggested modification: “PHASING: The Development Brief must include proposals for the phasing of both the development and of all required improvements and amenities, with clear milestones and deliverables.” A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Concern that lack of SANG will delay delivery. Section 9.2 Section 9.2 Project has been amended. Suggested modification of section 9.2 to be: “Project Heatherwood SANG and other potential SANG sites” so that it includes any other potential SANG sites that come forward as result of consultation.
At recent meeting questions raised re whether NP/EN1 Noted. We will work closely with colleagues land would be removed from GB or development at RBWM to ensure the appropriate route is would occur within it. Development within GB taken for the GB boundary review in the requires very special circumstances which may emerging BLP. create problems if there were separate applications for each site. Removal from GB Requirement for majority community support would make it easier but recognise this has to be has been removed. done by RBWM in their LP. Greater clarity would be helpful. Suggested modification: The Plan should be clear on which Strategic Sites should be in/out of the GB so that the BLP can consider and progress minor alterations to the GB boundary planned for in the Plan, and that the ACCP and Sole family sites, together with any other parts of the Ascot Centre/High Street Rejuvenation area that lie within the GB should be out. Whether the ACCP and Sole family sites remain in the GB in the Plan and are or are not removed from the GB in the BLP, then the concerns about a planning application requiring majority community support remain.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Wording of this policy does not give sufficiently NP/SS1.2 Requirements set out are based on clear understanding of infrastructure and community responses. requirements necessary, their costing and NP/SS1.3 mechanism through which intended to be funded. Some amendments to the wording have Suggested modification to SS1.2: “Any proposal been made. The details are expected to be for the redevelopment of Ascot Centre and High dealt with through the Development Brief. Street as shown within the area identified on Map 15 must show how it will either deliver, or contribute towards the delivery of, or not be necessary to deliver or contribute towards the delivery of the following improvements and community amenities…”
27. SL5 9EA Christian Object to proposal relating to Ascot Centre. Section Comments noted. Whilst there isn’t specific Leigh There is no overwhelming need to make Ascot 8.1/ evidence to show the potential impact on the High Street bigger and more attractive. There's NP/SS1 other villages, this is a relatively small scale no appraisal in the Plan about potential retail development that is considered to be commercial impact on S'hill and S'dale - no appropriate for the edge of a district centre sequential test or full appraisal undertaken. Ascot location such as this. High Street has become a better and far more attractive local centre over last few years. Feedback from community consultations is that the local community wish to focus development on key locations and there is majority support for the Ascot development.
Concerned about how very large areas of NP/EN1 NPPF paras 79-80 We reviewed SHLAA sites and comparing housing proposed on open and GB land relate to and and 87-89 ref purpose potentially available sites to deliver GB policy. Development would conflict with NP/SS1 of GB and exceptions community aspirations, Ascot Centre NPPF paras 79-80 hence land would have to be to inappropriate presented a unique and sustainable removed from GB. Not convinced there are development opportunity, being close to both the station exceptional circumstances to justify - the and shops and offering a vision for the statements of intent are merely general rejuvenation of Ascot. aspirations and there's no test to show they cannot be met elsewhere. The exceptional test is Decision on whether area is removed from difficult to satisfy in the absence of and figures on GB is a matter for the Local Authority and will housing numbers and commercial space be reviewed by RBWM. proposed for the Ascot Project. My overall objection is to development on this open land We disagree that the proposals will be very A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
without proper justification or quantification when harmful to the character and openness of the other options for development in the area have area. not been fully examined - eg. other land that might better suited for housing/commercial and Policy wording has been amended to require capacity for development on other land - eg. design to take into account local increase density on other allocated sites or on characteristics and to include a significant windfall sites. provision for the creation of green spaces.
The Ascot proposals will be very harmful to character and openness of area which contains trees with large protection areas, which are fundamental objectives of green belt policy.
28. Ascot The Racecourse welcomes Proposed Plan and is Support is welcomed, thank you. Racecourse broadly supportive of its proposals. But a number of detailed comments and suggested amends on issues relevant to the Racecourse.
Racecourse has historic and symbiotic links with We very much recognise the Racecourse’s Ascot and is a significant landowner, a major close links with Ascot and its importance as local employer and provides community facilities. a landowner and employer. We are also Three areas where wish to see more positive appreciative of the community facilities the planning in support of the Racecourse: Racecourse provides and supports.
Minor Green Belt Alterations: new Grandstand NP/EN1 RBWM GB policy. The NP Steering Group supports the and surrounding landscaped grounds almost NPPF para 83 ref it is Racecourse’s request for GB boundaries entirely in GB, and any works are deemed the LPA which is around the Racecourse to be rationalised ‘inappropriate development’, making even minor responsible for setting and we would like to encourage the Borough operational enhancements challenging and we GB boundaries to consider doing so. wish to have them removed. Recognise this is for RBWM but would like support in NP for doing so, as current Plan does for Ascot Green site. Suggested revision to policy wording: EN1.1 With the exceptions only provided for in specific Strategic Site policies and around the revised Racecourse Boundary defined by Map X the BLP policies will apply to all GB areas”. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Future Operational Development: Racecourse Section 7.1 Both the Equestrian Centre and the Green will evolve over Plan period and likely to bring Energy Centre raised considerable concerns forward development proposals incrementally - among the local community at consultation eg. potential equestrian centre and possible and they were not included in the proposed energy centre. We suggest the Plan supports NP. operational development proposals within the Racecourse boundary. Suggest a policy NP/AS1 In principle we support future operational as follows: “Proposals for operational development at the Racecourse but in the development at Ascot Racecourse shall be absence of sufficient information it is not permitted subject to: appropriate to include at this time.
(a) A demonstrable operational benefit to the racecourse (b) Permanent replacement of long-standing temporary buildings on the racecourse sited to ensure that the site is viable (c) Design and access considerations (in accordance with Policy DG2 and DG3 (d) Compliance with all other policies in the Plan and the BLP
Hotel: Pleased the Plan includes a site for NP/SS2 Following the extensive consultation that has development of a hotel on Racecourse land. We taken place and the fact that the proposed are broadly supportive of identified location but location of the Hotel was a factor in the seek more flexibility for any hotel development. community’s support for it, it is not Suggest following text included at the end of appropriate to alter the policy at this time. NP/SS2: “Proposals for the hotel location should reflect the operational requirements of the Connectivity to the High Street is desirable racecourse, provision for conference activity and and the policy has been amended to reflect connectivity to the High Street in particular this and to also reflect other issues raised compliments the vision for Ascot Centre/High during consultation. Street Rejuvenation (Policy SS1) and complies with DG2 and DG3”
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Housing mix and design: Supportive of principle NP/H3 and NPPF para 17 ref Our housing needs will emerge as progress of housing mix but want to ensure principles NP/DG1 planning should be made on the emerging BLP but these not yet cannot be undermined in delivery. Restricting and NP/H2 genuinely plan-led, known. Policy NP/H2 does not restrict flats/apartments contrary to NPPF para 50 empowering local development, instead it challenges unless there is demonstrable oversupply of flats people to shape their developers to deliver development that so suggest deletion of NP/H3. Also deletion of surroundings. responds to its surroundings and is NP/DG1 sub-sections 2 to 5 which seek to appropriate for our area. Wording has been control the type of dwellings. Also remove NPPF para 183 ref amended to give some flexibility should it be reference in NP/H2 to "should be in size and type Neighbourhood needed to help meet identified housing in keeping with the size and type of dwellings Planning giving needs. already prevalent in the surrounding area". communities power to develop vision for their The intent for policy H3 re flats/apartments is Only appropriate to restrict new flats and area and deliver to ensure that such developments don’t apartments if robust assessment of local needs sustainable occur where they would adversely impact the shows this is necessary. development. character of the area – natural, built and social. A detailed Streetscape Assessment has been conducted by NP volunteers to add additional local detail to the RBWM NPPF para 50 ref Townscape Assessment and streets have delivering a wide been identified where flats/apartments would choice of homes and be appropriate, taking into account location, meeting housing character of the surrounding neighbourhood, needs status of on-street parking and the streetscape generally. This piece of work is
included in our Evidence Pack and formed NPPF paras 58, 60 an important input into determining and 61 requiring good appropriate locations for flats/apartments in design. our area. As a result of reviewing this project, the policy has been amended to include certain additional streets.
The policy also actively welcomes flatted development in TA classification zone Post War Residential Flats, when part of a mixed use commercial development (eg. Along a redeveloped Ascot High Street) and some Strategic Sites (eg. at Ascot Station). A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Acknowledge importance of trees to area NP/EN3.1 Your comment is noted. Some amendments character but TPO process already provides have been made to this policy. suitable protection - hence NP/EN3.1 unnecessary or should be adjusted. The caveat 'exceptional circumstances' under which removal is allowed is unduly rigorous.
29. SL5 7DY Andy Your planning policy has many seriously flawed Comment noted. Hohne and conflicting claims, aims and conclusions. As an Ascot resident so focus on Ascot:
Ascot High Street is busy and thriving place and NP/SS1 Your view is noted, however over repeated does not need rejuvenating. Number of shops consultations community feedback has been right for population. Community wants to retain in favour of rejuvenating Ascot centre and character of area and leafy nature. Ascot the High Street. Retention of the green and proposal entirely conflicts with these wishes. leafy appearance is part of the policy.
Absolutely disagree green field sites should be NP/EN1 NPPF paras 79-80 While the community agrees with you about built on. Restrict development to the large brown and and 87-89 ref purpose wishing to protect the GB, in Ascot it is field sites in the area. High density building can NP/SS1 of GB and exceptions considered that the important benefits only increase traffic congestion to inappropriate outweigh the negatives. Part of the development requirements on any development is that traffic issues are addressed with improvements to road infrastructure.
Not proposing high density at this location. By focusing development on fewer sites, there is a better opportunity to improve infrastructure.
Question outdated notion Ascot needs and can NP/SS1 NPPF para 17 ref The idea of a community centre that is support community centre and small cinema planning should be capable of being used as both a community genuinely plan-led, hall and an arts space or small cinema arose empowering local directly out of the public meetings and was people to shape their endorsed in subsequent consultation. surroundings.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
NPPF para 183 ref Neighbourhood Planning giving communities power to develop vision for their area and deliver sustainable development
30. SL5 7HF John 1. Support good development on south side of NP/SS1 The requirement for a Development Brief will Bayliss High Street provided any Commercial Units are provide an opportunity for local residents to tasteful and lettable be consulted and to influence design. Any development will be keen to ensure commercial success.
2. Village Square scheme ill thought out and NP/SS1 Your view is noted but there is no evidence shows complete naivety. It will become a to indicate that Ascot will attract "meeting place" for many "undesirables" who “undesirables”. Well-designed, overlooked frequent Ascot for drinking sessions. spaces with active frontages can deter anti- social behaviour.
3. Concern about development on Car Park 5 NP/SS1 Our Ascot Centre policy expressly provides which contains some of finest trees in the for retention of “important mature trees”. immediate location - a superb selection of some 70 or so trees, many in excess of 150-200 years Any development would also have to be in old. The whole should be placed under an accordance with our Tree policy EN3. immediate TPO.
Proposals beyond the frontage to the High Street NP/SS1 Unclear what type of problems are being will create insurmountable problems in referred to here. With respect to destruction immediate and extended future and destroy of important central green oasis, our Ascot important central green oasis Centre policy expressly provides for the retention of important mature trees and the creation of green spaces. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
31. SL5 7HL Alison and Supportive in general of initiatives proposed. Comments noted and thank you for your Frank Would have liked more prior consultation. support. We conducted a number of Zecca consultations including the Vision consultation which went to all households in the area.
Concerns regarding development of Car Park 6 NP/SS1 Comment noted. Our Ascot Centre policy in Ascot Village plans. Would like smaller number expressly provides for retention of important of houses to maintain more open feel with the mature trees and for the creation of green beautiful old trees. spaces. And the Development Brief will provide an opportunity for local residents to be consulted and to influence design.
Ask that we and local council continue to make Comment noted. sure everyone’s views are heard.
32. Re SL5 Paul Butt Comments made on behalf of Altitude Real NPPF paras 79-80 Information noted. 7DY Planning for Estate LLP who have an option with the freehold and 87-89 ref purpose Altitude owner to purchase site of Oakfield Farm, which of GB and exceptions Redevelopment on this site to residential Real Estate includes existing waste transfer station and an to inappropriate would be inappropriate development in GB. area to north either side of access road fronting development This area also forms part of our strategic gap onto Wells Lane. Pre-application advice has between Ascot and Sunninghill to which our been sought from RBWM for a residential policy NP/EN2 relates. redevelopment of waste transfer station and a change of use of land to the south to recreational public open space, potentially a SANG. Site lies in GB.
Altitude welcomes preparation of the Plan and is Thank you for your support. wholly supporting of its aims. . In particular, keen to facilitate Ascot Centre rejuvenation. Detailed comments:
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
1. Provision of a SANG quality public open space Project 9.2 Project in Section 9.2 has been expanded to could be brought forward in a timely fashion include alternative potential SANG sites. thereby removing any uncertainty or delay in realising Ascot Centre project. Suggest amending section 9.2 Project to become “Project Heatherwood SANG and other potential SANG sites”, adding “other landowners” to text in coloured box and adding “Other potential SANG sites that have come forward include the wood to the south of the waste transfer station in Wells Lane”.
2. Potential provision of recreational public open NP/EN2 Welcome the possibility of additional space (whether or not to SANG quality standard). and recreational public open space and Note potential to create link between Wells Lane NP/EN6 enhancement of our green corridors. and one of the NP primary green corridors. Suggest modification of EN2 to read ”A planning Wording of EN2 has been amended to aid application for inappropriate development in the clarity. GB in Gaps between Villages, as defined by Map 6, shall only be permitted in very special circumstances where:
(a) the very special circumstances are for the benefit of the community AND
(b) it is accompanied by a statement of Community Consultation as set out in Appendix E….”
3. NP/EN1 Green Belt policy will apply as NP/EN1 Policy has been amended to no longer Altitude site is not a Strategic Site in the Plan. include reference to majority community Suggest modification of EN1 to delete support. requirement for "majority community support".
33. Ascot Sue In general plans very good especially for Ascot. Thank you for your support. Rensch
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
But object to building houses in GB. This NP only covers Sunninghill & Ascot and Considerable building in New Road, North Ascot Sunningdale parishes and can have no and Bracknell Forest Council has given influence over Bracknell Forest areas. NP permission for more houses in GB including The cannot stop all building but can help Rough which is ancient woodland. And encourage investment in infrastructure. infrastructure cannot cope even at present. What measure do you have to intervene to stop further building?
34. SL5 7ET Woolf Bond Owned site is 0.47ha and is PDL in GB. A 3- NPPF para 89 ref Comments noted. for Index storey building currently in office use and partial or limited House accessed from St. George’s Lane. Site now infilling or benefits from NPPF para 89. Accordingly, subject redevelopment of to appropriate redesign that responds to site’s PDLs GB location, redevelopment for alternative commercial or residential use would be acceptable.
In sequential terms site is more logical release NP/SS1 Amendment to The area to the north of Index House is part than the land to the north. Mature tree buffer on Permitted of an area that represents a significant southern side results in a stronger visual and Development Rights opportunity to enhance our High Street. The physical relationship with existing open land to May 2013 to convert NP is not able to release Green Belt; that is a the north (towards Ascot High St) than to waste offices to residential matter for the LPA. Whilst it is recognised facility in the south. Site could add to scale of that Index House can relate well to the wider proposed allocation at Ascot Green and deliver NPPF para 111 ref re- opportunity it could be redeveloped or much needed economic or residential use of previously converted under existing policy in the NPPF. development, in accordance with core land-use developed land principles including: “to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided it is not of high environmental value”.
Propose site is excluded from its present GB NP/SS1. NPPF para 83 ref it is Your comment is noted. designation and allocated for residential or the LPA which is commercial development either as a stand-alone responsible for setting allocation or as part of the Ascot Green scheme. GB boundaries
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
35. SL5 7HH Laura & Wholeheartedly support the efforts to develop the Thank you for your support. Pete Ascot HS area. As always though, the devil is in Browitt the detail and we have concerns as set out below:
Hotel: plans lack the detail to make any serious NP/SS2 Your concerns are noted. comments but proximity to our home gives us concerns: Find logic of planned location difficult One of the benefits of a hotel is the to understand. Racecourse have large areas of economic benefits it can bring, so its location land which would be more appropriate. More close to the High Street is appropriate. Close sense to have at Heatherwood end of HS away proximity to the Grandstand and main from proximity to home owners and without need Racecourse concourse also appealing for to bring additional traffic into main shopping area. potential visitors and conference delegates. Adding traffic to already congested HS cannot support local economy, the council’s Full details will emerge as part of the environmental policies nor the well being of planning process. And any development central Ascot residents. No details given re how proposal will be subject to Design and hotel will be accessed. Access for staff and Access considerations and to adequate service vehicles? Parking? Noise and parking being provided for staff, residents disturbance to local residents from lighting, and visitors. physical size disturbing our outlook and The policy has been amended to better additional traffic. Proposed building will take reflect concerns over impacts on footprint of current well used service area – neighbouring properties. where will this by pushed out to? How will access to our homes we currently enjoy potentially change?
“Green” energy centre: understand your NP/SS1 Previous consultation feedback showed committee do not feel this is an issue based on and concern over a potential Green Energy previous feedback, cannot understand this. While Appendix Centre and, in the absence of more main body of the plan fails to mention this B information, it was not included in the Plan building, the appendix very clearly brings it within policies. We recognise however that scope of the “plan”. Building any type of power references made to it in the Prince’s Report supplying building in this location makes no in Appendix B may have created uncertainty; sense; building on this specific area, within yards we have therefore removed this report from of our home, when so much land is available that the NP and are including it only as part of our can be more easily accessed with much less Evidence Base. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
impact on residents? With respect to trees, our policy NP/SS1 includes a requirement to retain important We understand that TPOs are in place on the mature trees. numerous trees outside our home. How can these be so easily overturned.
Transparency: we seriously question the The Energy Centre being in the Appendix transparency your committee claim: Including the was addressed above – it was not included Energy centre merely in the Appendix with no in the Plan policies. mention in the main body is clearly questionnable. The hotel being claimed to be With regard to consultation, we conducted accepted by local residents is hard to three major general consultations prior to comprehend. We have discussed this with many this one and, for Ascot specifically, we held residents of central Ascot and nobody can two public meetings which were widely confirm their acceptance. How many of these so publicised. called residents actually live within the boundaries of the affected areas? We live within Details of the consultation process is set out 10 yards of the racecourse yet none of the in the Statement of Consultation. “volunteers” managed to contact us for our
views.
36. SL5 7HH Theresa Read proposals with interest and overall NP/SS1 Thank you for your comments and support. Doherty supportive of initiatives outlined which are aimed and at rejuvenation of Ascot Centre/HS ie. “Ascot Appendix With regard to consultation, we conducted Village” concept providing the necessary B three major general consultations prior to changes in current infrastructure developed this one and, for Ascot specifically, we held sufficiently to support the proposals. two public meetings which were widely However, wish to express personal concerns re publicised. certain aspects of NP and PF report: Consultation: As a resident of Course Side Rd I Details of the consultation process is set out was not engaged in the consultation process by in the Statement of Consultation. any of the volunteers even though my house is
on direct route of proposed Racecourse developments.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Ascot hotel: distinct lack of detail re this NP/SS2 Full details will emerge as part of the development – eg. size of hotel, no reference to planning process. And any development access or where the necessary changes to proposal will be subject to Design and existing infrastructure will be. Neither parking nor Access considerations and to adequate delivery arrangements have been identified. parking being provided for staff, residents Concern that existing parking arrangements and visitors. outside my house will still stand; will there still be vehicle and foot access to Course Rd via Bank The policy has been amended to better Place; will local residents still have access to reflect concerns over impacts on Ascot Heath via underpass tunnel; will bollards neighbouring properties. remain in place? Safeguards re minimising noise, light, waste management and general pollution level?
Although not included in the NP, the PF report Appendix Previous consultation feedback showed clearly identifies two further areas of potential B concern over a potential Green Energy development very close to my property: Centre and, in the absence of more Equestrian Centre and Green Energy Centre. information, it was not included in the Plan Major concerns regarding the latter. According to policies. We recognise however that the maps, it would have detrimental impact on references made to it in the Prince’s Report my lifestyle and home. There is insufficient detail in Appendix B may have created uncertainty; re size, siting and infrastructure required. Impact we have therefore removed this report from of such development would be considerable and the NP and are including it only as part of our I wish to register my personal objection to any Evidence Base. Green Energy Centre.
37. SL5 7HH Pamela & Supportive in general toward improvement of NP/SS1 Thank you for your support. Anthony Ascot Centre/HS together with Community Bunn Centre and construction of proposed Ascot Village concept.
Our concerns are mainly the planned NP/SS2 Full details will emerge as part of the development of a Hotel. There are no details planning process. Any development proposal regarding size and necessary changes to our will be subject to Design and Access existing infrastructure and potential impact it will considerations and to adequate parking have on our property: being provided for staff, residents and
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
- where will access be for visitors, where visitors. will a CP be sited - proposed height and position of The policy has been amended to better hotel/lighting concerns reflect concerns over impacts on - waste management and environmental neighbouring properties. impact - will access for Course Side Rd residents through Bank Place be maintained and will we retain right to continue parking opposite our homes - will access to Ascot Heath be maintained via underpass - Also concerned re Green Energy Centre: Previous consultation feedback showed - negative impact on view from front of our concern over a potential Green Energy houses Centre and, in the absence of more - why can’t this be positioned at information, it was not included in the Plan Heatherwood end of Racecourse policies. We recognise however that - Up to 6 years ago we had a massive references made to it in the Prince’s Report brick wall a few feet away; when it was in Appendix B may have created uncertainty; removed on rebuilding of Racecourse we we have therefore removed this report from were assured of brilliant outlook we the NP and are including it only as part of our would hav Evidence Base. - Trees protected by TPOs With respect to trees, our policy NP/SS1 includes a requirement to retain important mature trees.
38. SL5 7HQ Tim Hallett Studied proposals with interest and generally NP/SS1 Thank you for your comments and support. supportive of initiatives to improve local area particularly re regeneration of Ascot Centre/HS and Ascot Station, together with Community Centre, public open space and construction of Ascot Village concept.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Some concerns on certain points: NP/SS2 One of the benefits of a hotel is the Plans to develop Hotel lack any detail re size and economic benefits it can bring, so its location necessary changes to existing infrastructure. close to the High Street is appropriate. Close Concerns include: proximity to the Grandstand and main - Plan fails to accept that traffic congestion Racecourse concourse also appealing for in Ascot HS already critical. Will access potential visitors and conference delegates. for deliveries and guests be from HS? How will it impinge on access to Course Full details will emerge as part of the Side Rd and traffic island at Station Rd planning process. And any development - Proximity to our homes and impact of proposal will be subject to Design and proposed height and position, light Access considerations and to adequate spillage and invasion of privacy parking being provided for staff, residents - Will residents continue to have right to and visitors. park in Course Side Rd and will existing bollards be maintained The policy has been amended to better - Waste management and environmental reflect concerns over impacts on impact neighbouring properties. - Will access to Ascot Heath via underpass be maintained
Concern that not one of the residents in Course With regard to consultation, we conducted Side Rd has been consulted even though we will three major general consultations prior to be directly affected. this one and, for Ascot specifically, we held two public meetings which were widely publicised.
Details of the consultation process is set out in the Statement of Consultation.
Strongly oppose PF plan for a Green Energy site: Previous consultation feedback showed - Trees in area protected by TPO concern over a potential Green Energy - Concern detrimental impact on our Centre and, in the absence of more property values information, it was not included in the Plan - Size and height of energy centre and policies. We recognise however that potential 24 hour operation references made to it in the Prince’s Report - Noise, light and odour pollution in Appendix B may have created uncertainty; - Why not site at Heatherwood end we have therefore removed this report from the NP and are including it only as part of our A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Evidence Base.
39. SL5 7HH Kathleen & Our family has lived in Course Side Rd for over Thank you for your comments and support. Neil 60 years and has keen interest to improve local Richardson area. Have read NP with interest and generally support initiatives to improve local area particularly re sustained redevelopment of Ascot Centre/HS and Ascot Station.
Some concerns on certain points: NP/SS2 One of the benefits of a hotel is the Plans to develop Hotel lack any detail re size and economic benefits it can bring, so its location necessary changes to existing infrastructure. close to the High Street is appropriate. Close Concerns include: proximity to the Grandstand and main - Traffic congestion in Ascot HS already Racecourse concourse also appealing for major issue. Will access for deliveries potential visitors and conference delegates. and guests be from HS? How will it impinge on access to Course Side Rd Full details will emerge as part of the and traffic island at Station Rd planning process. And any development - Will access to Course Side Rd be proposal will be subject to Design and maintained through Bank Place Access considerations and to adequate - Where will hotel CP be sited. Will parking being provided for staff, residents residents continue to have right to park and visitors. in Course Side Rd and will existing bollards be maintained The policy has been amended to better - Risk of significant noise and light reflect concerns over impacts on pollution from CP plus waste neighbouring properties. management and environmental impact - Will access to Ascot Heath via underpass be maintained
Concern that not one of the residents in Course With regard to consultation, we conducted Rd has been consulted even though we will be three major general consultations prior to directly affected. this one and, for Ascot specifically, we held two public meetings which were widely publicised.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Details of the consultation process is set out in the Statement of Consultation.
Strongly against PF plan for a Green Energy site Appendix Previous consultation feedback showed hidden in the Appendices B concern over a potential Green Energy - Trees in area protected by TPO Centre and, in the absence of more - Size and height of energy centre, will it information, it was not included in the Plan have a CP and potential 24 hour policies. We recognise however that operation references made to it in the Prince’s Report - Noise and light pollution in Appendix B may have created uncertainty; - Negative impact on view from front of our we have therefore removed this report from houses the NP and are including it only as part of our Evidence Base.
40. SL5 7EY Pegasus for Response considers Ascot plans only as it Comments noted. SL5 7EX 12 local represents residents in local vicinity who know SL5 7HL Ascot area best. In support of proposal, residents SL5 7QP residents welcome opportunity to guide location of future SL5 9NJ (10 Ascot, 1 developments in the plan neighbourhoods. Draft C/side, 1 NP is comprehensive, detailed and technical. S’hill) Appreciate time invested and detail offered. However, specific concerns regarding matters excluded or unsupported within draft NP set out below:
Ascot Racecourse – raceday implications for NP/SS2 RBWM LP para 7.3.1 Comments noted. Ascot residents: residents proud of world class and identifying racing delivered by racecourse and wish it to NP/SS1 Racecourse as one of Both the Equestrian Centre and the Green remain competitive against competition. Given its and existing main Energy Centre raised concerns among the significance plan has notable lack of reference to Appendix employers in area. local community at consultation and were how development proposals on racecourse land B and therefore not included in the proposed NP in – hotel and Ascot Village – will affect local Section 3.1 the absence of more information. residents. References in PF report to a Green Energy Centre and Equestrian Centre also We recognise however that references made factors. to them in the Prince’s Report in Appendix B may have created uncertainty; we have therefore removed this report from the NP and are including it only as part of our A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Raceday traffic and parking have been Evidence Base. successfully improved and managed over last decade with resulting effect on residents being Policy SS1 includes requirements relating to positive. Highway projects within NP should road infrastructure improvements and provide realistic mitigation management plans for sufficient parking capacity. The detail will racecourse operations or risk of return to former emerge through the Development Brief chaotic situation for residents and visitors process. ceasing to support racecourse in favour of other racecourses. Ascot Racecourse are broadly supportive of the plans and aware of the operational Reminder to NP SG that some local businesses issues that will evolve from them. earn 45% of annual revenues during Royal
Ascot, allowing them to be successful businesses for residents to enjoy rest of year.
Note none of SG are Ascot residents. Request full consideration given to operation and management of racedays and associated impacts on Ascot residents. Matters to be addressed: - Access and service road congestion during build and preparation periods incl for HGV deliveries - Easy parking for racegoers cars and coaches or coach drivers will not come to Ascot - Parking and People Management for the 700+ extra employees at Royal Ascot and hundreds on other racedays
Above specifically applies to Ascot village development as combined concern of losing considerable parking area alongside numbers of new residential properties. Not clear how racecourse will provide alternative safe access and movement of people.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Recommend an alternative people flow plan is publicised to show Ascot Village can be successfully assimilated into locality.
Implications of proposed residential Section 4 SHLAA and NPPF All your comments are noted. development: and para 47 ref 5 year NP cannot promote less development than is set Section housing land supply Setting housing targets is a matter for out in LP but RBWM housing figures not listed 5.2.1 and and 6-15 year RBWM. The new Local Plan currently being anywhere. For clarity, reference SHLAA and how Section developable sites developed will determine housing targets A, S & S will contribute to meeting development 5.3.2 based on assessments of housing need. We allocation. Note NPPF refs. Concern text in 5.3.2 And have been liaising very closely with RBWM advises “inclusion of sites in the plan does not Appendix and they are fully aware of what is included necessarily mean they will be developed” – what B in our NP and supportive of it. is point of inclusion if no realistic prospect of And development. NP/SS1 The wording of 5.3.2 has been amended to aid clarity. Concern that based on PF report c. 90+ houses Provision of sufficient parking is included in would fit in Ascot Village. No regard taken to the policy as a requirement. style of housing adjoining the green on opposite side to create balanced visual integration. The green adjoins Winkfield Rd houses, not Course Rd. Also not clear how parking needs for Ascot Village been considered and proposals considered to result in an undersupply of parking space provision.
Ascot Green proposals would equate to over 75 Your comments are noted. dwellings. Transparency required to give clarification to local community. Also request when Heatherwood consultation provides housing provision calculations, these are added to assess overall impacts on local area and greater certainty as to how Local and national targets will be met.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Highways, traffic & parking & people flows: NP/SS1 NPPF Section 4 Comments noted. NP identifies existing traffic and parking strains and on Ascot especially on race days. But proposals NP/SS2 Policy includes requirements relating to road do not include evidence base or collaboration infrastructure improvements. The detail will with RBWM to demonstrate that these will not be emerge through the Development Brief made worse by new development or how they process. may be improved. Indication of mitigation transport projects with associated funds would be of benefit including evidence of a switch to train usage which will not suit all.
RBWM has own parking standards. NP NP/DG3.3 Comments noted. recognises higher than average car ownership in area so suggest that provisions for increased PF Report is presenting a vision. The detail parking standards are incorporated. will emerge through the Development Brief Consideration also should be given to overall NP process. area development effects.
PF report includes relocation of Petrol Station to Winkfield Rd roundabout. No detailed justification given nor realistic traffic flow implications. Not considered that proposed site is suitable given existing traffic flows, close proximity to school, a residential area and Shorts Recycling.
PF report also recommends a proposed Appendix Previous consultation feedback showed Community Energy Centre as it states there is a B concern over a potential Green Energy power problem for businesses around the HS. Centre and, in the absence of more Any such proposal likely to have significant information, it was not included in the Plan impact on local residents. policies. We recognise however that references made to it in the Prince’s Report in Appendix B may have created uncertainty; we have therefore removed this report from the NP and are including it only as part of our Evidence Base.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Amenity: matters of noise, disturbance and NP/DG2.2 Comments noted. vibration not commonly material considerations and taken into account by Local Authority in NP/SS1 Policy SS1 includes requirements to retain assessing proposed development. Request such important mature trees. considerations specifically referred to within this policy.
Local residents also wish to see TPOs upheld on Ascot Village and Ascot Green.
Proposed expansion of Ascot HS: NP/SS1 Comments and concerns noted. Retail expansion of HS positive aspiration but at and odds with level of protection NP places on Section 5.1 Comments noted. Whilst there isn’t specific individual villages (Section 5.1). Proposed evidence to show the potential impact on the expansion of HS more akin to an Urban Town other villages, this is a relatively small scale Centre than a local village hub. Concern no retail development that is considered to be evidence that HS’s expansion idesirable or appropriate for the edge of a district centre viable. No reference to such a review by RBWM location such as this. No objections from or NP SG; no reference to how Ascot fits with retailers in either Sunninghill or Sunningdale retail provisions of larger nearby town centres eg to the Ascot Centre proposal. Windsor Bracknell and Camberley. Recent retail arrivals not NP’s sought after “small Feedback from community consultations is independent shops” but retail and chain café that the local community wish to focus stores incl Subway, Boots, Costa, Starbucks and development on key locations and there is Tesco. While community may raise majority support for the Ascot development. disappointment to this, it’s clear that they are used or they would not remain in business. Whilst small independents may be desirable, how does NP intend to buck trend and encourage them and is it even feasible to do? Concern that future development may result in significant additional housing with no major funding for improving the HS, retail or amenities.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Reference to ‘small cinema’ and/or ‘arts centre’. NP/SS1 Context is space that acts as a community But no mention whether any interest from hall that can be used as a small cinema potential operator. Given presence of local and/or arts centre. This was as a result of theatres and cinemas in Windsor, Camberley, suggestions made by the local community in Reading, Woking and Bracknell, serious concern consultation. that an additional facility will not be used.
While it’s accepted that commercial units may Section 8.1 RBWM LP policy Comments noted. benefit from increased spending capacity of a and ASC1 ref not larger local population, this doesn’t directly NP/SS1 permitting loss of RBWM is fully aware of our proposed policy correlate to success of a local centre. New urban And existing A1 retail use E3.1 and happy that it is in conformity with extensions of many hundreds of homes will often NP/E3.1 in HS unless it can be the BLP and their thinking in relation to their only sustain one or two new retail units and in shown that vitality and emerging LP. Ascot, already established that considerable viability of centre will income to local bars, restaurants and cafes not be harmed. comes from visitors/racegoers. Nothing to suggest this would change. Amendments to Town NP makes no mention to fact that with Tesco’s and Country Planning arrival on HS, their pension fund became a main (General Permitted landlord and has since sold the parade on. This Development Order) contrasts with NP ambitions of a vibrant village of 1995 to allow more small independents and demonstrates flexible changes of commercial reality where Big Businesses guide use of commercial HS evolution and potentially lock out smaller units under permitted businesses through high property rents. development.
NP policy E3.1 at odds with RBWM policy ASC1 in indicating that introduction of non-retail uses will be allowed subject to max of 30% of length of current frontages. Also doesn’t reflect NP’s intentions in para 6.4.3 on retaining retail.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Proposals for urban growth of HS will require Comments noted. investment and ongoing support and maintenance of policing, street cleaning services etc. Not clear in NP how this will be funded. Nor how issues such as noise and anti-social behaviour will be mitigated, with expansion of evening hours operations such as restaurants and bars.
Safety and amenity of existing Ascot residents paramount; other villages won’t experience this degree of impact and Ascot will require additional response in a Policing Plan. DG2.2 covers amenity effects of new residential dwellings but no similar policy to consider amenity effects of commercial proposals and this should be amended.
Local Schooling: Section 9.4 Comments noted. Increase in residential development results in a direct impact upon school resources in the It is a Borough responsibility to ensure there locality. Project identified for School imperative. are sufficient school places. As it is a matter Should also take account secondary and special of concern among local residents, we have education needs places. Charters not even defined a Project to work with RBWM to mentioned yet new family size properties will give identify a suitable location for a new school. rise to children of secondary school age.
NP should make reference to Council’s Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2005) and forthcoming CIL schedule for how developer funds will be pooled to resource the Project. Also valuable to outline what enhancement projects developer funds would contribute to local schools. If existing schools don’t have the capacity to expand, consideration will need to be given to new schools. Residents specifically A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
concerned re Cheapside school which is the main destination for local primary school children.
Neighbourhood Plan process: Comments noted. In interests of transparency request all comments published online. To date, residents aware of All comments and our responses will be numerous occasions when have contacted SG published on our website. with comments with no acknowledgment of receipt or response. Nor considered acceptable or considerate of the wider ranging perspectives of Ascot residents regarding NP consultation process.
Evidence base detailed in section 1.2 refers to Section 1.2 Comments noted. 550 respondents or 7% and much mention made and throughout to “overwhelming support” or support Section 7.1 These response rates are considered high levels at “93%” or above. Highly misleading: not by the standards of those normally received 93% of Ascot population – it is 93% of 550 in response to the Borough’s planning respondents. Not considered to be sufficiently consultations. representative of whole NP area. Concern is raised about true level of commitment and All consultations have been widely support for some of the new proposed facilities publicised. Full details of the consultation as number of respondents relatively low in process is set out in the Statement of contrast with local population size. Consultation.
41. Ascot Collective of local groups keeping residents Noted. Residents advised of inappropriate planning appns and other local issues. Group has followed development of NP and taken active part.
General feedback very positive but one major Noted. concern:
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Concern is sheer scale of proposed Your comments are noted. “rejuvenation” of Ascot Centre. Support principle of new development in Ascot to enhance HS and Policy wording has been amended to require provide community facilities. And recognise design to include a significant provision for residential part of this. But area proposed for the creation of green spaces and for the development south of HS (Ascot Green) simply phasing of the development to ensure that too much. It will overwhelm current centre and its any cumulative impacts of development can infrastructure and proposals in danger of be dealt with. urbanising the village feel, which majority like and wish to retain.
Seriously request re-think of area being proposed for Ascot Green to focus on section of HS that runs from Station Hill roundabout to end of Hermitage Parade. This will still be very significant development, especially if Ascot Village also goes ahead.
42. SL5 7LE Anne Ayres Comprehensive and well considered plan; fully NP/SS1 Thank you for your comments and your endorse. Vibrant hub in Ascot centre attractive; and support. hotel advantageous. NP/SS2
In favour of deterring more luxury flats except in NP/H3 Your comment is noted. the few places identified.
43. SL5 7LD Roger and Excellent piece of work and congratulations. Your support is appreciated, thank you. Suzanne Support limited and appropriate development of Bailey compatible design and density.
1. Support and expect RBWM to pursue all NP/EN3 Noted and we will pass this to RBWM. violations of TPOs through legal system
2. Garden grabbing/back land development NP/EN4 NP para 53 Comments noted. needs to be defined and curtailed more rigorously Policy has been reworded to aid clarity. There is no basis however for justifying more rigorous curtailment. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
3. Plan not definitive enough in preventing NP/H3 The NP is in favour of sustainable flats/apartments, an urban feature for which there development and that includes flats where is little local demand appropriate and sustainable. The policy is aimed at delivering this.
4. Consider Ascot centre to be from A329/Station 8.1 Your comments are noted. Hill to A329/A330 and regeneration should be focussed on this zone. Broadly supportive but plans too ambitious - proposed level of new dwellings would create too many extra vehicle movements. Support more limited development c. 50% of what proposed and an ideally sized hotel
5. Re traffic and parking: A ban on conversion of Sheet Street and Your various comments noted. garages and parking spaces to accommodation. Legoland are outside Racecourse hotel plan should include pedestrian our NP area. Garage and parking spaces ban on and horse tunnels. Note impact of Longcross conversions not within the remit of this NP. MOD site development on traffic in our area. Plan for compulsory use cycle path between Racecourse hotel policy has been amended Windsor and Ascot so cyclists prohibited from to include requirement to retain underpass using Sheet Street Road. Restrictions on for access to the Heath. Legoland which causes regular chaos. Sheet Street and Legoland outside our NP area.
44. SL5 9HN Malcolm Wish to obtain hard copy of the plan Explained cost prohibited free printed copies. Thurling Pointed in direction of libraries or parish offices - or available online.
45. SL5 8PG David In general it's a sensible proposal for NP/SS1.2 NP policies include reference to cycle routes Chapman development of Ascot Centre, Sunningdale and and NP/T2 to link North Ascot with Ascot (and to and Sunninghill and congrats to SG and TG. But Plan between all the villages). doesn't adequately address needs of entire area, specifically North Ascot. Need to have improved Ascot Centre policies include a requirement links to newly developed Ascot centre by for improving road infrastructure and footpaths, cycle routes and road - current pedestrian walkways. proposals lack real commitment and energy A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Village Square: plan for buildings around NP/SS1 The requirement for a Development Brief will overdevelopment. Buildings should have gaps provide an opportunity for local residents to between and heights limited to one storey; be consulted and to influence design. important to see trees beyond
High Street: removing central median pedestrian NP/SS1 The requirement for a Development Brief will refuge would be detrimental to pedestrian provide an opportunity for local residents to experience. Urge new building is set back from be consulted and to influence design. the road and areas of sites bordering the road are used to improve pedestrian, cycle and vehicle movements
Concerned that secondary green corridor NP/EN6 The intent of the Green Corridors policy is to recommended for my garden. Not been protect green corridors from adverse impact consulted and not sure what consequences arising from development. Where arguments would be. Concern developers will use green in favour of development are strong the NP corridors as excuse for removing vegetation requires appropriate mitigation measures to elsewhere be put in place or compensation provided.
It does not negate any other policies that would influence whether or not developers may remove vegetation.
Pedestrian and cycle ways through NP/SS2 Your comments are noted. racecourse/heath not appropriate as private land and NP/T2 and access could be refused. Also threat of Ascot hotel policy has been amended to dogs. Need alternative routes. Must not lose include requirement to retain underpass for racecourse mile straight underpass. access to the Heath.
Policy on cycle routes has been amended although still includes route through the racecourse.
Hotel plans must not alter view of grandstand set NP/SS2 This view is one of our designated Landmark among trees as seen from heath. Views and is subject to our policy NP/DG4
Heatherwood site pedestrian and cycle ways: NP/SS5.4c Your comment is noted. add link to North Ascot A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
46. Not Richard A lot of hard work gone into plan but by amateurs Comments noted. given Haworth with no training in town planning or experience in taking objective overview. Summary of concerns:
Assuming the allocation of lots of land in Ascot will let S’hill and S’dale off hook is naïve. Permission will be granted if no good planning reason why not.
Number of houses to be accommodated not NP/SS1 Your concerns are noted. known, but level of development in Ascot HS will completely change it. NP proposing far too much Our policies call for a mix of housing types development for Ascot area especially with and sizes. impact of other major local developments and the DERA and Bracknell town centre developments. Ascot Centre policy includes a number of requirements which must be delivered as If it must be housing it should be affordable, so part of the overall rejuvenation plan. why so much land for detached housing?
Very sceptical that the more attractive elements of PF plan will ever be implemented.
Plan emphasis too much on housing and not on Sunningdal Both policies NP/SS6 and SS7 relate to the key issues of parking in Sunningdale. e provision of additional car parking in Sunningdale.
Not convinced that NP strategy will allow refusal NP/EN4 Policy provides parameters for what of planning apps on Sunnings gardens and development is appropriate for gardens in backland. our NP area.
Policy wording has been amended to aid clarity.
Once GB status removed from High Street field, Ascot Centre policies set out the it will be a developers’ bonanza, notwithstanding requirements for redevelopment in this area. promised development briefs. Not in favour of removing GB designation.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
More needed about helping Sunninghill, South Parking is addressed through our policy Ascot and Sunningdale to thrive with more NP/T1 and a number of strategic site parking, including affordable parking for local policies. people using stations.
47. Not Anne Rest of so-called ‘proposals’ relate to sites which Development will take place with or without a given Yarwood come forward anyway, with or without the NP NP, subject to national guidelines and Borough policies. The policies in the NP will become part of the Development Plan for the area and will influence the type of development that is in keeping with the character of our area and where it should go.
Housing: support emphasis on “mixed” Thank you for your support. developments to include housing that “our children can afford”. Welcome consensus against mansions and large flats. Welcome DG5.
Retail: sustaining and developing local High Thank you for your support. Streets welcomed Trees: Agree RBWM should be far more proactive on TPO enforcement Biodiversity: welcome EN5 and praise such long term thinking, particularly support green corridors Support T2 Cycle routes Ascot High Street proposals: support all aspects
Projects: Support Bus, Biodiversity and School. Thank you for your support. Oppose Heatherwood SANG: do not wish to see any sale or housebuilding plans progressed until The suggested area for SANG at future service provision at hospital has been Heatherwood is GB. settled. Whilst the NP fully supports the community’s desire to retain a hospital on the Heatherwood site, this site is a Major Developed Site in GB and NP policies cannot stop it from being redeveloped. Our Heatherwood policy will enable us to A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
influence the type and nature of any development that may occur, based on community feedback received through consultation.
48. Steve Kay Support relocation of St. Michael’s school to NP/SS8 Your comment is noted and will be passed (S'hill gasholder site but concern that it could on. Saints jeopardise use of the field by junior football club. Sports Club)
49. Planning We ask that Map 22 is updated (title plan NP/SS8 Suggestion is noted. New map shows site for Perspectives provided) redevelopment. for National Grid Disappointing that the intro text makes no NP/SS8 Comments noted. reference to fact site is in a sustainable and accessible location. Just off the High Street, well Text states site is in central Sunninghill. Bus placed for future residents to walk to local services are very limited and the site is schools, health centres and employment approximately 30 minutes walk from Ascot opportunities in Sunninghill town centre. station which is further than most of our Statement that site is not near a station and bus other strategic sites. services are very limited is misleading, as site is within 2 km of Ascot Station, considered by Institute of Highways and Transportation as being acceptable walking distance for commuting.
Introductory text also refers to community NP/SS8 Comment noted. feedback suggesting a strong desire to limit and amount of inappropriate flatted development. We NP/SS8.2( Policy has been amended to allow the raised concerns re this in Jan 2013, that the a) possibility of some flatted development option for flats on this site has never been put to subject to other policy conditions being met. residents objectively and now policy only refers to housing. Disappointing as site is relatively self- In view of the consistent feedback from contained and could provide a range of dwelling community consultations against too much types without impacting on character or amenity flatted development, there is still a strong of existing residential area. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
preference for houses over flats on this site. Request SS8.2(a) amended to include “a mix of houses and flats”.
Text refers to two small wooded areas which NP/SS8 NPPF para 17 ref It is not a requirement in the Policy that these should be substantially retained. It is unsound to planning should be wooded areas should be retained; it is restrict development potential by stating extent of genuinely plan-led, presented as a suggestion. tree coverage in policy formation rather than empowering local through an arboricultural assessment at the time people to shape their The areas would still be subject to our Tree of a planning appn. surroundings. policy EN3 (to which some amendments have been made) and other policies. NPPF para 183 ref Neighbourhood Planning giving communities power to develop vision for their area and deliver sustainable development
Our considered opinion is that Development Brief NP/SS8.1 NPPF para 17 ref Disagree. The requirement for a is not necessary and development proposals on planning should be Development Brief provides a clear this site can be dealt with through a planning genuinely plan-led, framework and a mechanic to facilitate an appn. empowering local informed and effective consultation with the people to shape their local community early in the planning Request this requirement is deleted. surroundings. process.
NPPF para 183 ref Neighbourhood Planning giving communities power to develop vision for their area and deliver sustainable development
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
NPPF paras 66, 188 – 191 early engagement and working closely with those affected.
Wording of introduction too prescriptive. Request NP/SS8.2 Your view is noted. word “requirements” replaced with “objectives”.
Current wording unsound: a plan should be NP/SS8.2( NPPF para 32 ref Development in an area cannot be divorced consistent with national policy – ref NPPF para c) Transport Statement from consequences on traffic management 32. or Transport or other sustainability criteria. Proposed Assessment for policy is proportionate having regard to the Request policy reworded to refer to “severe” developments that existing traffic congestion in S’hill. impact. generate significant amounts of movement
No proportionate evidence been submitted why a NP/SS8.2( NPPF 17 and 183 Your comments are noted. single access through Bridge Rd should not be c) permitted hence this approach cannot be Issues of access will be addressed through justified. Appendix 2 is Technical note which the Development Brief process. finds that access to site for up to 100 units can be achieved through Bridge Rd with a package of Note that there has been a second traffic off-site highway works. So dual access will only report submitted in response to this be required if site developed with more than 100 consultation which sets out a case for units. access solely through Cavendish Meads.
RBWM Highways Services have stated a Request policy re-worded: “… traffic movement preference for the development to be served resulting from this development will not be through Cavendish Meads. severe on overall levels of congestion in Sunninghill High Street and the surrounding area. A single vehicle access only to the site via Bridge Road is acceptabe, provided this is justified in the independent traffic assessment.”
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Cavendish Meads is in private ownership and NP/SS8.2( NPPF 29 -30 Your comments are noted. pedestrian and cycle ways from there to S’hill e) sustainable transport High St may not be possible. Intention to allow Whilst it is recognised that this cannot for cycle/pedestrian connections up to boundary necessarily be delivered entirely on your of site with Cavendish Meads. land, it is considered to be an essential part of this policy. Any application should not limit Request policy amended to delete reference the delivery of this in any way. No change “from Cavendish Meads through the site to proposed to the policy. Sunninghill High St”.
In particular circumstances of this site, we NP/SS8.2(f Particular circumstances not set out. consider it reasonable to provide 10% of total ) area as open green space rather than the 15% There is an identified lack of open green specified. Request policy amended. space in this part of our NP area which it is important to address. No change to the policy.
Request policy amended to refer to “parking NP/SS8.2( Policy has been amended. relating to the development”. d)
Request policy deleted. NP/SS8.3 Policy supports the option, should it be put forward, it does not mandate it.
Policy retained.
Policy is unsound. To ensure it is consistent with NP/SV1 Localism Act and NP We disagree policy is unsound. national policy it should be re-worded to state “… (General) Regs result in severe cumulative traffic impacts in Development in an area cannot be divorced Sunninghill High Street…” from consequences on traffic management or other sustainability criteria. Proposed policy is proportionate having regard to the existing traffic congestion in S’hill.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Policy is unsound. Development Brief not NP/H1 Localism Act and NP We disagree policy is unsound. considered necessary for sites already covered (General) Regs under strategic site policies in the emerging plan. The requirement for a Development Brief will Further restrictions or requirements set out in a provide an opportunity for local residents to Development Brief may be too burdensome, NPPF 17 and 183 be consulted and to influence design. especially where an end developer for a site is unknown. In any event, planning appns required to be consulted on widely with local communities NPPF paras 66, 188 – so not necessary to include requirement for 191 early engagement Development Brief. and working closely with those affected Request policy is removed.
Policy unsound. Worded to restrict development NP/H3 Localism Act and NP We disagree policy is unsound. proposals for new flats in certain areas. Too (General) Regs restrictive. Instead policy should be encouraging The intent of policy H3 re flats/apartments is new flats in areas where such development is to ensure that flatted development only sustainable and in keeping with the area. NPPF 17, 50 and 183 occurs in sustainable locations and where they will not adversely impact the character of the area – natural, built and social.
50. Paul Support allocation of site for residential NP/SS8 NPPF para 157 ref Comments are noted. Dickinson development and use of Cavendish Meads for local plans should for Wates access. Wates owns land at Cavendish Meads allocate sites to which would provide suitable and safe access to promote development site instead of Bridge Rd which is very constrained and we consider unsuitable. We consider it important that the NP considers and sets out clear guidance on access requirements appropriate.
A number of concerns about this policy: NP/SS8.2( Your comments are noted. - Fails to explain which dual accesses c) being considered. In our view both Bridge Rd and Charters Lane severely constrained in highway and environmental terms - A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
- No detailed assessment of highway implications of dual vehicle accesses on S’hill HS and local roads - No detailed assessment of amenity implications of dual access on other residential properties and environment - Dual access policy appears to be based on community feedback to past consultations but flawed as did not include option for access through only Cavendish Meads - Highway Authority has confirmed access through NP/SS8.2( RBWM Highways Services have stated a Cavendish Meads is their strong preference. c) preference for the development to be served through Cavendish Meads.
Have met with NP Transport TG and shared NP/SS8.2( Thank you for the report and your comments work done by Highway Consultants – report c) are noted. supplied. Report demonstrates how safe vehicular access can be achieved through Note that a second traffic report has been Cavendish Meads to ensure site can deliver submitted in response to this consultation housing within Plan period. Report also assessed which sets out sets out a case for access Bridge Rd and identified technical and physical through Bridge Road. constraints indicating it’s not suitable to deal with a material increase in traffic and no realistic scope for improvements.
We consider final version of NP should identify Cavendish Meads as the appropriate access to serve future development of the site.
51. Gerald Eve We consider wording of EN1.2 should be altered NP/EN1.2 Comment noted. for Cabinet to read: “A planning application for development Office ref in GB outside Major Developed Areas under the EN1.2 has been amended. Sunningdale “very special circumstances”…” Park
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
We consider an error may have been made with NP/SS9.1 Map has been amended to reflect current ref to the MDS area shown on Map 23. Map in Map 23 extent of the MDS. RBWM’s Adopted Plan includes Pepys building and tennis courts.
In table below Map 4 would like site allocation to NP/SS9.1 Text in Table changed to: be for “Employment with housing” (not “limited and Map 4 “Employment plus potentially housing” housing” as at present). Also in SS9.1 would like Strategic sentence “primarily the site remains in Sites Policy SS9 has been re-drafted. employment use” removed, especially as contradicted by SS9.2
We propose wording in both policies altered to NP/E1.1 NPPF para 160 Local Your comments are noted. provide alternative option to marketing of viability and Authorities should assessment; policy currently offers no flexibility. NP/SS9.2 “work closely with the Policy SS9 has been amended. Also, if site has to be marketed for 12 months business community could lead to dis-benefits to community including to understand their risk of illegal occupation and vandalism. changing needs and identify and address Suggest amend E1.1 to read: “Proposals for the barriers to investment, redevelopment or change of use of an existing including a lack of employment use will only be permitted if the housing, infrastructure applicant demonstrates that all possible or viability” appropriate alternative employment options (including occupation by micro or small businesses) have been considered through a detailed viability assessment.”
Also consider SS9.2 should read: “In the event that, having considered all possible appropriate through a detailed viability assessment is undertaken to determine whether the site can remain in employment use, an application for a change of use for part or all of the site for use as residential may be considered provided:…” Sub-para (b): replace “significant” with “appropriate” community benefits. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Wholly appropriate to have Development Brief NP/SS9.2( NPPF 17 and 183 The requirements on a Development Brief is but opposed to way in which it should be set out a) and that they should include all relevant – currently too prescriptive. Prefer to see Appendix information needed to facilitate an informed contents as: D NPPF paras 66, 188 – and effective consultation with the local Summary 191 early engagement community. For this to be meaningful there Introduction and Objectives and working closely has to be sufficient detail for the Site Information with those affected development proposals to be understood Policy Context and envisioned by the local community. The Development Principles requirements listed in Appendix D (now Design Principles Appendix C) deliver this. Sustainability Implementation and Monitoring Point with regard to timing and phasing is Also, timing and phasing should be indicative. noted and wording has been amended to reflect this.
52. SL5 0AP Mike Plan echoes many fears and ideas of local NP/SS9 NPPF 18, 22 and 89 Your comment is noted. Bateman residents. – economic growth, avoiding long term The policy wording has been redrafted but Larch Avenue should be totally residential. protection of sites and the preference still remains for it to include Remove hotel and conference facilities and exceptions to uses that provide jobs. replace by houses appropriate to the street. Do inappropriate not want school or any educational or development in green commercial enterprise. belt.
53. SL5 7PY Savills for Register appreciation for time NP members have Thank you. ICL Silwood afforded during background stages of evidence gathering. Since then, ICL's plans have progressed further.
Suggest additional wording as on p. 10: “To Main Aims Your comment is noted. support the retention and enhancement of an p.10 internationally renowned research and higher education presence at Silwood Park, and the development of the economic role which this plays in the local area” A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Suggest additional bullet point at bottom of p.11: Section 5.1 Your comment is noted. “Support the retention and enhancement of research excellence and higher education at Imperial College London’s Silwood Park Campus, including associated development required to enable it to become a centre of international importance.”
Current designation for Silwood Park a Section Your comment is noted but we disagree that misrepresentation of key aims and operations for 5.3.2 there was a misrepresentation. the site and suggest it is amended to "Education, research, associated employment and Text has been amended to read: “Education, Residential" research, other associated employment and associated residential.”
Changes and aspirations for Silwood Park NP/SS10 NPPF paras 79-80 Your comments are noted. Campus fully endorsed by ICL. However, and 87-89 ref purpose formally note that an appropriate quantum of of GB and exceptions Whilst we support ICL’s aspirations for residential development will be required on this to inappropriate Silwood, there is strong community desire to site to enable this wider academic vision to be development protect GB, particularly where undeveloped. realised, some of which is likely to be outside the MDS boundary. Request revised wording to Policy SS10 has been amended. NP/SS10 as follows:
Proposals for residential development at Silwood Park will be the subject of a Masterplanning process. Previously developed sites within the MDS Boundary which are not required for wider educational and research use will be the focus of such residential development and only after these areas have been reviewed will enabling development on GB land be considered.
NP/SS10.1 Development proposals to redevelop all or part of the existing MDS at Silwood Park as shown on Map 24 shall be permitted subject to considerations of traffic impact and design. Proposals that retain its current use as an A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
education, training and research facility will be favoured.
SS10.2 Proposals to provide on site NP/SS10.2 NPPF paras 79-80 Your comment is noted. accommodation on Silwood Campus for students and 87-89 ref purpose and staff shall be permitted subject to of GB and exceptions considerations of traffic impact and design to inappropriate development
54. SL5 7PU Sean Scott- Think it's a really first class job and achieved a Thank you for your comments and support. Hayward sound result. Much depends on how sensibly Plan will be interpreted. Problem with much development is the removal of so much of the vegetation and tree cover, particularly along road frontage.
Silwood Park Business Park being re-designated NP/SS10 Comment noted. for academic/research puzzling as original planning concept was to make it a technology transfer centre for use by businesses associated with academia.
Not much reference to safe pedestrian Comment noted. We have included the need pavements between settlements. Many to improve pedestrian routes where possible. pavements are narrow and traffic passes quite closely; note specially narrow section from Sunninghill roundabout past Victory Field.
Thanks to everyone who gave their time so Thank you. selflessly to product such a professional document on behalf of the community.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
55. SL5 0BX Fraye Bearing in mind local community concern that Comment noted Farrow development is harming area character, putting social fabric at risk and putting pressure on infrastructure through increased traffic and parking demand all of which will impact on village viability, we have following points:
GP surgeries are Not adequately equipped; 5.3.6 The level of service in GP surgeries is a appointments have to be made 2 weeks in matter for the surgeries themselves and is advance outside the scope of a NP.
Other than Project, how are you addressing need 5.3.6 Provision of school places is a matter for the for more school places Borough. As it is a matter of concern among local residents, we have defined a Project to work with RBWM to identify a suitable location for a new primary school.
Building flats in place of one house increases 6.2.3/ 7.2/ Your comments are noted. Our policies were traffic tenfold. Why flats at Broomhall but not 8.6 developed based on feedback from public 500m away at Station? Development will cause consultations. enormous disruption to surrounding neighbourhood and roads. Why more housing in DERA is a site outside our boundaries and Sunningdale when 2,500 homes being neither we nor the Borough have an developed at DERA 2 minutes away by train/7 influence on what takes place there other minutes by car? than to make representations.
Several retail units empty (Sunningdale). What is 4/ 5.1/ NPPF para 23 ref The NP Steering Group is not aware of any being done to assist/redevelop existing 5.3.1 guidance to ensuring agreement for a Tesco store to be built at businesses? Local Cllr says a Tesco store will be vitality of town centres Broomhall. built at Broomhall. Is this true? If so, why not in Plan? Is proposed retail development to benefit Policy SS6 sets out to deliver an enhanced Sunningdale or DERA development? retail offering for Sunningdale.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Transport: Have you consulted SW Trains? 8.5 Your comments are noted. Traffic congestion Service already at capacity and more residential is an issue in Sunningdale and our policy will impact on struggling commuter service. If SS6 includes a requirement for road more train services, there will be increased improvements. congestion on A30 due to level crossing, which will negatively impact working days of Upgrading train capacity is a matter for the commuters. Junction of Broomhall Lane and A30 franchisee, currently SW Trains and is always busy specially at rush hour. Increased outside the scope of a NP. retail and residential will compound this. Where is proposed access to car park - A30 or The requirement for a Development Brief will Broomhall Lane? provide an opportunity for local residents to be consulted and to influence design.
56. Not Mary Congratulations to the team on proposed plan. Thank you for your comments, appreciated. given Simpson Very few comments to make and feel it reflects very well the views of the Community.
Ascot is a unique town and if it has to be NP/SS1 Your comments are noted. redeveloped let it be done in a style fitting its prominence and not made into a carbon copy of the disastrous planning which has been allowed in many of our market towns.
St. Michael’s School is included as a landmark NP/SS8 St. Michael’s School building is listed as one building and view and it should not be moved to of our Landmarks and is protected by our the Gasholder site. If it’s moved what will be policy DG4, even if it were no longer a done with the site – a new use may create even school. greater traffic pressure in S’hill. And are additional school places for pupils outside our It is a Borough responsibility to ensure there area? A second primary school should be built are sufficient school places. As it is a matter instead on land offered by the Racecourse of concern among local residents, we have defined a Project (section 9.4) to work with RBWM to identify a suitable location for a new primary school.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Borough have applied for Judicial Review of NP/SS5 Even if Heatherwood is retained (which we NHS’s decision to close Heatherwood. If this hope is the case), our understanding is that it succeeds and the whole site is retained as a is unlikely the whole site will be required and hospital where will proposed housing be re-sited that therefore the rest of the area will still be to? proposed by the NHS for development.
Plan refers to our narrow roads and their use by Weight restrictions are not part of the scope HGVs. Why cannot weight restrictions be of a NP which is mainly related to spatial imposed? issues.
What are the Strategic Housing Numbers Your comments are noted. required by the Borough from our NP and, more important, who are they intended to house? Setting a housing target is a matter for Compared with Windsor and Maidenhead, for our RBWM. The new Local Plan is currently size we have the largest developed area. Their being developed and this will determine residents should be housed in their own areas. housing targets for the Borough based on assessments of housing need.
57. SL5 0BX Paul Concerned that development on these sites will SS6 and NPPF 17 and 183-185 Your concerns are noted. McDonald not take into consideration statements in the SS7 Borough LP and will exacerbate no 8: We have worked closely with RBWM and 1. LPs are required to include policies in respect they are fully aware of the contents of our NP of conservation and the natural beauty and and comfortable that it is in conformity with amenity of the land. the strategic elements of the BLP and their 2. The improvement of the physical environment. thinking in relation to the emerging LP. 3. The management of traffic. 4. The protection and enhancement of the environment. 5. Encourages the alternative use of transport. 6. Reinforces the importance of the Green Belt - particularly at the urban fringe. 7. Policies for development need to be co- ordinated with policies and programmes for transport infrastructure (not just parking) and management of the transport system. 8. The many problems encountered in the Borough with growth on damage to the urban A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
and rural environment and the inability of services to keep pace with development.
Surgery in S’dale requires booking several Section The level of service in GP surgeries is a weeks in advance 5.3.6 matter for the surgeries themselves and is outside the scope of a NP.
How does proposed development address It is a Borough responsibility to ensure there problem with lack of primary school places? are sufficient school places. As it is a matter of concern among local residents, we have defined a Project to work with RBWM to identify a suitable location for a new primary school.
More flatted development has knock on effect on Sections Community feedback was strongly against traffic. Fail to see how flatted development in 6.2.3, 7.2 more flats at Station Car Park but accepting Broomhall Centre is appropriate whereas it will and 8.6 of residential development being included in be refused at Station Car Park. the Broomhall Centre scheme.
Fail to see how increasing parking at Waitrose or 5.3.1 and Your concerns are noted. Broomhall will reduce traffic. What consideration Transport has been given to impact of DERA? Both our policies SS6 and SS7 include a Consideration of DERA on S’dale roads? requirements to take traffic considerations Increased parking will impact on traffic flow. into account.
Do not object to redevelopment of car park but NP/SS6 NPPF paras 79-80 The area designated as Broomhall Centre changing residential and GB land to other use and 87-89 ref purpose does not include any land that is in Green should be rejected. of GB and exceptions Belt. Ancient hedgerow to East boundary of Broomhall to inappropriate Lane should be maintained. development The owners of the office blocks are currently Any consideration given to including the 2 office not interested in being included in the blocks into development scheme? scheme. Encroaching into GB sets dangerous precedent.
Until train capacity is upgraded there should be Upgrading train capacity is a matter for the no more residential development in S’dale. franchisee, currently SW Trains and is outside the scope of a NP. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
58. SL5 8PF Catharine Support intention and content of proposed NP Thank you for your support – appreciated. Paige and have following comments:
Should apply not only to new dwellings but to NP/EN4 Your comments are noted. extensions and replacement dwellings. Need to ensure housing is built in strategic areas The Gardens policy has been amended for identified and not through windfall sites replacing better clarity. smaller houses with much larger ones which reduces garden sizes, animal habitats and the Including extensions would be unduly much appreciated green and leafy surroundings. onerous and many in fact no longer require planning permission.
Biodiversity: Preamble words good but the NP/EN5 NPPF Section 11 EN5 has been amended to reflect comments policies only aim to try to mitigate any harmful received from Natural England and BBOWT. effects of development and not to enhance biodiversity and habitats.
How do we avoid developers splitting appns so NP/H1 A threshold has been set because it is not that each are under the 0.4 ha/10 dwellings? realistic to insist on a Development Brief for all planning applications.
What about the town houses that are being NP/H3 and Your comments are noted. crammed in – eg. Sovereign Mews and NP/DG1 Beechcroft Close – these developments can be as tall and densely packs as apartments. Hopefully DG1 will cover this.
Also about density of housing v gardens – need NP/DG1.3 Your comments are noted. to ensure gardens are large enough and the and house does not take up too much of the plot. NP/DG2 DG2 addresses this.
Heatherwood site must protect and provide NP/SS5 Policy SS5 has been amended to include public access to prehistoric round barrow. this. Excavations in 1973 dated it to c. 1800BC.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Cycle route down St. George’s Lane not safe NP/T2 The options for cycle routes have been while Shorts still there due to lorries. amended.
Magnolia House could move to opposite side of NP/SS9 Your points are noted. Station Rd into Sunningdale Park where the “stables” were. Alternatively into S’dale but not to Lynwood – too close to another GP surgery.
There should be requirement to enhance public NP/SS9 Your comment is noted. access to open spaces whenever possible – eg. S’dale Park (government owned). If it became The S’dale Park policy has been amended. privately owned need to increase access to parkland and lose access
Silwood Park – opportunity for public NP/SS10 Your comment is noted. footpath/access? Silwood Park policy has been amended.
There should be a requirement for developments Transport NP/DG3.1 has been amended to refer to to always provide access through sites to link safe access for pedestrians. area better for pedestrians.
59. SL5 0AJ BEN I think there is much to commend in the plan and Thank you for your comments. Lynwood we are grateful for the acknowledgment of contribution that new BEN Lynwood village will No response received from Tetlow King. make to the wider community. Our planning consultant, John Sneddon of Tetlow King, has a couple of concerns, which I endorse:
The whole of Lynwood site falls within GB and NP/EN2 NPPF paras 17, 109 The policy on gaps between the villages and there is already a requirement for us to make a map 6(e) and 183 the extent of each gap have been case for ‘very special circumstances’ for any extensively consulted on and there is very planning proposal – as was the case for strong support for them. This includes the Lynwood village currently under development. land you refer to. See no reason for additional protection for remainder of the site. Do not believe that highlighted land north of railway provides an A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
effective gap between Sunninghill and Sunningdale. Land is bordered by railway on one side and houses in Park Crescent on the other. Highlighted land to south of railway may well form an effective gap but not true north of the line.
Also concerned re requirement for majority NP/EN1 The requirement for majority community community support for any planning submission and support has been removed. as this seems a wholly unreasonable and NP/EN2 unrealistic test that could undermine any and proposal that could on balance be in the interests Appendix of the community. E
60. S’dale PC The PC made following comments at its planning The concept of sustainability underpins the meeting on 23 July: entire NPPF and the NP. Not appropriate to NP as presented is excellent and displays have a specific NP definition. commendable amount of hard work and dedication.
Concern over lack of definition on what is meant by sustainability is a weakness that needs to be addressed. Council offers a definition with Venn diagram.
Doctor’s surgery at Lynwood: Sustainabiliy of NPPF paras 17, 109 Thank you for your comments. health care for S’dale commuity requires and 183 improvements to Primary Health Provision. The NP SG supports SPC’s desire to assist Magnolia House surgery has strong backing from Magnolia House Surgery to relocate. its patients to move to a purpose built surgery on However, the site mentioned falls within an Lynwood site where they have been offered land, identified gap between villages and it is thus making it a viable financial proposition. therefore considered that more appropriate Proposed draft plans being prepared will include sites are available. the landscaping of the field so as not to lose sense of green space. The policy on gaps between the villages and Council has argued there was a stronger case for the extent of each gap have been allowing development of doctor’s surgery rather extensively consulted on and there is very A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
than leaving scrub land as a “gap” between strong support for them. villange and that exceptional circumstances can be argued for extending development in GB on this site.
61. not given J Croxton Re Sunningdale drainage situation dire; difficult NP/SS6 Your comments are noted. to see a doctor; trains already jam-packed; traffic and too dense. Sunningdale is a village and hasn't NP/SS7 Development will take place with or without a got infrastructure to cope with all this NP, subject to national guidelines and development. Totally against. Borough policies. If the NP is voted for, the NP policies will become part of the Development Plan for the area and will influence the type of development that takes place and where it should go.
Traffic considerations are requirements of both SS6 and SS7.
Upgrading train capacity is a matter for the franchisee, currently SW Trains, and outside the scope of a NP.
The level of service in GP surgeries is a matter for the surgeries themselves and is outside the scope of a NP.
62. SL5 0LD Roger Mills Pleased to support direction of the NP. Specially NP/SS6 Thank you for your support. to see it considers need for improving facilities alongside growth and a medical facility for Sunningdale.
Concerned proposals should not be taken as set NP/EN2 Your comment is noted. in stone; future planning apps should take account of local needs and the Community. Proposal to maintain separateness of villages should not limit possible future developments which would be of community benefit. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
63. SL5 M & J Opposed to any form of large anchor store such NP/SS6 Your comment is noted. ODG Rimell as a supermarket on S’dale Broomhall Centre
Opposed to any standalone flats/apartments NP/SS6 NPPF para 17 ref Your comment is noted. being included in the plan. No objection to flats and NP/H3 planning should be above retail outlets. genuinely plan-led, Our policy H3 identifies locations at which empowering local flats are considered appropriate and people to shape their sustainable. surroundings. Policy H3 has been amended. NPPF para 183 ref Neighbourhood Planning giving communities power to develop vision for their area and deliver sustainable development.
NPPF para 50 ref delivering a wide choice of homes and meeting housing needs
NPPF paras 58, 60 and 61 requiring good design.
Medical centre if included should be either in NP/SS6 Your comment is noted. addition to Magnolia House or much larger
Parking a concern; if extra capacity to be NP/SS6 Your comment is noted. accommodated, it would reduce retail and small business space and even more if public open The requirement for a Development Brief will space and medical centre included provide an opportunity for local residents to be consulted and to influence design.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Hope buffer strip of land to rear of properties in NP/SS6 Comment is noted. Broomhall Lane, now wooded area good for flora/fauna, will remain
64. SL5 0BX Marcel Tay Concern residents in affected areas not given Details of the consultation process is set out opportunity to comment. in the Statement of Consultation.
During the NP’s development we have made serious efforts to keep people informed.
Firmly opposed to any plan to increase Your comment is noted. residential properties until infrastructure, specially road and train services can cope with Our policies include requirements for increased demand infrastructure improvements.
Upgrading train capacity is a matter for the franchisee, currently SW Trains, and is outside the scope of a NP.
Opposed to development on any GB. Re NP/SS6 None of the land included in Broomhall Sunningdale Broomhall Centre, any development Centre proposal is in Green Belt. should only include RBWM car park and not surrounding GB.
Agree there is lack of parking around Chobham NP/SS6 Comment is noted. Rd and supportive of additional but restricted by time limits for use by shoppers and visitors and not commuters
Firmly oppose additional car parking at station NP/SS7 The option of double decking the Station car which would encourage commuters from park received overall support in our Options surrounding areas. Trains already overcrowded. consultation.
Train overcrowding a matter for the rail franchisee, currently SW Trains, and not part of the scope of the NP.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
65. SL5 0BX Ian Luxton I agree with SS6.1 and SS6.5. With respect to NP/SS6.2 The requirement for a Development Brief will SS6.2 would wish to see access to be only from provide an opportunity for local residents to the A30 as Broomhall Lane is unable to cope be consulted and to influence the design of with current traffic levels any development, including the issue of access.
Traffic considerations are a requirement of the scheme.
Wish to restrict height of any development to fit NP/SS6.3 Your comments are noted. with current surrounding dwellings so limited to 2 storeys. Perimeter should be landscaped to The requirement for a Development Brief will shield it from view, especially northeastern flank provide an opportunity for local residents to that is currently mature trees. These trees should be consulted and to influence such issues. be retained as a condition of any development and policy wording should include this. 500 sq m The protection of trees is addressed through restriction is too large as allows major our Tree policy EN3. supermarket. Further supermarket will attract increased traffic from non-residents.
Include that Proposal designs must include SS6.4 SS6.2 includes a requirement to take into consideration of traffic and pedestrian movement account potential increases in traffic. both within the development site and over the areas adjacent to the site and an impact assessment on traffic flow on the A30 considering both general traffic movement levels and peak period levels
66. Not Richard Thanks for preparing NP. Comment about Parking Thank you for your comments which have given Hearn parking: concerned that lack of parking leading to and been noted. decline of shops and restaurants in Sunningdale. NP/SS6 Proposals for more parking in Broomhall Centre and and double decking Station and Waitrose car NP/SS7 parks should give substantial improvement in long term. However car parking needs improving now and consider many of the present on street parking restrictions should be lifted until sufficient A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
on street parking is available.
67. Daniel Representations focus on NP consultation Section 8.5 Your comments are noted. Watney process and lack of credible and robust NP/SS6 LLP for evidence. Also lack of recognition of NPPF with Evidence has been compiled as part of Hawks regard to town centre retail policies and developing policies, this is available in the Meadow Development Plan Document Tests of evidence pack that will be submitted Properties Soundness as per NPPF para 182. alongside the Neighbourhood Plan.
Site 1.69 ha (map provided) NP/SS6 NP has letter on record from one of the landowners within the site area that they do not wish to promote their site for development (New and Old Boundary House). Map in NP therefore excludes this land.
Area being promoted for development is as in the proposed Plan.
Hawks Meadow in collaboration with St. John's NP/SS6 St. John's is only one Comment noted. College, are promoting the development of the of the landowners of Broomhall Site. the promoted area.
Consultation process was biased and NP/SS6 Your comments are noted. insufficiently robust and did not allow community to comment on development of Sunningdale's We disagree that the Options consultation retail centre. Questions re supermarket worded process or any other consultation process to highlight perceived negatives. Some were biased. Details of the consultation consultation questions were “leading questions”. process are set out in the Statement of Resultant evidence base therefore lacks all Consultation. The Options consultation is credibility. We suggest consultation process is only one part of our evidence base. undertaken again.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
NP incorrectly defines Sunningdale as a village NP/SS6 NPPF Section 2 ref Your comments are noted. centre and attempts to prevent categorisation promoting the vitality within NPPF as a Town Centre. Misleading to of town centres We disagree that referring to S’dale as a residents. village is misleading. S’dale according to the 2011 Census has 2,135 households and its residents think of it and refer to it as a village.
Its official designation is that of a District Centre within the retail hierarchy of City/Town/District/Local centres. It is recognised that the term “town centre” is also used to describe any centre within this hierarchy.
Plan errs in ruling out provision of a supermarket NP/SS6 NPPF para 23 ref Your comments are noted. We disagree that in this location as this is in direct conflict with guidance to ensuring the policy is in direct conflict with the NPPF NPPF policies on Town Centre uses, which vitality of town centres or that a supermarket is required to ensure cover District centres. Sunningdale is a key the vitality of S’dale. district centre requiring a competitive retail NPPF paras 17 and presence. Broomhall Centre is clearly being 183 Neighbourhood It is noted that a supermarket is an promoted for a supermarket, which aligns with Planning giving appropriate town centre use. Sunningdale is uses appropriate to town centres, is available communities power to a small centre of 2,135 households and its and deliverable. Supermarket required to ensure develop vision for their current retail offering reflects this. Our policy the vitality of Sunningdale. area and deliver intent is to deliver more retail that will sustainable complement the existing retailers in the development centre. It does not preclude a supermarket but instead looks to manage the size of units NPPF para 184 – right being delivered. types of development in a local area LP policy S1 says “new retail development will be permitted where this would enhance LP saved policy S1 the attractiveness and viability of existing centres, provided that the proposal is of a RBWM Executive scale commensurate with the size, Summary of Windsor character and role of the centre, can be and Maidenhead integrated into the existing shopping centre Retail Capacity A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Update 2009 area…..”
RBWM Retail Health Check 2011
NP does not meet the Test of Soundness as NP/SS6 NPPF para 182 We disagree. required by NPPF para 182. Nor does it support the key economic and social strands for Localism Act When considering the content of a sustainable development in the NPPF. Neighbourhood Plan an independent NP(General) Regs examiner’s role is limited to testing whether or not a draft NP meets the basic conditions, and other matters set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The independent examiner is not testing the soundness of a NP or examining other material considerations.
Requirement for a Development Brief introduces NP/SS6 NPPF para 17 and The NPPF supports the principle of early an inappropriate additional level of control. 183 ref planning engagement of the community in planning should be genuinely applications and their involvement in plan-led, empowering planning decisions. local people to shape their surroundings. The requirement for a Development Brief provides an opportunity for local residents to NPPF paras 66, 188 – be consulted and to influence design at an 191 early engagement early stage in the process. and working closely with those affected.
Sunningdale Broomhall Centre provides an NP/SS6 NPPF para 17 ref Your comments are noted. excellent opportunity for a mixed-use planning should be redevelopment enhancing Sunningdale. It is genuinely plan-led, Our policy does not preclude a supermarket inappropriate to rule out a supermarket in this empowering local but instead looks to manage the size of units location, which will contribute to the retail vitality people to shape their being delivered. of the area and provide a competitive retail surroundings. environment
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
NPPF para 23 – diverse retail offer reflecting the individuality of town centres.
68. Savills for St. John’s joint landowner of S’dale Broomhall NP/SS6 Your comments and support noted. St. John’s Centre site. Supports principle of a NP and in College particular that this site has been shown capable Cambridge of accommodating both residential and retail uses. Keen to see a final form of NP adopted ASAP to provide framework for development in S’dale and avoid unsolicited planning apps for random sites.
Principle of an Anchor Store: NP/SS6.3 NPPF para 23 ref It is noted that a supermarket is an Anchor store entirely appropriate for a town guidance to ensuring appropriate town centre use. Sunningdale is centre location and accords with NPPF vitality of town centres a small centre of 2,135 households and its current retail offering reflects this. Our policy NPPF paras 17 and intent is to deliver more retail that will 183 Neighbourhood complement the existing retailers in the Planning giving centre. It does not preclude a supermarket communities power to but instead looks to manage the size of units develop vision for their being delivered. area and deliver sustainable LP policy S1 says “new retail development development will be permitted where this would enhance the attractiveness and viability of existing NPPF para 184 – right centres, provided that the proposal is of a types of development scale commensurate with the size, in a local area character and role of the centre, can be integrated into the existing shopping centre LP saved policy S1 area…..”
RBWM Executive Summary of Windsor and Maidenhead Retail Capacity A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Update 2009
RBWM Retail Health Check 2011
Concern that precluding a new large anchor NP/SS6.3 NPPF para 23 ref Your comments are noted. store has potential to affect viability and guidance to ensuring deliverability of the site by being overly vitality of town centres Our policy intent is to deliver a mixed prescriptive and not providing sufficient flexibility development of retail and residential with to react to market conditions over plan period. NPPF paras 17 and parking and community amenities. We 183 Neighbourhood disagree that it does not allow sufficient Inclusion of an anchor store would serve to Planning giving flexibility to react to market conditions. increase footfall in S’dale town centre, enhance communities power to vitality and viability and promote competition. develop vision for their Our policy seeks to manage the size of units area and deliver being delivered so as to ensure they Suggest SS6.3 modified to remove sentence: sustainable complement the existing retail offering in “Proposals which include an ‘anchor’ store, development S’dale centre. defined as a store having floorspace of more than 500 square metres will be refused”.” NPPF para 184 – right types of development in a local area
NPPF para 173 ref deliverability of Plans
Test of Soundness: NP/SS6 NPPF para 182 When considering the content of a NPPF requires plans to be sound. Consultation Neighbourhood Plan an independent with respect of S’dale Broomhall Centre was examiner’s role is limited to testing whether flawed and included leading questions. Suggest or not a draft NP meets the basic conditions, public are re-consulted and other matters set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The independent examiner is not testing the soundness of a NP or examining other material considerations.
We disagree that the Options consultation process or any other consultation process A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
were biased. Details of the consultation process are set out in the Statement of Consultation.
St John’s also own land in S’dale which form NP/EN2 Your comment is noted. Broomhall Farm and Broomhall Paddocks – land which falls within a designated Gap. Keen to engage with community to discuss potential for future development of these sites, specifically to meet future housing or employment needs.
Aware of need to find suitable SANGs, especially Project 9.2 Your comment is noted. within S’dale. College in principle able to provide land potentially suitable for SANG, subject to meeting objectives of the College and any associated development partners.
69. Barton Waitrose supports allocation of Sunningdale NP/SS6 Your comment and support is noted. Willmore for Broomhall Centre for a mixed use development Waitrose as per draft NP
Specifically support intention that any proposals NP/SS6 NPPF para 23 ref Comment is noted. for an anchor store are refused supported by guidance to ensuring findings from Retail Capacity Update 2009 and vitality of town centres Retail Health Check 2011. Policy should remain worded as it is. NPPF paras 17 and 183 Neighbourhood Planning giving communities power to develop vision for their area and deliver sustainable development
NPPF para 184 – right types of development in a local area
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
LP saved policy S1
Executive Summary of Windsor and Maidenhead Retail Capacity Update 2009
Retail Health Check 2011
70. SL5 0BX Woolf Bond Owners of 8 & 10 Sheridan Grange which form NP/SS6 Comment is noted. for I&H large detached dwellings with southern boundary Brown and adjoining proposed mixed use development at Breckenridg S’dale Broomhall. e Estates Do not wish to object outright to policy but do seek amends to ensure that any development reflects need to protect character, setting and residential amenities of adjacent properties.
Properties fall into RBWM TA ‘Executive NP/SS6 RBWM Townscape Support for principle of Townscape Residential Estates’ classification and we support Assessment Assessment is noted. the principles which this states are to be taken into account in development design process and The requirement for a Development Brief will public realm improvement projects. Specifically provide an opportunity for local residents to wish to see the folllowing applied to any be consulted and to influence design. development on this site: - Respecting prevailing 2-storey scale of Other relevant policies in our NP will also Sheridan Grange apply. - Preserving residential amenities of SG - Retain existing important trees on SG boundary and within allocated site - Retain verdant street scene along eastern side of Broomhall Lane
Wensleydale House and majority of site land are classified as ‘Late 20th Century Suburbs” but it’s considered this relates largely to estate development on western side of Broomhall Lane. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Given entire site is to be redeveloped, more crucial future scheme relates to TA assessment for residential estates to north and Victorian village of central S’dale.
Support requirement for holistic approach to any NP/SS6.1 Support for Development Brief noted. planning appn as only way site can deliver the mix of uses appropriate and the benefit to village Some amendments have been made to as a whole. Agree Development Brief would policy SS6.1 assist process.
Support need to secure safe access from London NP/SS6.2 Comments noted. Rd and suggest a 2nd bullet added: “The sole vehicular access to be secured direct from The requirement for a Development Brief will London Road”. provide an opportunity for local residents to be consulted and to influence issues Also open field on NE side should be maintained including those of access and character. in an open character to secure appropriate settlement edge and ensure scheme relates to existing paddock land to E. Suggest current 3rd bullet has words added: “to be provided on the far northeastern side of the site”
Support need for strong and detailed design NP/SS6.4 The required elements for a Development response. Propose SS6.4 amended to read: Brief include design considerations. “Quality of design is a key consideration for this development. The following requirements will be Trees are subject to our tree policy EN3. taken into account in determining any future scheme: Other relevant policies in our NP will also apply. - Provision of open space on the site’s northeastern side - Protection and reinforcement as necessary of a strong defensible boundary on the site’s northern side
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
- Any proposal must respect neighbouring residential amenities including strong principal elevations where facing development located off site - Retain existing valued trees Proposals of poor design …. will be refused”.
Support requirement for development brief. NP/SS6.5 Your comment is noted. Phasing
71. Woolf Bond Do not believe the NP meets the Basic NPPF para 184, 185 We disagree. for various Conditions Test. Object to principle of producing and 215 general clients incl a NP in advance of an adopted up to date conformity with Neighbourhood Plans when brought into Kebbell strategic LP. strategic policies and force become part of the Development Plan Homes, implementation for the neighbourhood area. DCLG have Millgate Request these representations are forwarded to confirmed that they can be developed before Homes, the Inspector and request opportunity to speak at or at the same time as the local planning Bewley the Examination in Public Hearing. authority is producing its Local Plan. Other Homes and NPs have passed examination in advance of Lightwater For a number of reasons, NP threatens the an up to date LP. Manageme achievement of NPPF requirements by making nt detailed land use and policy decisions without an A draft NP must be in general conformity overarching strategic planning framework. with the strategic policies of the development plan in force if it is to meet the basic conditions. A draft NP is not tested against the policies in an emerging Local Plan.
We have liaised closely with RBWM so that they are fully aware of the policies being put forward in our NP and they have confirmed that they are comfortable these are in line with their thinking on their emerging Local Plan.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Policy states that ‘very special circumstances’ NP/EN1.2 NPPF Section 9 ref Comments noted. must be for benefit of the community and have benefits of protecting majority community support. While Localism Act GB and para 88 Policy EN1 has been amended to aid clarity. places importance on community involvement, defines ‘very special very special circumstances can represent any circumstances’ number of issues including strategic or even national priorities. NPPF para 89 ref effective use of land Propose EN1.2 is omitted leaving definition of that has been ‘very special circumstances’ open to individual previously developed cases and on their own merits.
Policy covers both GB and non-GB areas. Same NP/EN2 NPPF paras 17, 109 Comments noted. argument as above re NP redefining ‘very special and 183 circumstances’ and requiring majority community Policy EN2 has been amended to aid clarity. support – especially as applied to land that is not GB. There is very strong support from the community to protect the separation between Further object to this policy in absence of draft the villages. strategic LP as being restrictive and unnecessary, and fails to contribute towards sustainable development.
Propose EN2 is omitted.
Policy is over prescriptive and fails to account for NP/EN3.1 NPPF para 118 Comments noted. public condition of a tree that may eg be a danger to highway or public safety. Effectively RBWM strategic Some amendments have been made to generates a TPO over entire plan area such that policies include a policy EN3.1 it imposes constraint on development policy to minimise the irrespective of arboricultural quality. Also potential adverse devalues presence of existing TPO. effects on the natural NP cannot introduce such a policy without and built environment, support from an overarching Borough wide LP. Without this, policy should be deleted.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Local Planning authorities should only request NP/EN3.2 NPPF para 193 ref Comments noted. supporting info that is relevant, necessary and validation material to appn in question. Requirement for a requirements should Trees are a very important characteristic of tree survey and tree protection plan will in many be proportionate our area. cases add nothing to determination of a scheme but cost developers money. Some amendments have been made to policy EN3.2 Propose EN3.2 be moved to supporting text and validation requirements to remain subject to Borough’s discretion.
Similarly to EN2, policy threatens to artificially NP/EN4 NPPF para 53 ref Comments noted. constrain strategic LP process and could resisting development threaten delivery of NPPF requirements such as on gardens need for LPAs to meet ‘full, objectively assessed Gardens are an important feature of our needs for market and affordable housing’. In NPPF paras 57 and landscape and important to protect from absence of strategic LP, policy is unnecessary 118 – design and inappropriate development – NPPF para 53. and restrictive and does not contribute towards biodiversity. sustainable development. Accordingly appns Some amendments have been made to should be determined on case by case basis policy EN4 to aid clarity. having regards to NPPF core planning principles only.
Propose EN4 should be omitted
No reference in NPPF or Localism Act to NP/H1 NPPF para 17 ref Comment noted. We disagree with your thresholds or specific requirements. Hence any planning should be analysis of NPPF or Localism Act. specific requirement for pre-app consultation is genuinely plan-led, inconsistent with national policy. empowering local The requirement for a Development Brief will people to shape their provide an opportunity for local residents to Propose H1 is omitted or moved to supporting surroundings. be consulted and to influence important text. issues at an early stage in the planning NPPF para 183 ref process. Neighbourhood Planning giving communities power to develop vision for their area and deliver A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
sustainable development
NPPF para 188 ref early engagement
Accept that appns for flatted development not NP/H3 NPPF Section 6 ref Comments noted. appropriate in all cases but such schemes do LPAs need to meet offer opportunity to increase supply of homes objectively assessed RBWM has not had a long running housing and deliver much smaller sized residential needs for housing land supply deficit as per annual monitoring locations that can still not harm character of area. reports and recent inspector decision Also Borough has been subject to long running NPPF para 17 ref notices. housing land supply deficits. It is realistic option planning should be that strategic LP will need to plan for flatted genuinely plan-led, The intent of policy H3 is to ensure that developemnt to meet NPPF requirements. empowering local flatted developments only occur in people to shape their sustainable locations and where they will not Policy also suggests development only surroundings. adversely impact the character of the area – sustainable if located in specific locations; we natural, built and social. A detailed contend this is restrictive and fails to account of NPPF para 183 ref Streetscape Assessment has been the 3 aspects of sustainable development and Neighbourhood conducted by NP volunteers to add that area is relatively sustainable given its Planning giving additional local detail to the RBWM reasonable local service offer and railway communities power to Townscape Assessment and streets have services. develop vision for their been identified where flats/apartments would area and deliver be appropriate, taking into account location, Policy suggests new flats permitted only along sustainable character of the surrounding neighbourhood, section of A30 and TA flat zones. These development. status of on-street parking and the locations have been subject to residential streetscape generally. This piece of work is redevelopment over last 30 years and additional RBWM Townscape included in our Evidence Base and formed development here is practically impossible. So Assessment an important input into determining policy effectively generates a blanket ban on appropriate locations for flats/apartments in flatted development across plan area. our area.
The policy also actively welcomes flatted development in TA classification zone Post War Residential Flats, when part of a mixed use commercial development and in a number of our Strategic Sites. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Unnecessarily restrictive. Existing site and built NP/H3.3 NPPF para 60 ref not Comments noted. footprint are a material consideration but in some stifling innovation, circumstances a greater level of development originality or initiative Should there be a need to depart from this may be appropriate and offer wider benefits. and seeking to policy it will be down to the applicant to promote or reinforce demonstrate why this is appropriate and Propose H3 omitted. local distinctiveness necessary.
Not the purpose of this document to comprise a NP/DG1 NPPF para 58 re Comments noted. development plan document and any intention plans responding to for this would need to be brought forward by the local character etc The community’s priority, made clear through Borough. Strict compliance as suggested fails to while not discouraging consultation feedback, is to retain the key take NPPF para 60 into account. appropriate aspects that determine the character of our innovation. area. Our policies encourage innovative, DG1.2, DG1.3 and DG1.4 are overly prescriptive, good design; they do not restrict especially the need to apply policy even in zones development but instead challenge where other dwelling types may also exist. . NPPF para 60 ref not developers to deliver development that Planning inspectorate have determined that stifling innovation, responds to its surroundings and is apartment and semi-detached schemes are originality or initiative appropriate for our area. acceptable in ‘villas in a woodland setting’. and seeking to promote or reinforce Propose DG1 omitted. local distinctiveness
Also NPPF paras 61, 64 and 66 ref design
Policy jeopardises NPPF’s requirement to boost NP/DG2 NPPF para 58 re Comments noted. housing supply for Borough to meet market plans responding to needs for housing. Further, policy contradicts local character etc The community’s priority, made clear through NPPF para 58’s requirement for design while not discouraging consultation feedback, is to retain the key innovation and is therefore overtly prescriptive. appropriate aspects that determine the character of our innovation. area. Our policies encourage innovative, Propose DG2 omitted. good design; they do not restrict NPPF para 60 ref not development but instead challenge stifling innovation, developers to deliver development that originality or initiative responds to its surroundings and is and seeking to appropriate for our area. promote or reinforce A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
local distinctiveness
Also NPPF paras 61, 64 and 66 ref design
Policy contradicts NPPF para 58 re design NP/DG3.3 NPPF para 58 re Comments noted. innovation and is therefore overly prescriptive in plans responding to terms of parking layouts. local character etc The community’s priority, made clear through while not discouraging consultation feedback, is to retain the key Object and propose DG3.3 is omitted. appropriate aspects that determine the character of our innovation. area. Our policies encourage innovative, good design; they do not restrict development but instead challenge developers to deliver development that responds to its surroundings and is appropriate for our area.
We acknowledge landmark views and buildings NP/DG4 NPPF para 58 re Comments noted. important. Any application however must be plans responding to assessed having regard to usual planning local character etc These landmark views and buildings are balance and need for planning system to perform while not discouraging valued by the community and are important an economic, social and environmental role. appropriate to the local area, its heritage and character. Object to wording ‘new developments must avoid innovation. any adverse impacts on the landmark views and Our policies encourage innovative, good buildings’. As drafted policy is inflexible and fails NPPF para 60 ref not design; they do not restrict development but to contribute to achievement of sustainable stifling innovation, instead challenge developers to deliver development. originality or initiative development that responds to its and seeking to surroundings and is appropriate for our area. Propose re-wording: “New development should promote or reinforce seek to avoid any adverse impacts…”. local distinctiveness
Also NPPF paras 61, 64 and 66 ref design
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Current Borough wide policy is requirement for NP/DG5 NPPF para 93, 95 and Comment noted. code level 3. Without an overarching Borough 96 ref supporting a wide LP policy or SPD is premature to a Borough move to low carbon Consultation feedback showed a majority in wide policy justification. future favour of higher environmental standards.
Propose DG5 omitted. Supported by NPPF principles of sustainable development.
Reliance upon a SANG at Heatherwood hospital NP/SS5 SE Plan Policy NRM6 The designation of SANGs is a matter for the threatens to ransom rest of proposed ref that Priority should Borough and Natural England. developments. This highlights issues associated be given to directing with producing a NP in the absence of a strategic development to those The NP is not reliant upon a SANG at planning document given that an appropriate areas where potential Heatherwood. mitigation strategy remains undeveloped for the adverse effects can be medium to long term. avoided without the We have defined a Project – not a Policy – to In absence of a Borough LP, Policy NRM6 need for mitigation encourage the bringing forward of suitable cannot be complied with. Accordingly the Policy measures. sites as SANGs . This has been extended to cannot be deemed to be compatible with encompass all potential SANG sites. strategic local policy or EU Obligations.
72. Smiths The Crown Estate is a significant and permanent Thank you for your comments which are Gore for local landowner and has important stake in how appreciated. The Crown area is developed. Would like to commend the Estate Steering Group for very professional way they have approached task of producing a NP. Comments made framed within a context of general support for aims and objectives of the NP.
Concerned a degree of inflexibility has crept in to NPPF para 173 ref Your comments are noted. some of the wording. While important to have deliverability of plans precisely worded policies, should not be at cost Some policy wording has been amended to of preventing delivery of policy outcomes. NPPF aid clarity. includes requiring that policy constraints do not render development sites unviable.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Believe more of a case needs to be made in the NPPF para 184 re Comments are noted. NP for the outcomes being promoted. Keen the being in conformity NP is successfully adopted and key element is A draft NP must be in general conformity requirement to be in general conformity with with the strategic policies of the development strategic policies of the LP. plan in force if it is to meet the basic conditions. A draft NP is not tested against Important policies are underpinned by robust the policies in an emerging Local Plan. evidence base of the type of development that is needed, how much, and the key economic We have liaised closely with RBWM so that signals that may affect delivery of individual site. they are fully aware of the policies being put Also important and right that NP reflects wishes forward in our NP and they have confirmed of local community. that they are comfortable these are in line with their thinking on their emerging Local Plan.
Our housing needs will emerge as progress is made on the emerging BLP but these not yet finalised. Housing targets a strategic issue for RBWM.
During the preparation of this NP the community has been widely consulted and this feedback has formed the basis for the Plan policies.
Ascot Centre/High Street Rejuvenation: NP/SS1.1- Comment noted and policy has been Fully support strategic intent and share vision. 5 amended. Concern relates to way that policies seek to tie various sites together into a single entity as this may be difficult to achieve. There are specific statutory reasons why The Crown Estate would find it difficult to enter into a development partnership with other landowners.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Concerned this may be interpreted to mean NP/SS1.1 Comments noted and policy has been development needs to come forward through a amended. single planning application. We support RBWM taking a leading role in facilitating production of development brief and collecting S106 and CIL revenues to fund infrastructure improvements. Some landowners could work together, maybe suitable to area “Ascot Green”.
Fully support policy for a hotel which will provide NP/SS2 Your support is noted. benefits to economic function of Ascot. Also welcome de-coupling of this from wider development of High Street.
As owners of Wensleydale site, welcome NP/SS6 NPPF para 23 ref Your support for the redevelopment is noted. proposed redevelopment and enhancement of guidance to ensuring this area and wish to ensure it’s carried out in a vitality of town centres Also note your concerns re viability. way that meets NP’s aims of improving economic viability and delivers additional car parking and NPPF paras 17 and Our policy intent is to deliver a mixed community amenities. 183 Neighbourhood development of retail and residential with Planning giving parking and community amenities. Concerned that resistance to an anchor store communities power to may prevent development coming forward. develop vision for their Sunningdale is a small centre of 2,135 Suggest that either NP provides further area and deliver households and its current retail offering justification for wording by demonstrating it’s sustainable reflects this. LP policy S1 says “new retail achievable and realistic within plan period OR development development will be permitted where this builds in some flexibility to wording such as: would enhance the attractiveness and “Retail development in the form of a range of unit NPPF para 184 – right viability of existing centres, provided that sizes and restaurants/cafes. Unless it can be types of development the proposal is of a scale commensurate demonstrated to hamper delivery of this site, in a local area with the size, character and role of the smaller units will be preferred”. centre, can be integrated into the existing LP saved policy S1 shopping centre area…..”
RBWM Executive The policy seeks to manage the size of units Summary of Windsor being delivered so as to ensure they and Maidenhead complement the existing retail offering in Retail Capacity S’dale centre. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Update 2009 Some amendments have been made to this policy. RBWM Retail Health Check 2011
73. SL5 8AA Vail Trust has an interest in the Heatherwood Noted. Williams for Hospital site and comments are provided ref this Frimley site Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Council still preparing its LP and undertaking GB NPPF para 184, 185 Neighbourhood Plans when brought into review - premature for NP to be finalised in and 215 general force become part of the Development Plan advance of outcomes of these strategies. NP conformity with for the neighbourhood area. DCLG have should remain at broad level with location and strategic policies and confirmed that they can be developed before amount of development left until LP has been implementation or at the same time as the local planning adopted. authority is producing its Local Plan. Other NPs have passed examination in advance of an up to date LP.
We have liaised closely with RBWM so that they are fully aware of the policies being put forward in our NP and they have confirmed that they are comfortable these are in line with their thinking on their emerging Local Plan.
Site extent identified only covers northern part of Section NPPF para 17 ref Your comments are noted. the site. Not appropriate to identify potential 5.3.2 and planning should be development area or suggest a use for southern NP/SS5 genuinely plan-led, The site identified matches the MDS part in advance of GB review and LP. NP/SS5.1 empowering local boundary in the current LP. too specific and a broader support for people to shape their redevelopment should be included in the Plan surroundings. Proposal for southern part to be put forward with exact type and amount to be determined as a SANG is an appropriate use for land in NPPF para 183 ref GB. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
through the LP. Neighbourhood Planning giving The contents of the policy reflect the views of communities power to the community and are important to be develop vision for their considered in any development. area and deliver sustainable development.
Development Brief requirement too onerous and NP/H1 NPPF para 17 ref It is good practice to engage the community will delay planning process - should be deleted. planning should be through the design process and this is Applications to be determined by majority genuinely plan-led, encouraged in the NPPF. community support should be deleted as against empowering local local and national planning policy. people to shape their Development Briefs are a useful tool to surroundings. facilitate this. The proposals are proportionate to the objective. NPPF para 188 ref early engagement Reference to requirement for majority community support has been removed.
Trust has not identified potential use for this part Section 9.2 Your comments are noted. of the site. Suitability for SANG has not been and explored and does not appear to have been NP/SS5 A SANG will be needed to enable residential consulted on. NP is attempting to control and development at the Heatherwood site but we restrict future use of the site which is contrary to recognise other sites may be available. We NP legislation. Premature for Plan to make have amended Project 9.2 to encompass decision on future use prior to GB review. Project alternative options for SANG sites. This is should be removed. wording relates to a proposed project and is not a NP policy.
Vision for A, S & S map adds confusion by Map p. 20 Comment is noted. adding the desired "Projects" - could be seen as agreed policies which they are not
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Requirement for new dwellings to meet Code NP/DG5 NPPF para 93, 95 and Comment noted. Level 4 should be a target or reduced to Level 3, 96 ref supporting a in accordance with Council's current requirement. move to low carbon Consultation feedback showed a majority in future favour of higher environmental standards.
Supported by NPPF principles of sustainable development.
Requirement in Tree policy too onerous and NP/EN3.1 NPPF para 118 Your comment is noted. does not accord with adopted policy N6 of the LP RBWM strategic Tree policy EN3.1 has been amended. policies include a policy to minimise the potential adverse effects on the natural and built environment,
74. Boyer for Have identified a number of fundamental flaws in Your comments are noted. Hodson NP as drafted, which, if unresolved, will ensure Developme plan cannot be found to accord with either nts national or local policy at Examination. Propose 3 options to resolve this: 1. Delay submission until LP strategic planning approach is clear. 2. Delete EN1, EN2 and Appendix C as they will provide a barrier to development.
If wish to proceed amend policy EN1 as proposed.
RBWM existing LP is out of date and NPPF para 184, 185 Neighbourhood Plans when brought into consultation on a new draft plan has not yet and 215 general force become part of the Development Plan taken place. In this context we question whether conformity with for the neighbourhood area. DCLG have it is appropriate to bring forward a NP before strategic policies and confirmed that they can be developed before strategic issues for the area have been implementation or at the same time as the local planning determined. authority is producing its Local Plan. Other NPs have passed examination in advance of an up to date LP. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
We request the NP process is suspended until RBWM adopts an up to date LP that will We have liaised closely with RBWM so that establish the strategic context for neighbourhood they are fully aware of the policies being put planning in the area. forward in our NP and they have confirmed that they are comfortable these are in line with their thinking on their emerging Local Plan.
This NP seeks to establish a framework for GB NP/EN1 NPPF para 83 ref GB Your comments are noted. policy within a NP area. NPPF states GB policy boundaries is a matter is for local authority, therefore NP is in danger of for local authority Green Belt matters that do not relate to GB undermining strategic approach to GB in the area boundaries or other non-strategic GB issues and should be delayed. NPPF paras 79-80 can properly be addressed in the NP. and 87-89 ref purpose of GB and exceptions GB boundary reviews is a matter for the local to inappropriate authority. We have worked closely with development colleagues at RBWM so that they are fully aware of our GB and related policies. Also concerned EN1 is seeking to limit the very NP/EN1 NPPF paras 79-80 Comments noted. special circumstances to relating solely to and 87-89 ref purpose community benefit, which goes beyond of GB and exceptions EN1 has been amended to aid clarity. established national approach. But these can to inappropriate often be made up of many aspects which do not development Requirement for majority community support always have to involve a clear community benefit has been removed. but may instead involve economic or environmental very special circumstances. We request the wording as drafted is removed or amended so as to not undermine national policy approach to GB.
Suggested amend to EN1.2: “A planning application for development in GB under the “very special circumstances” argument shall only be permitted where:
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
(a) the “very special circumstances” includes demonstration that the community benefits of the proposal have been considered, AND (b) (b) they are accompanied by a Statement of Community Consultation as set out in Appendix E” with Appendix E revised to remove reference to need for majority community support.
Further, there is no definition as to what will constitute a community benefit leading to uncertainty over the policy’s application.
Other fundamental problem is for all proposals to NP/EN1.2 Requirement for majority community support be supplemented by a Statement of Community has been removed. Support that shows a majority in support of the proposal. No definition of what will constitute majority support.
Plan identifies a number of areas between NP/EN2 NPPF paras 17, 109 Comment noted. villages to be protected save for very special and 183 circumstances. Approach similar to Local Green Policy EN2 has been amended to aid clarity. Space designation but these need to be made NPPF para 184, 185 first in wider context of sustainable development and 215 general There is very strong support from the of an area. conformity with community to protect the separation between strategic policies and the villages. Concern that policy seeks to introduce control implementation over development in advance of RBWM LP. Requirement for majority community support Request EN2 is deleted. has been removed.
Policy wording essentially the same as in EN1 and same points apply.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
STATUTORY BODIES CONSULTATION RESPONSES SB1 SL6 1RF RBWM To meet the basic conditions a NP must have Conformity Noted. appropriate regard to national policy, be in general conformity with strategic policies of tha BLP, be compatible with human rights requirements and EU obligations.
Borough’s planning policy appraisal of the Plan Noted. and new policies that will emerge from this document are appended to letter. Note that the Council in the latter stages of reviewing the BLP and new policies will emerge. Taken care to ensure that BLP policies will not conflict with the NP, and have responded with these policies in mind. Additionally matters of general conformity have been discussed with the authors. Happy to assist with final wording and comment further if required in advance of submission to council.
Basic Conditions Appraisal: Whole Noted. Plan embodies many of key facets of NPPF in Plan promoting sustainable development. Whilst some Conditions policies may not entirely adhere to specific NPPF appraisal guidance they all embody principles promoted in NPPF and Plan delivers these principles. No amendments required.
Whilst draft policy requires a mix, it is based on NP/H2 Comments noted. Policy H2 has been physical appearance and neighbouring dwellings. amended. NPPF requires LA to plan to meet housing needs of population, and policy may conflict with this need when established. Amend wording to allow needs to be met once evidence established or could reflect the emerging evidence so this approach taken in absence of evidence of need. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
NP/H3: Location of flats / apartments: Some NP/H3 Comments noted. potential conflict with H8 of LP. Expected that emerging LP will amend this approach to deliver mix whilst respecting the surroundings. No change needed.
As drafted would be contrary to policies GB1, NP/SS1 Comments noted. GB2, GB3 and R1 of LP. NP gives guidance on improvements required which, in local opinion, would help to demonstrate special circumstances. No change needed as site being progressed (as a community defined opportunity) through the BLP and is expected to conform with approach of this policy.
Policy proposes inappropriate development in NP/SS3 Comments noted. GB and would be contrary to GB1, GB2 & GB3, but site being progressed through BLP (as a community defined opportunity), so no change needed.
Policy proposes inappropriate development in NP/SS4 Comments noted. Policy has been amended. GB and would be contrary to GB1, GB2 & GB3. However site is predominantly previously developed land in GB with some existing buildings. Whilst some parameters set for development here not clear special circumstances can be defined for this site. Suggest development may be difficult to achieve while reducing impact on the GB.
Revise to either demonstrate a preference for what may occur on site or tighten policy to be more in line with current GB policy. Any app would need to demonstrate VSC.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Revise map to reflect existing MDS area. NP/SS5 Map has been amended.
Policy states affordable housing not a site NP/SS8 This has been removed from the policy. priority. In conflict with H3 of current LP and likely to conflict with emerging BLP. Remove this part of the policy to allow discussions on inclusion of affordable housing as part of an app. Could highlight preference for delivery of other important priorities ahead of affordable housing here.
Revise the map to reflect existing MDS area. NP/SS9 Map amended. Whilst broadly in line with policies for the MDS at S’dale Park, it may conflict with emerging BLP Policy has been reviewed and amended. policies due to restrictive nature of policy.. Suggest remove policy and make a project to engage with land owners and council in revising MDS policy in emerging BLP.
Revise the map to reflect existing MDS area. NP/SS10 Map amended. Whilst broadly in line with policies for the MDS at Silwood Park, it may conflict with emerging BLP Policy has been reviewed and amended. policies due to restrictive nature of policy. Suggest remove policy and make a project to engage with land owners and council in revising MDS policy in emerging BLP.
SB2 GU15 Surrey Comment only, as unable to present to Exec Comment is noted a 3HD Heath BC before closing date. Comments on the NP relate to S’dale, which is adjacent to SH and a crossing point of roads & rail services through the wider area.
Concerned that no approaches from NPSG or any other body during plan preparation given strategic infrastructure in S’dale area. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Taking these 3 policies together appears NP has NP/H3; RBWM Local Your comments are noted. targeted S’dale for growth, including an NP/SS6 & Transport Plan unspecified amount of residential intensification NP/SS7 It is not proportionate to expect a NP to in form of flats along London Rd., significant undertake traffic impact assessments or intensification of parking provision associated retail needs assessments; this is for the LPA. with station and existing retail area, increased retail provision (unspecified in terms of RBWM Transport Plan has been updated – floorspace), and access improvements including now for 2012-2026 road and pedestrian links across A30.
S’dale already a pinch / congestion point on A30 as result of level crossing and several busy intersections. NP comments S’dale has already seen considerable development along A30 resulting in serious traffic and parking issues. Plan policies have potential for significantly raised traffic levels in area.
Evidence base does not include traffic impact assessment of effects of the policies. Also does not include a retail or needs assessment in support expansion of centre.
Therefore SHBC raises a standing objection to Your comments are noted. S’dale policies on grounds that: Detail will be considered in the Development • Lack of detail re the developments makes it Briefs. difficult to assess policy impacts. Would expect detailed parameters would be given Sites being considered are relatively small. It for site specific developments. is not reasonable to expect a NP to address • No evidence to support proposals other than issues of cumulative effect. We recognise wishes of residents. the potential implications of our policies and • Cumulative impact of policies does not expect these issues to be addressed through appear to have been looked at. the Development Brief process.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
SHBC is not therefore able to satisfy themselves We understand that RBWM is producing a the S’dale NP policies won’t have a detrimental transport model which includes a number of effect on traffic flows and safety on A30 and the these sites and will take account of these Chobham Road. A30, a strategic cross boundary issues. piece of infrastructure, of particular concern.
SB3 BS1 6EH Homes and NPs are very much part of Localism agenda and Comment noted. Communities we work on a national level, so don’t comment on Agency NPs.
SB4 CW1 Natural NE pleased to note NP highlights significance of 5.2.1 Thames Basin Heaths Comments noted and para bottom of p. 12 6GJ England TBH SPA and need for mitigation to be provided SPA RBWM SPD has been amended. for housing within 5km. Recommend for completeness the paras at bottom of pg 12 should refer to exclusion zone of 400m around SPA, within which housing should not be permitted. Would clarify importance of zones shown on map 2.
NE advise the following corrections to description 6.1.5 Comments noted and relevant sections have of designated sites in 1st para: been amended.
WF and Great Park is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Chobham Common is not an SPA, but a SSSI, which is also designated as TBH SPA. 3rd para refers to nationally protected sites and SSSis, however SPAs and SACs are internationally and nationally protected sites.
Advise the plan states that all protected species will be protected through Plan, with species listed as examples.
Advise para clarified to reflect the referenced NP/EN5.2 As these sites are all protected by national sites have national and international protection legislation and/or BLP policies, this policy is and that SACs are added. not adding anything and has therefore been removed from this NP. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
NE recommends these policies include reference NP/SS1, The requirement for mitigation is made clear to need for new housing to provide appropriate SS3, SS5, in the NP and is covered by BLP policies. mitigation for TBH SPA on line with council’s SS6, SS9 TBH SPD pt 1. & SS10.
NE advise that SANGS would need to be agreed 9.2 Comment is noted. with council and NE, and assessed against NEs SANG guidelines.
SB5 - Environmen Pleased the NP includes policies on biodiversity Comments noted. b tal Agency and green corridors. Majority of watercourses in plan area classed as ordinary.
All listed SSIs lie within Flood Zone 1 as defined Strategic Comments noted. in Table 1 in NPPF Technical Guidance and in Sites accordance with our Flood Risk Mapping. Flood zones are included in requirements for a Development Brief (Appendix D – now For sites over 1 ha Development Briefs to include Appendix C) a flood risk assessment for SW drainage. Smaller sites need to consider sustainable Past contaminative uses is a matter that will drainage. be addressed through the normal planning process. Sites 2,3,6 & 7 may have past contaminative uses and you will need to consider this on any development of the sites. Desk top study required in first instance to see if any contaminative uses that could be polluting ground water.
SB6 GU1 English EH welcomes references to the historic 6.3.4 Comments are noted. a 3EH Heritage development of the 2 communities. However should be more info about listed buildings and their significance. Should also be ref to non- designated features of local interest (in table in 6.3.4?).
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Should also be reference to the current and Comments are noted. potential future condition of these assets, inc particular threats to them. This level of detail is not appropriate for this NP.
Welcome ref to the character of the 3 Thank you and comments noted. communities and the aims to conserve / enhance that distinctive character. If further characterisation studies required there are links in the appendix to this letter.
Whilst welcome the intent behind aim to minimise Comment is noted. impact of development on built environment, should be recognised that development can have a beneficial effect – indeed should be objective of all development to enhance the built environment.
As conservation and enhancement of historic Environme Comments are noted. environment is integral to sustainable ntal development as promoted in NPPF, would Policies. Conservation areas already benefit from welcome this being one of main aims of the Plan protection through the Borough LP and it and given greater emphasis in Plan strategy. was felt that a NP policy could add little to Disappointed not to see an environmental policy this. for conservation of local historic environment, particularly S’dale Conservation Area.
Welcome the requirement for Development NP/H1 Your support noted. Briefs for sites of 10+ dwellings
Also welcome this policy for recognition that NP/H3.2 Your support noted. conversion may be only viable future use for large existing dwellings and its requirement to retain the aspects that make it a heritage asset.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Welcome design guidelines but suggest NP/DG 1 Policy wording has been amended. (Policy NP/DG3.4 should read “Listed buildings, DG2, DG3 also moved into same section as Landmark Conservation Areas and their settings will be and DG4 buildings and views and renamed) conserved and enhanced to reinforce their significance, quality and character”. Ref could be made to para 137 of NPPF.
Policies NP/DG1-3 do not provide specific protection for designated heritage assets, unlike DG4 does for non-designated sites.
Our records show only the strategic sites for new Your comment is noted. hotel in Ascot Racecourse, Heatherwood Hospital, S’dale Park and Silwood House may affect designated heritage assets. However for all sites the HER should be consulted and the possibility of currently unknown archeological remains being found acknowledged.
In the ‘context” there should be recognition that NP/SS2 Comment is noted. site lies within the setting of the Grade II listed former Tote building, and a requirement that any Listed old Tote building is not in the close redevelopment is not to detract from significance proximity of proposed hotel development and of the Tote building. would be unlikely to be affected adversely by it.
Protection also covered by DG4.
In the “context..” there should be recognition of NP/SS5 Comment is noted. the Bell Barrow on Bowledge Hill, a scheduled monument, and the requirement for Policy has been amended. redevelopment to retain the monument and enhance / better reveal its significance.
The “context…” identifies that the site is a NP/SS9 Your comment is noted. registered historic park and garden (Grade II) and Northcote House is Grade II listed. Should Any development on this strategic site is be a requirement in policy for retention of subject to our policy DG4. Northcote Ho., and not to adversely affect the A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
significance of these assets, and ideally to Re-drawn map shows both the extent of the enhance / better reveal them. Redraw map 23 to Registered Parkland and the area that is the exclude the registered parkland. designated MDS. It is not in the scope of the NP to alter MDS boundaries; this is a matter for the Borough.
The “context” to this policy recognises that the NP/SS10 Your comment is noted. site contains a number of Grade II listed buildings. Should be a policy requirement for Covered by policy DG4. development to retain / not adversely affect these buildings, and ideally enhance / better reveal their significance.
We welcome these policies. NP/SS1.4 Comment noted. and SS5.3
Wonder if a review of the Conservation Area Projects Your comment is noted. Appraisal for S’dale could be considered, and a review of the list of “landmark” buildings shown on map 10.
The number and grade of listed buildings should SEA Comment noted. be identified and reference made to scheduled monument at Bowledge Hill in the section on cultural heritage. Also ideally make reference to non-designated assets.
S’dale Park is a Grade II park and Garden, not SEA 7.7.4 Noted. grade I. (and 18.3.2) Welcome in principle the sustainability objective SEA 8.2 Noted. for cultural heritage, but it should “conserve and enhance”.
This fails to identify potential impact that SEA 18.3 Noted. redevelopment of NP/SS2, SS5, SS9 and SS10 might have on the former Tote Building, the bell barrow, S’dale Park and Silwood Park. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
NP/DG1-3 don’t provide specific protection for SEA 18.4.1 Noted. designated heritage assets in the way DG4 does for non-designated assets.
Not appropriate only to monitor those issues the SEA 22.2 Noted. SEA / SA has identified as being potentially negative. All plan policies should be monitored against SEA objectives to ensure they meet intended objectives without unintended consequence.
SB7 SL5 7JF Barton Following the Trust’s review we set out a number NP/SS5 Localism Act Comments noted. Willmore for of amendments which we consider will ensure Heatherwoo the Plan is found sound by an inspector and that NP (General)) Regs d and plan will enable Trust to plan for and deliver a Wexham healthcare led redevelopment of the site. Park NHS Foundation Useful for Plan to include individual para Trust. numbers for ease of future use.
The Plan aims would benefit from re-wording of Section 4 Comment is noted. This bullet point is 3rd bullet point as it relates to Ascot centre. specific to Ascot Centre and the High Street. Generally supportive but would welcome a minor alteration as follows:
“ “To encourage and facilitate ……and its High Street, including the Heatherwood Hospital Site, to deliver a more …..”
The Trust notes that the Plan has identified the 5.2 NRM6 Identifying additional SANG(s) is considered HH site as a location the Plan would like to see important to delivery of our NP. While we designated as a SANG. At present the Trust is recognise this is a matter for the Borough not in a position to confirm how it intends to use and Natural England, we nonetheless wish its landholding, particularly where the SANG is to encourage the bringing forward of suitable concerned. The Trust considers the provision of sites as SANGs – hence we have identified SANG is a strategic issue which is for the BLP, this as a Project (note this is not a policy). and not part of the NP process. Request all A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
references to SANG are removed, including on The area south of the MDS at Heatherwood all maps. we believe is a suitable area and we would like to see it brought forward for this purpose.
Trust supports the identification of the HH site as Map 4 Text in Table has been amended. a SS, and for flexibility, its identification should be for ‘Healthcare Facility plus significant housing”.
Trust supportive of NP/EN1.1 in which the BLP NP/EN1 Support noted. policies will apply to all GB areas apart for the exceptions set out in the SS policies, which includes the HH site.
However Trust objects to additional requirement NP/EN1.2 NPPF paras 79-80 Your comment is noted. for developments in GB to be considered as and 87-89 ref purpose “very special circumstances”. The BLP and para of GB and exceptions Policy EN1 has been amended to aid clarity. 89 of NPPF clearly identifies the circumstances to inappropriate in which GB development will be considered development Requirement for majority community support acceptable. Neither requires GB development to has been removed. gain majority community support. This policy does not therefore accord with BLP or NPPF.
Furthermore the RBWM statement of Community Involvement (SCI), June 2006 commits the Council to a clear and consistent approach that actively involves people in planning process. All apps required to follow 3 tier process (chapter 7), depending on size & scale, and this doesn’t include a requirement to demonstrate ‘majority community support’. Policy does not comply with adopted SCI. Also this requirement falls outside the parameters of a NP when assessed against para 155 of NPPF, which states that NPs should ‘reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed principles’. Policy should simply set out the ‘agreed principles’ which GB developments should adhere to. Whilst views of local residents A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
are important in preparing applications it would be inappropriate for applicants to demonstrate their proposals have ‘majority community support’. NP does not include a NDO and neither the SG or local residents have a legal right to determine a planning application.
It is considered the inclusion of this process is unjustified and unnecessary as level of community support for an appn is already taken into account by the LPA when determining apps.
It is considered that a Statement of Community Consultation should only be sought for schemes in accord with NP/H1.
EN1.2 should be deleted.
The Trust objects to the requirement of this NP/EN3 BLP policy N6 Comments noted. policy as unnecessarily onerous and not in accord with adopted BLP policy N6. The NPPF para 118 Amendments have been made to this policy. ‘presumption trees will be retained unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify removal’ RBWM strategic is overly restrictive and could impede policies include a development. The policy wording should be policy to minimise the amended to accord with N6 of the BLP. It is also potential adverse considered that the wording ‘in the event of a effects on the natural tree……before any trees are removed’ is and built environment unsound and should be deleted as it will not always be possible or appropriate to re-provide a replacement tree on site. With this in mind the following wording should be included – “in the event of a tree needing to be removed the decision as to whether like for like replacement or the provision of additional trees should be a matter of judgement on a case by case basis as part of an overall landscaping and planting scheme which should accompany such A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
application”
The requirement for all residential and EN3.2 NPPF para 118 Comment noted. commercial development to submit a tree survey alongside an application is considered unsound RBWM strategic The Borough’s checklist is not a strategic as does not accord with borough’s adopted policies include a policy. validation checklist. This checklist clearly policy to minimise the identifies the circumstances in which a Tree potential adverse Survey is required. effects on the natural and built environment
The Trust objects to this policy as drafted as it NP/EN5.1 Comment noted. should refer to the Borough’s validation checklist when assessing proposals that should require The Borough’s checklist is not a strategic the submission of an Ecological Survey. policy.
It is considered the wording of this policy is NP/EN5.2 NPPF para 118 Comments noted. unnecessarily onerous and does not accord with general principles of para 118 of the NPPF As these sites are protected in any event, (criterion 1), which states: “If sig harm resulting this policy has been removed from the NP. from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or at last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”. As drafted an application which is ‘likely’ to cause harm should simply be refused, whereas NPPF states permission should only be refused where all avoidance measures have been exhausted. An amended policy wording is proposed.
On map 7 it is unclear whether the ‘Secondary NP/EN6 NPPF paras 109, 114, Comments noted. Corridor’ running along the W and S boundary of 117, 118 the site runs through the site. If so the Trust Designation of green corridors does not objects to the corridor running through private include a requirement for public access. land where there is no public right of way. Trust will only consider future links through site when A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
preferred redevelopment option determined.
The borough SCI sets out a 3 tier approach to NP/H1.1 NPPF para 17 ref Comments noted. public consultation depending on size and scale planning should be of development proposals, Neither the SCI or the genuinely plan-led, The Borough Statement of Community BLP includes a requirement for a development empowering local Consultation is not a strategic policy brief to be submitted to the local community prior people to shape their document and pre-dates NPPF. to a planning submission. The requirement of the surroundings. policy is therefore unjustified, a duplication of The requirement for a Development Brief will policy requirements, an unnecessary stage in the NPPF para 188 ref provide an opportunity for local residents to planning process and would delay delivery. The early engagement be consulted and to influence design. SCI requirements cover most of documents proposed for the development brief (appendix D). Policy should be deleted.
The Trust objects to the requirement for NP/H1.2 The requirement to demonstrate majority applications to be determined by ‘majority community support has been removed. community support’ as set out in Appendix E. Has no legal basis and does not accord with borough or national planning policy, so should be deleted.
Although supportive of overarching aim, Trust NP/H2 BLP policy H8 Comments noted. does not support the current wording. We consider both houses and flats are important in NPF para 182 and184 The wording of this policy has been meeting local need. Policy H8 of the BLP amended. identifies that the borough will particularly favour Localism Act proposals that will include dwellings which NP (General) Regs include small households.
An up to date SHMA has not been produced by borough and Plan should not prejudice the conclusions of its findings.
Para 184 of NPPF states NPs should ‘be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area’. The approach of the draft Plan is therefore unsound as it only takes into A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
consideration the immediate community.
The policy should establish that there should be a balanced mix of dwellings rather than housing within the plan area. Also, policy to include flexibility, to respond to changing mix requirements over the plan period.
Whilst the Plan identifies the need to respond to the character of the surrounding area it does not identify the importance of development proposals responding to the characteristics of the existing site. The Plan should provide realistic guidance on the type of development considered acceptable. A proposed rewording of this policy is presented.
Trust supports proposals to manage flats / NP/H3 Your support noted. apartments within the plan area.
The Trust considers that each development NP/DG2 NPPF para 58 re We disagree. proposal should be considered on a site by site plans responding to basis and should take into account the site’s local character etc location as well as the context of the site and while not discouraging surrounding area. appropriate innovation. It is considered that the policy wording would not be effective for larger development sites (the NPPF para 60 ref not SSs) as the character of the surrounding area is stifling innovation, less clearly defined. This policy should therefore originality or initiative exclude major strategic sites. and seeking to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness
Also NPPF paras 61, 64 and 66 ref design A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Given the emerging BLP requires new housing NP/DG5 NPPF para 93, 95 and Comment noted. developments to achieve Code for Sustainable 96 ref supporting a Homes Level 3, the requirement to achieve Level move to low carbon Consultation feedback showed a majority in 4 is considered unsound. The statement that it future favour of higher environmental standards. should be achieved because of the ‘relatively affluent area’ is a sweeping statement and does Supported by NPPF principles of sustainable not take into account the potential effect on development. development viability. A revised wording is proposed. Some amendments have been made to this policy.
The Trust notes that maps 12 and 19 are not NP/T2 Comment noted. consistent, and favours the inclusion of map 12 as it does not outline a cycle route through the Map 12 shows desired through cycle routes. southern section of the site, and more Map 19 shows a desired cycle route to link appropriately shows it running alongside the Heatherwood with Ascot station. This has existing highway. Whilst the Trust is prepared to now been removed from the Heatherwood consider options for its land, including possible site map. Note also that map numbering has pedestrian and cycle routes, such options need changed. to be consistent with the wider development options. The NP should not therefore refer to any such routes through the HH site.
The Trust has no comment on the policies in this Section 8 Comment noted. chapter except for NP/SS5.
The Trust supports the identification of HH as a NP/SS5 Comments are noted. strategic site, suitable for redevelopment, and the and location for a new ‘healthcare facility’, and the NP/EN1 identification of the remainder of land (excluding existing housing) as a Major Development Site within the GB. The Trust reiterates its concerns over the southern part of the site being subject to NP/EN1 unless the policy is changed in accordance with the trust’s objection.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Whilst the Trust will ensure that it engages with NP/SS5.2 NPPF para 17 and Comment noted. and consults the local community (including the 183 ref planning PC) before any planning application is submitted should be genuinely The requirement for a Development Brief will for the redevelopment of the site, it considers the plan-led, empowering provide an opportunity for local residents to current wording of NP/H1 is unnecessariiy local people to shape be consulted and to influence design at an restrictive and unjustified in the context of local their surroundings. early stage in the planning process. and national policy. Reference to the requirement for a development brief should therefore be NPPF para 188 ref deleted from this policy. early engagement
The Trust supportive insofar that it will provide a NP/SS5.4 NPPF Section 6 ref Comment noted. suitable mix of housing within the site but (a) LPAs need to meet concerned with the approach to providing flats as objectively asssessed The concern regarding flats arises from the part of the overall mix. Policy should be amended needs for housing strength of feeling in the community about to allow a greater proportion of flats on the site. the number of flats being developed. This is apparent from a number of public NPPF para 17 ref consultations. The question of flats on the planning should be Heatherwood site was specifically consulted genuinely plan-led, on. empowering local people to shape their surroundings.
NPPF para 183 ref Neighbourhood Planning giving communities power to develop vision for their area and deliver sustainable development.
The Trust objects to requirement for proposed NP/SS5.4 Comment noted. build footprint to be set back from road (b) boundaries as the SG has not provided sufficient Wording of policy has been amended. evidence to justify their approach. It is considered that the wording ‘Build footprint should be set back from the road boundaries and A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
not overpower its surroundings’ should be deleted to provide greater flexibility towards future development with sufficient design guidance already contained in other plan policies.
As highlighted above the Trust is prepared to NP/SS5.4 Comment noted. enter into discussions with RBWM and makers of (c) the NP to explore the potential for a new Cycle route has been removed from the alternative cycle/pedestrian route through its map. The requirement to provide safe and land, including the wooded area in the southern accessible pedestrian and cycle routes part of the site. At this stage it is appropriate to remains in the policy. remove all references to the route from map 19.
It is considered that the wording of this policy is NP/SS5 Your comments are noted. too restrictive, as it does not take into consideration potentially acceptable alternative The NP would not support a hotel at this uses. Whilst it is understood that residential use location as a non town centre site and, whilst would be favoured the redevelopment of the some employment may be appropriate, our remaining land could also provide a C1 use (ie a preference is for residential development Hotel, Class A1-A5 (ie retail etc) and class B1 ie here. Offices as part of a mixture of uses. Add an additional bullet point which states: ‘where an alternative development option to residential dwellings is proposed on the remaining Heatherwood site, it should be designed in accordance with Policy NP/DG2.2 of the NP and any other relevant local and national guidance’
It is noted that the section includes a project to Section 9 Comment is noted. designate the southern part of the site as SANG. The Trust is investigating a range of options for Identifying additional SANG(s) is considered this part of the site, including other healthcare important to delivery of our NP. While we related uses, parking, open space or other recognise this is a matter for the Borough complementary uses. and Natural England, we nonetheless wish to encourage the bringing forward of suitable sites as SANGs – hence we have identified A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
this as a Project (note this is not a policy).
The area south of the MDS at Heatherwood we believe is a suitable area and we would like to see it brought forward for this purpose.
SB8 NW1 Network Network Rail supports policy for Ascot Station, NP/SS3 Thank you for your support. 2DN Rail subject to following qualifications:
NP supports treating the site as a GB exception Green Belt Comments noted. site (NP pg 22 & 23). Despite this designation it issues is essentially a previously developed / “brownfield” site on the southern edge if the GB. Development here will help the borough to meet its housing requirements while taking pressure off other GB sites of higher environmental or visual amenity.
The 2 main elements of the emerging proposals S106 & CIL Your comments are noted. are housing and a deck on the existing car park. It needs to be recognised that the deck is unlikely to come forward on its own, and needs the residential element to contribute to its cost.
During formal pre-app advice and dev control NP/SS3.3 process NR will consider with the LPA what scale of wider benefits for the area the scheme is capable of delivering. NR supports in principle the improvement of FPs running past the site as one of these benefits, but believed that all major development sites in the area should also contribute to the improvements identified in NP/SS3.3. NP/SS3 should make reference to this.
A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
NP supports NP/SS3.4(a) regarding residential NP/SS3.4( Policy has been amended. development on lower part of car park and the a) retail or other commercial uses adjoining the station. To maximise the chance of finding a suitable quality retail tenant it is considered that the 50 sq.m limitation ay be too restrictive, as retailers normally prefer an area up to 280 sq.m in order to meet Sunday Trading legislation criteria, and would prefer this to be the limit.
NP have confirmed to the borough our intention Comments noted. to see the site developed within the first 5 yrs of the plan. Our studies show the site could accommodate as much as 80 units, but a more measured appraisal of the mix of different size units suggests 50-60 units, which is thought to match the LPAs own capacity assumptions.
SB9 SL5 9AZ SPAE It is encouraging that many of the key aims of the Your comments are noted and thank you for NP are aligned with those of the SPAE your positive words. constitution. These include endeavouring to ensure that all development is consistent with the existing character of the area, including its green and leafy appearance and the distinct character of our villages. Further, that all development will be in accord with Gov. policies “to meet new housing demand in a way that is sympathetic to the area”. Also to ensure, as far as possible, that all development shall be within approved Government GB policies where applicable. Finally, it should retain existing natural features of the area, including the flora and fauna.
Development within selected areas of GB in Comments noted. Our policy NP/EN1 makes Ascot is proposed, albeit supported by a majority it clear how strongly the community feel of the community. SPAE has concern that this regarding protection of the GB. could set a precedent for other pressured GB areas around the SE. SPAE recognises that the A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
BLP policies will apply to all GB areas across the borough, including the local neighbourhood.
SPEA supports this NP.
SB1 RG7 CPRE The draft NP is a very impressive piece of work Your comments are noted and thank you for 0 5DZ and will be an excellent template for other area your support. plans. CPRE’s policy is very much in line with that of the Plan’s authors. We therefore support the broad sweep of the Plan’s strategy. Specifically we welcome the determination to keep the open spaces between the villages and the establishment of green corridors.
Our organisation is always uneasy about any encroachment on GB land, but recognise there is a case for this to happen on the S side of Ascot High Street, and would not seek to oppose this part of the plan. We also offer our full support against any application to build houses on GB sites at Silwood
SB1 OX4 4XT BBO We welcome the clear intention and effort that Thank you for your comments. 1 Wildlife has been made to include the protection and Trust. biodiversity throughout the NP. Our comments are:
In relation to the TBH SPA the use of the words 5.2.1 Comment noted and text has been “appropriate equivalent” does not give an amended. accurate description of what is required from SANG provision for new developments within 5km of the SPA. The TBH SPA delivery framework states that “SANG should be provided on the basis of at least 8ha per 1000 population”. This should be clearer in the Plan.
The delivery framework sets out a 2-pronged approach to mitigate the effect of net new A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
dwellings within 5km of the SPA. These are the provision of SANGs and financial contributions towards strategic access management and monitoring (SAMM). The NP makes no reference to SAMM, and this must be rectified. Suggested alt wording is:
‘The significance of this on housing development is that to mitigate any effect of net new dwellings within 5km of the SPA, SANG bust be provided as well as a financial contribution towards SAMM’.
Delivery Framework also states that the impact of dwellings within 400m of the SPA is likely to be such that it is not possible to conclude no effect on the SPA, and there should be a presumption against development in this zone. Suggest following additional wording:
“Within 400m of the SPA (as the crow flies) there is a presumption aginst residential development to avoid any significant effect on the integrity of the nearby SPA. This 400m zone affects the SE corner of the S’dale parish (see map 12).
This identifies two internationally important 6.1.5 NPPF para 188 ref Comments noted. Text in 6.1.5 has been conservation areas. I recommend including a conservation and amended. map in this section, which identifies all of the enhancement of international, national and locally designated biodiversity sires within your area. The Windsor Great Park and Woodlands plus Silwood Park Biodiversity Opportunity Area should be included.
This clear hierarchy set out in NPPF should be reflected in the NP.
We suggest the following alternative wording: A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
“In such instances, if there is no satisfactory alternatives, we wish to ensure at least that appropriate mitigation, or, as a last resort, compensation, is provided”.
In this policy the terms ‘mitigation and NP/EN5 Wording in policy has been amended. compensation’ cannot be interchanged and need to be clearly defined. (a suggested alternative wording is presented)
This should include all international and NP/EN5.2 As these sites are all protected by national nationally designated sites, including proposed legislation and/or BLP policies, this policy is and candidate sites. Suggested alt wording is: not adding anything and has therefore been deleted from this NP. “Development proposals which are likely, either directly or indirectly, to adversely affect an international or nationally designated site shall be refused”
Again, terms ‘mitigation’ and ‘compensation’ NP/EN5.3 Section 41 of NERC Policy text has been amended. have been confused and interchanged. Suggest (b) Act 2006 lists habitats alt wording is: and species of Comment re NERC Section 41 is noted. It is principle importance to the responsibility of Local Planning Authority “A survey report by a …………appropriate guide the LA in its and, consequently, not considered mitigation measures, or, as a last resort, duty under section 40 necessary to list habitats and species in the compensation to significantly reduce the of the Act. NP. likely impact”
Obligations under NERC Act 2006. Priority habitats and species must be noted in the NP.
We have serious concerns over potential NP/SS6 Concern is noted. residential development of this site due to its close proximity to the TBH SPA. It is 500-600m from the SPA and neither Allen’s Field nor proposed H’wood SANG is in the vicinity to provide for a development in this location. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
Similar wording regarding “appropriate equivalent Project 9.2 Text has been amended to delete SANG” appear in the details of this project; this ”equivalent”. This is wording supporting a should be edited with the suggested alt wording proposed project and not a NP policy. above.
Silwood Park site lies within the Windsor Great NP/SS9 Text has been amended to include Park and Woodland, including Silwood Park reference. Biodiversity Opportunity Area (as defined above), and this should be noted in this section of Plan.
Welcome the inclusion of this project but Project 9.3 Text has been amended. concerned about wording of first part of this statement: “While we recognise…..green corridors”. It is not unreasonable to prohibit development on designated habitats and species in any location. Suggested alt wording:
“While we recognise that it is unreasonable and unrealistic to prohibit development on non- designated biodiversity habitats that run through built up areas and people’s gardens, ….”.
We support the inclusion of this policy and NP/EN6 We appreciate your support. welcome this positive approach to providing linkages and connecting up important habitats.
SB1 RG12 Bracknell Whilst the Council supports the development of a NPPF para 184, 185 DCLG have confirmed that there is no barrier 2 1JD Forest NP for the area, it is not clear how the Plan is in and 215 general to NPs coming forward before the Local conformity with relevant strategic policies for the conformity with Planning Authority has produced its LP, area, particularly as the saved policies of the strategic policies and provided that discussions have taken place BLP were adopted 10 years ago and are dated. implementation with the LPA and that every effort has been made to ensure the policies in the NP will not
Whilst it is noted the NP contains proposals conflict with those being progressed in the involving some housing development, there is Borough LP. Confirmation that these concern that further development may need to be discussions have taken place with RBWM is considered in the area, depending on the included in their response to this pre- outcome of the borough’s objective assessment submission consultation. of housing need. A, S & S NP PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION: PUBLIC AND STATUTORY BODY RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES SOME RELEVANT POLICY/ CONSIDERATIONS SECTION (eg. NPPF) & OTHER No. P/CODE NAME SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED (if applic) FACTORS NP COMMENTS & OUTCOMES
BF needs to gain a better understanding of the Your comments re potential impact of potential of proposals (particularly in the Ascot proposals on its infrastructure are noted. We area) to impact on its infrastructure, for example, understand that RBWM is producing a the transport network, but needs further details of transport model which should address these the nature and scale of proposals to establish issues. this. It is not proportionate to expect a NP to Evidence is required on the predicted traffic undertake traffic impact assessments or
impact from all sites on all routes between your retail needs assessments; this is for the LPA. area and BF (study scope outlined).
One of the “Basic Conditions” is that the NP EU Habitats Directive An HRA screening was undertaken by the conforms with EU obligations. This includes the Borough and Natural England have Habitats Directive and EC Wild Birds Directive confirmed they are supportive of its and the Conservation of Habitats and Species conclusions. These documents are included Regulations 2012. No Habitat Regulations in our Evidence Base. Assessment (HRA) seems to have been undertaken. For sites within 5km of the SPA whilst the requirement for SPA mitigation is recognised, both provision of SANG and contribution towards SAMM is likely to be required.
Non-residential sites may require to be assessed through HRA.