At least 23 Trees to be chopped down for Braywick Court School Construction

More details this week...

Initial Thoughts & Questions on the new Proposals

We're still having a good look at the new proposals & will post more thoughts officially here once we've had a chance to discuss fully as a group.

First impressions are that it looks like all the same HUGE issues relating to the Travel Plan, Traffic, Access & Parking remain. [Remember the Highway Development Control recommended the original plans be refused based on its size & those same issues - pupil numbers and the site's location are unchanged in these plans so the situation is the same].

We ARE relieved to see plans to use the Nature Centre & build directly on the Park itself have been shelved (although issues of overdevelopment on the site and impact on the Green Belt in various ways remain), so if the Council, their friends at Bellevue Place Education Trust & the School manage to keep bulldozing this scheme forward at least we managed to prevent them doing that. For now at least...

Just a few common-sense questions that pop up:

What happens in the future when the 'travel plan' (which seems to be pivotal in the plans, despite the key elements remaining unchanged from the first planning application) is forgotten & not enforced, but the damage is already done & the buildings built, and parents dropping off and parking in the Hibbert Road Car park, or on Hibbert Road (and the pavement as they have sometimes before) itself?

How do the developers propose to gain access to the site during all the demolition and construction work, if it goes ahead? How much will this damage & disrupt the formal gardens at Braywick Park & the surrounding area, how will all the heavy machinery access the site?

What was the other permanent site that was investigated and why is that not being considered? Or being made public? (When school representatives were asked this at the exhibition some members of the public were told, and others were not. Is the School and BPET telling prospective parents one thing, and residents another? The same goes for the Councillors taking an interest in the issue. Are we being deliberately misled?)

How many of the parents that signed up their kids to the School in the beginning were told that the original School buildings were "out of date, do not meet modern teaching standard requirements and are inefficient in design and had to be replaced" (rather than simply "will be refurbished" as the official school promotion documents said? Again - deliberately misleading statements. Why should we trust them to stick to travel plan promises in the future, for example?).

If the current buildings are "out of date, do not meet modern teaching standard requirements and are inefficient in design & have to be replaced" then why was the site selected for the school in the first place? Why was this hidden from parents and residents at the start?

What happens in the future when the obviously inadequate playground size (with inadequate punctuation!) leads to an application to expand out and 'lease' more land from the Park? Did they already ask for this before at the very beginning?

Has the council leased additional Public Open Space land to the School/Trust over and above the land leased in July 2014? (The plans show a red line extending out into the Public Open Space by the Nature Centre.)

Is a modern, glass fronted, 2 storey, yellow brick, flat-roofed building in keeping with the local setting? (The area is dominated by red brick buildings, some of which date back to the 1700s & are Grade II listed).

Planning Application Withdrawn

The planning application has been withdrawn by Braywick Court School/BPET.

Hopefully the School & Bellevue Place Education Trust, their backers have found an alternative site, or a 'split site' solution that won't involve building on the formal Gardens at Braywick Park, taking over the Nature Centre, the Green Belt issues, the overdevelopment on the existing site, the highways, traffic & parking problems & doesn't have such a big, negative impact on Braywick Park & the surrounding area. 

We're not against a smaller school, or part of a split site school on the Winbury site so will be interested to see what comes next.

More news when we have it.

Highways Authorities recommend that Planning Permission is REFUSED.

The official Highway Development Control comments have been submitted today and we're pleased to see that they recommend REFUSAL of the planning application.

Hopefully our RBWM Councillors will read the document, all the letters of objection they have received, and the petition signed by 200+ residents, other recommendations for refusal by Bray Parish Council & the Flood Authority, and take them into account when the application is put to the vote.

You can download the original document if you click here (or here) or read it below.

All of the planning documents, the Bray Parish Council's comments (also recommending refusal) and 100+ letters of objection can be downloaded from the RBWM website here.

Site Location

Hibbert Road is a local distributor that provides an alternative link between the A308 Braywick Road and the B3022 Bray Road. The road is also subjected to a 30mph speed limit.

Between its junction with the A308 Braywick Road and the entrance to the Braywick Car Park, Hibbert Road has footways along both sides of the road. However, there is only a single footway on the south side of Hibbert Road running between the car park entrance and The Causeway.

There are no pedestrian facilities along Hibbert Road from The Causeway towards the B3022 Bray Road. To the west of the school there are no pedestrian crossing facilities across the A308 Braywick Road for parents who wish to walk to the school.

The site comprises the school, formerly known as Winbury Primary School and Braywick Nature Reserve and car park.

The school is currently served by an existing access located to the south east of the site that offers wholly restricted views in both directions due to the absence of a footpath and the horizontal alignment of Hibbert Road. The proposed plan shows the retention of this access. However, given the limited views offered the Highway Authority recommend that this access is closed.

Access to the new school will be via Braywick Road car park and through double gates located north-west of the site boundary.

Access by Service Vehicles

The submission includes a swept path analysis of a small refuse vehicle manoeuvring to and from the site. As we understand RBWM Waste Management only collects recycling materials from the school and this undertaken by the small vehicle depicted in the plan.

Unfortunately, the submission again is silent on what provisions have been made to collect not only waste materials, but also the recycling materials when the number of pupils reaches 210. The plan excludes details of the waste/recycling storage facility, but infers that a waste vehicle will enter the car park and collect the waste from the main entrance. The distance between a refuse vehicle stationed in the car park and the main entrance exceeds the current guidelines detailed below:

BS 5906:2005 recommends that waste operatives should not be expected to move two- wheeled containers more than 15m between collection point and vehicle, and four-wheeled containers no more than 10m. Collection vehicles must be able to wait legally within 15 metres of all dustbin/sack collection points and within 10 metres of bulk bin collection points.

With reference to the Proposed Site Plan [6APES072/P/050.011 Rev 10] the distance between a vehicle parked in the car park and the main entrance gates exceeds 40m.

Parking Requirements

The previous school and the proposed site offers no off street parking facility. However, as part of the lease agreement 8 parking spaces in the Braywick car park will be given over to the school for staff and disabled users.

With reference to the Authority’s parking standard the new school attracts a parking demand of 1 space per 1 full-time equivalent staff, which includes visitors and parents.

Provisions should also be made either within the school premises or on the highway for a loading area for a school bus/coach and where necessary sufficient space allowed for buses to enter and leave the site safely.

Based upon the submission the servicing arrangement will take place within Braywick Car Park. Unfortunately, the application is silent with regard to whether a bus or coach will be used by the school and whether the appropriate provisions are in place for this.

From a historical context the Highway Authority has received complaints about inconsiderate parking along Hibbert Road, when the former Winbury School operated with 90 pupils. The consequence of some parents parking partly on the footway/carriageway and generally on the carriageway close to the school effectively reduced the free flow of traffic in the area, resulting in sections of Hibbert Road reverting to a one way operation.

Braywick Car Park was not only used by dog walkers and visitors to the nature reserve, but also by parents. The car park currently provides circa 44 spaces which will reduce to about 36 spaces as a consequence of the application.

Traffic Generation

The applicant has undertaken a ‘Mode of Transport to School’ survey for the current school year containing circa 27 pupils. These results when adjusted to reflect the mode of transport for a school with the 210 pupils suggest that 84% of parents will travel by car or taxi, 10% walking to school, and 5% travelling by cycle and scooter.

The Highway Authority is of the view that given the limited opportunities for parents and pupil to travel by foot or cycle, car borne trips are likely to be in the 90% range. The survey was undertaken during September 2014 when the weather conditions are inviting and would attract some parents who would consider adopting other modes of travel. Clearly a more balanced result would have been to undertake a similar survey during the winter months.

Park and Stride

The applicant states that a majority of the pupils will be accessing the school via the purpose built footpath from the ‘Park & Stride’ drop-off point at Braywick Sports and Recreational Ground, and those parents that do drive into Braywick Nature Reserve Car Park will effectively be turned away and asked to use the Braywick Sports Ground. We question how this can be enforced since this is a public car park which the applicant has no control over its use. A further complication is that parents are permitted to park in the Nature Reserve Car Park out of normal school hours.
Presently, there are no restrictions preventing parents from parking in the Nature Reserve Car Park at any time during the day or on Hibbert Road, when dropping-off or picking -up their children.

The submission fails to acknowledge that there will be seasonal variations in the numbers choosing the Park & Stride option, and especially during inclement weather conditions.
Presently, the purpose built path is unlit and can hardly be considered an inviting prospect for parents and staff parked in the Sport Ground during the autumn and winter period. The Highway Authority understands that concerns have also been raised about the adequacy of the access road to the ‘Park & Stride’ and that this would be a further deterrent to parents and staff.

No measures are proposed in the Transport Assessment to address servicing arrangement, the increase traffic generation nor does it acknowledge that these trips will vary significantly during the seasons.

The School Travel Plan (STP) accompanying the submission states that,
‘Parking on Hibbert Road, Gas Lane or The Causeway is not permitted for school traffic at any time’. To reiterate there are no restrictions preventing parents from parking in these areas.
The STP states that 8 staff and parents using the Early Birds and Evening Owls club will be issued a parking permit. As explained earlier this is a public car park.

The plan also mentions introducing incentive schemes to encourage walking and cycling by staff and parents.

At this point we should mention that the purpose of a School Travel Plan is to encourage parents, visitors and staff to adopt other modes of transport, thereby reducing the dependency on car borne trips. However, there are occasions whereby despite the introduction of the improved measures/incentives, the site location, the traffic conditions and the highway infrastructure is so poor there has not been a commensurate reduction in traffic levels.

Whilst we accept that there may be a number of shared trips and siblings already in attendance at the school, the increase nevertheless is significant and would further increase vehicular activity into the area, short term and ad hoc parking as well as inconsiderate parking on Hibbert Road and parking in Braywick Nature Reserve Car Park.

Much is mentioned about incentivising the parents and staff and introducing an Action Plan with agreed targets and objectives set out in the STP. However, may I remind the applicant that the STP should not be viewed as the panacea for addressing the potential increase in traffic generation and parking associated with this scheme.

The National Planning Policy Framework states,
‘Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the
residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.

This proposal would lead to a significant increase in vehicular activity into the area. For this and the reasons mentioned above it is our conclusion that the site does not lend itself to further expansion beyond that already permitted. Therefore, we recommend that permission is refused.

HDC Officer: M D Andrews
Date: 30 July 2015

"Councils Must Protect our precious Green Belt Land" - RBWM are you listening?

On the 4th October the Department for Communities & Local Government, Brandon Lewis MP & The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP published a press release and new guidance to encourage Councils to protect their Green Belt Land.

Click here to read the press release. Click here to read the 'new guidance'.

The Maidenhead Advertiser also covered the story below (although it's not strictly correct - the National Planning Policy Framework IS POLICY - what they amended on 4 Oct was the 'guidance').

Here's a few quotes from this government press release:

"Councils must protect our precious Green Belt Land" 

RBWM are you paying close attention?

"Councils should consider how they will protect and preserve important sites in their area, especially green belt sites." 

- Brandon Lewis (Minister of State for Housing and planning)

RBWM have already gone ahead with the new Oldfield School development on Green Belt land nearby, despite strong opposition, and Councillors are promoting the plans to build on Braywick Park (which is Green Belt) in the local press.

"This government has been very clear that when planning for new buildings, protecting our precious green belt must be paramount. Local people don’t want to lose their countryside to urban sprawl, or see the vital green lungs around their towns and cities to unnecessary development." 

- Eric Pickles (Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government) - Oct 6 2014

Will the Council please listen to this guidance FROM THE GOVERNMENT and protect our Green Belt? AND NOT BUILD ON GREEN BELT LAND IN BRAYWICK PARK!? 

They've already gone ahead & granted the lease & disposed of public open space in July, behind closed doors, before advertising the disposal to the public - encouraging a 'consultation' which was irrelevant as the lease had already been signed! 

They didn't even advertise the disposal properly, and failed to mention until afterwards, when questioned, that they had already signed the lease. 

Democratic? 

A consultation that comes after the decision has already been made isn't really a consultation is it? 

The Maidenhead advertiser are doing a poll on the general subject of protecting the green belt this week - might be worth a click:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/POLL-Is-enough-being-done-to-protect-the-greenbelt-09102014.htm

Shame on the RBWM Council

THE LEASE OF 'PUBLIC OPEN SPACE' HAD ALREADY BEEN SIGNED - LONG BEFORE THEY EVEN ADVERTISED THE NOTICE FOR ITS DISPOSAL!!

Four weeks ago we noticed that the Council had made a mistake in not advertising the notice to dispose of open space at Braywick Park for two consecutive weeks and therefore the Council had to start the process a second time. 

Local residents & users of Braywick Park again took pen to paper to object to the loss of the open space, in particular the apple orchard which is the only grassed, dog free area in the whole of Braywick Park. The improvements to the apple orchard as well as the area immediately outside the Nature Centre were carried out only 2 to 3 years ago when the Council received funding through Groundwork South and Britvic. 

Now we find the advertising of the notice was all a sham as the Council had already signed the lease on the 3rd July! (The lease which covers the former Winbury School buildings, the buildings formerly leased to Winbury School and the open space).

(Confirmation received from Emma-Jane Brewerton of Shared Legal Solutions - who we wrote to with objections, and also reported here in an article in the Maidenhead Advertiser.)

According to the March Cabinet Report (click here to read)

" 2.8 The area of land between the two buildings (C) is currently designated Public Open Space. This will become enclosed and will be for the sole use of the school. The public will be consulted on the loss of the Public Open Space. Consultation will occur through the local media. Any objections to the proposed disposal must be considered in accordance with s123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972. If this part of the site is used for the purposes of school playing field in the future it may fall under the protection afforded to school playing fields and restrict future use.(The DfE definition of playing fields currently includes hardplay spaces)." 

Didn't happen.

"14.1 Braywick Court School has carried out its own consultations with the public. Prior to disposal of the open space RBWM has to advertise notice of intention to dispose of the land in question in accordance with s123 Local Government Act 1972 (as detailed para 5.4 above). "

You already know what we think about the School's 'public consultation'. (Read about it here).

OK, so they did advertise it - BUT ONLY AFTER THEY'D ALREADY GONE AHEAD AND GRANTED THE LEASE ANYWAY... Yay Democracy!(?)

There appears to be a conscious decision on the part of the Council to push through Braywick Court School without any regard to legislative procedures which require the Council to advertise its intention to dispose of the public open space and consider any objections before making its decision.

By not following the correct procedure, the Council has caused an injustice to all those residents who value Braywick Park and its open space.

The residents of Maidenhead deserve better governance from their officers and councillors.

Looks like the Council had forgotten and officers were going through the motions in the hope that residents wouldn't realise the lease had already been signed. Why didn't the council simply put their hands up and say they had made a mistake?

We want an explanation from Councillor Burbage & RBMW's Managing director, Mr. McGaughrin as to why the council granted the lease on 3 July despite the fact that:

- It did not advertise its intention to dispose of the public open space & consider any objections before making its decision 

- It did not consider the need for public open space within the locality when making the decision to dispose of the land.

We still have had no response from any member of the Council on these matters (although Cllr. Dudley HAS been helpful and communicative so far on a few other issues relating to the School, and Ann Pfeiffer has also replied to some of our questions).

However, it continues to look like there's been some pretty underhand, undemocratic stuff going on here... 

The public were not consulted, and the objections were not considered. 

RBWM went ahead and granted the leases without notifying anyone. As they are required to do.

Is this whats going to happen again when the planning application (eventually) gets submitted? 

The one which involves building on the green belt in the middle of Braywick Park? 

Is anyone in the Council going to listen to local residents and users of the park who are against this? Can we believe they will follow the rules when it gets to that point? So far, it would appear that they haven't... 

The same document containing the rules they've already broken contains this section. Maybe they will just grant that lease too? Who cares about planning permission anyway...

"2.7 The Free school will apply for planning permission for any extension to the existing school building and for the new Nature Centre. The latter will be on the basis of drawings and a specification prepared by RBWM. Only if planning permission is granted will the lease for the Braywick Nature Centre be entered into."