Warfield Neighbourhood Plan Site Assessment and Capacity Study (Updated following publication of the BFC SHELAA in Nov 2016) Annex A Published by Warfield Parish Council in the evidence base of the Pre- Submission Warfield Neighbourhood Plan Warfield NP Site Assessment and Capacity Study (Annex A) 1 Site Assessment and Planning Practice Guidance This study does not seek to rank sites or duplicate the SA/SEA exercise. The assessments comprise a view of the physical characteristics of each site and their context as matters of observable fact and as part of the assessment of site suitability, availability and achievability. In this regard, the approach shares some similarities with the methodology for housing and economic land availability assessments (HELAA). Planning practice guidance relating to HELAA (ID:3-004) states that: “Designated neighbourhood forums and parish/town councils may use the methodology to assess sites but any assessment should be proportionate. Neighbourhood forums and parish councils may also refer to existing site assessments prepared by the local planning authority as a starting point when identifying sites to allocate within a neighbourhood plan.” The approach taken to site assessment gives greater weight to the role of spatial planning which is possible and of greater value when operating at the smaller geographic scale of a neighbourhood plan. Where a site is a potential candidate for development after taking planning considerations and alignment with the spatial strategy / strategic policy into account, a further level of detailed investigation has been undertaken in line with paragraph 15 of the Planning Practice Guidance which states: “Site surveys should be proportionate to the detail required for a robust appraisal. For example, the assessment will need to be more detailed where sites are considered to be realistic candidates for development.” Warfield NP Site Assessment and Capacity Study (Annex A) 2 Part A - Summary Assessments Set out in Table A is a summary of the site assessment work, phrased as the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of each site. The sites identified are coded alphabetically A to Y and shown on Plan A. An additional site (Site Y, Land at North Lodge Farm, Hayley Green) was included in the BFC SHELAA published in November 2016 (WAR11) and this site has been added to the assessment. Sites which accord with the spatial strategy and are considered to be strategic policy compliant are taken forward to detailed assessment and are shaded green (see Part B). The SHELAA reference is included in brackets where applicable. Y Plan A – Identified sites Warfield NP Site Assessment and Capacity Study (Annex A) 3 Table A: Summary Assessments of Sites Site Site Location & Pros Cons Spatial Option (SHELAA ref) A Land East of Access from the B3108, Residential properties in northern part Binfield Road/ Binfield Road/Temple of site set in large plots. East of site Temple Park Park Roundabout. open to clear views / area of local Roundabout Close to proposed Blue landscape importance. Remnants of (WAR4 to south) Mountain Learning Ancient Woodland and part flood Village. zone. Setting of listed building. Part Spatial Option: Agricultural land, could be grade 3a. Inconsistent with Could compromise SA9 proposals. spatial strategy Land outside defined settlement. Distant from services. 16/00997/OUT – 80 bed care home and 5 dwellings. Refused April 2017 B Corner of Forest Access from the B3108, East of site open to clear views. Area Road/Binfield Binfield Road. of local landscape importance. Road Close to proposed Blue Setting of listed building. Remote Mountain Learning from settlement boundary. Could Spatial Option: Village compromise SA9 proposals. Inconsistent with Distant from services spatial strategy Landowner withdrew site C Forest Road/ Access from Forest Road Access onto Forest Road could be Hazelwood Close to proposed Blue difficult (highway safety). Hazelwood Lane Mountain Learning Lane narrow. Countryside location Village with open fields rising east from Spatial Option: Hazelwood Lane. Remote from Inconsistent with settlement and distant from services spatial strategy and facilities. D Warfield Street/ Access from Forest Road. Access via Osbourne Lane is limited Osbourne Lane Land provides physical (narrow). Significant loss of trees. separation between Within setting of St Michael’s Grange Spatial Option: settlements. Distance to (Grade II) and Newell Hall (Grade II) Newell Green. community hub with consequent heritage impact proposed in SA9 and would limit the number of dwellings that could be considered. Land outside settlement boundary. Risk merging of settlements and loss of settlement identity. E Warfield Land provides physical No obvious access. Heritage a Street/Priory separation between significant constraint as land Lane (WAR 8) settlements. Distance to between Newell Hall (Grade II) and community hub Cuckoo Cottage (Grade II) would Spatial Option: proposed in SA9 limit the number of dwellings that Warfield Street could be considered. Significant loss of trees. Land outside settlement boundary. Risk of settlements merging and loss of settlement identity. Warfield NP Site Assessment and Capacity Study (Annex A) 4 F North of Three Access onto Open fields rising from Maidenhead Legged Cross. Maidenhead Road. Road (Warfield Open Clay Scotland Farm Proximity to new facilities Farmlands). Long distant views to (part of WAR6) at Warfield? south. Could compromise larger scale proposals coming forward Spatial Option: through the Local Plan. Newell Green Development of open fields could change Newell Green character and settlement identity. Land outside settlement boundary and physically separated from the village by The Cut. G North of Proximity to new facilities Limited access from Newhurst Newhurst at Warfield Gardens and Gibbons Lane Gardens. The Local Landscape Appraisal (WAR9&10) recommends that the existing open character to the north of the Spatial Option: Warfield Street is maintained to Warfield Street prevent “encirclement” given the scale of development proposed to the south of the village. H Wane Bridge, Green Belt. Malt Hill Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) and inconsistent with spatial strategy. Spatial Option: (Refer Part C) Inconsistent with spatial strategy I Meadowbrook, Green Belt. Malt Hill Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) and inconsistent with spatial strategy. Spatial Option: (Refer Part C) Inconsistent with spatial strategy J Brookfield Farm Access from Bracknell Land extends ribbon village beyond (WAR12) Road. settlement boundary. Within Bull Facilities at Whitegrove Brook gap which may result in Spatial Option: Land provides physical coalescence with SA9 / Warfield Hayley Green separation between Street and result in loss of settlement settlements. identity. K Sunset Farm, Access onto Hayley Land extends village beyond Hayley Green/ Green or Bracknell Road settlement boundary to the north Bracknell Road Facilities at Whitegrove towards open countryside. (WAR13) Forms a cluster with L & M L Land south of Access onto Bracknell Land extends village beyond Bracknell Road Road settlement boundary to the north (WAR 13, 14, 15) Facilities at Whitegrove towards open countryside. Forms a cluster with K & Surface water drainage issues will M need to be investigated. M Land north of Access onto Forest Road Land extends village beyond Forest Road or Cricketers Lane settlement boundary but contained Facilities at Whitegrove within Cricketer’s Lane. Forms a cluster with K & L Need to protect boundary trees and woodland screening to the west of the site Warfield NP Site Assessment and Capacity Study (Annex A) 5 N Brockdale Access to Cricketers Land entirely wooded and protected Cottage Lane / Forest Road by TPO, safeguarding the tree group as a whole. Land outside settlement boundary and in gap between Hayley Green and Winkfield Row. O Land south of Green Belt. Church Lane / Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) Malt Hill and inconsistent with spatial strategy. (Refer Part C) Spatial Option: Inconsistent with spatial strategy P Moss End Green Belt. Garden Centre Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) and inconsistent with spatial strategy. Spatial Option: (Refer Part C) Inconsistent with spatial strategy Q Former Moss End Green Belt. Plant and Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) Storage and inconsistent with spatial strategy. Distribution (Refer Part C) Centre, Bowyers Lane 13/00578/FUL – 3 x 5 bed, 5 x 4 Bed. Appeal Dismissed Feb 2014 Spatial Option: Inconsistent with spatial strategy R Land east of Green Belt. Maidenhead Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) Road, Moss End and inconsistent with spatial strategy. (Part of WAR3) (Refer Part C) Spatial Option: Inconsistent with spatial strategy S Land at Green Belt. Tickleback Row, Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) Jeallot’s Hill and inconsistent with spatial strategy. (Refer Part C) Spatial Option: Inconsistent with spatial strategy T Land between Access onto the Green Belt. Maidenhead Maidenhead Road Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) Road and Proximity to employment and inconsistent with spatial strategy. Syngenta (Adj. at Syngenta (Refer Part C) WAR3) Spatial Option: Inconsistent with spatial strategy Warfield NP Site Assessment and Capacity Study (Annex A) 6 U Land at Garsons Green Belt. Lane / Kingscroft Not strategic policy complaint (CS9) Road, Nuptown and inconsistent with spatial strategy. (Refer Part C) Spatial Option: Inconsistent with spatial strategy V Land off Green Belt. Windmill Hill Not strategic policy complaint