This is what RBWM's "Commitment to the Park" & a "Green School" looks like...

This is what RBWM's "Commitment to the Park" & a "Green School" looks like... 36 hours after a councillor assured residents of their "commitment to the park" they ordered this. 

23 TREES IN BRAYWICK PARK TO BE CHOPPED DOWN TO ALLOW BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL'S "GREEN SCHOOL" CONSTRUCTION WORK

The Braywick Court School website says: "We are a Green School and take our learning outside as often as possible."

TOO BAD THAT TO BUILD A "GREEN SCHOOL" YOU NEED TO FELL 23 TREES TO ENABLE ACCESS TO THE SITE AND FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION. 

(Not to mention that 13 of these trees are also in the Local Wildlife Site).

Details of the proposed construction compound and access for construction traffic to the Braywick Court School site have now been submitted to the Council (CLICK HERE to view - or head to the RBWM planning portal online and search for the Hibbert Road adress). In addition, details of measures to 'protect' the trees adjacent to the site during construction have also been submitted. 

The access to the school from the car park involves the removal of 2 yew trees, 2 holly trees, 2 field maples and the large bay tree in the Nature Centre garden, leaving only 2 yew trees which are to be heavily 'crown lifted' by 4.5m. 

In addition, many of the trees surrounding the site will have their lower branches cut off to raise the canopy (so that HGVs & construction vehicles can drive underneath)  and others will be heavily pruned back away from the school boundary, including the 4 old yew trees to the north of the school. This will result in the building appearing even more overbearing when viewed from the park & the dell, and the local wildlife site below.

IN TOTAL 23 TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL'S DEVELOPMENT AND 13 OF THOSE TREES ARE IN THE LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE.

If you object these trees being chopped down please  CLICK HERE to email all the relevant RBWM staff and Bray Ward councillors. Ask them to commit to protecting these trees, and also ask who will pay for the re-instatement of the Nature Centre Garden.

The Council's own Planning report from July 2016, (which is what councillors read before voting to the approve planning application), does not mention that ANY trees were going to be removed, and the only tree specifically mentioned in the document they said was to be retained 

"6.23 The Box tree [T63] is to be retained." 

However, we now see, according to the Arboricultural Method Statement of Feb 2017 that this tree, the only one mentioned in the report is actually to be chopped down! Along with 22 others. 



So to re-iterate here in simple terms: 

• The RBWM planning report for the Braywick Court School planning application, which is what the councillors rely on for information about the plans (as do the public), before voting on the application DID NOT MENTION THAT ANY TREES WOULD NEED TO BE CUT DOWN.

• IT NOW TRANSPIRES THAT AT LEAST 23 TREES WILL BE CUT DOWN. Also the only tree specifically mentioned in that RBWM planning report is among those to be chopped down, even tough the report says it would be retained!!

Sound familiar? Remember BPET & Braywick Court School's statements to parents & residents that merely "The existing buildings will be refurbished"?

Why does this 'Green School' require so much destruction, the chopping down of so many trees & ruining this area of such a beautiful park?

Why were they not honest from the outset?

We hope our councillors will stand up to BPET & do something to protect the park and all these trees. Please email them using the 'Act Now' button above.

-----

ALSO, THE 'TREE PROTECTION PLANS' WHICH BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL HAS SUBMITTED ARE WRONG.

They do not show the trees to be removed in the Nature Centre Garden nor do they show all the proposed lateral pruning and crown lifting and thus are misleading and misrepresent what is being planned. 

THE DIAGRAMS IN THE SCHOOL'S PLANS ARE INCORRECT AND DO NOT SHOW CORRECTLY HOW MANY, AND WHICH TREES THEY WANT TO REMOVE!

(All you have to do is compare the list of trees to be removed in the appendix with the corresponding trees on the diagram and you can see that it is (accidentally on purpose?) incorrect and makes it look like most of them will be unaffected - trees to be removed should be illustrated with dotted edges but are not.)

So, to make things clearer, here are a couple of corrected images - red circles indicate trees (or groups of several trees) to be chopped down.

Map showing trees to be removed for the construction of Braywick Court School. This image shows the trees in the Nature Centure Garden to be chopped down, in red. The ones in yellow are to be heavily 'crown lifted' to 4.5m (which means any branches up to that height are removed).

-- Another quote from the RBWM Development Control Panel report we now know to be incorrect and misleading:

6.5 Views of the new building would be limited from outside due to the substantial tree cover along the north and east boundaries,from the west due to the existing nature centre building and further trees and vegetation and from the south due to the building’s set back and 2m high brick wall adjacent to Hibbert Road.

Looking at the details of trees to be felled you will see that 5 more tree groups on the Eastern boundary, within the local wildlife site in Braywick Park are to be removed. These are all evergreens that form the bulk of any screening from the road the the listed cottages there. IN TOTAL 10 TREES ARE BEING FELLED ON THIS EASTERN BOUNDARY. You can see them in red in the image above. (Though there are only 6 rings there, some of them represent groups of trees rather than single trees). 

If you know the area then you will understand how important they are for screening of the site and their removal will make this development stand out and be even more visible.

-- And again, another misleading statement from the Council's report before planning permission was approved:

6.39 The closest residential property to the new school is positioned approximately 20m to the east.  Given this separation distance, the orientation of the buildings and the existing tree screening to be retained, together with any additional tree planting considered necessary, it is not considered that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of this property in terms of loss of privacy, loss of light or from the development appearing overbearing.

NOT TRUE! THE EXISTING TREE SCREENING IS NOT TO BE RETAINED. 9 OF THE TREES PROVIDING THAT SCREENING ARE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT!! 

(The small box tree (T79) doesn't really provide screening, but the other 9 do for sure.)

IF THESE 23 TREES ARE ALLOWED TO BE CHOPPED DOWN, ALONG WITH THE EXTREME CROWN LIFTING OF 13 OTHER TREES AND THE CUTTING BACK OF 5 OTHERS THE EFFECT ON THE PARK & THE SURROUNDING AREA WILL BE DEVASTATING. THE BUILDING WILL APPEAR EVEN MORE OVERBEARING ON THE PARK AND THE DELL & LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE BELOW. 

A towering blot on the landscape overwhelming the park, not a sympathetic 'green' building tucked away in the corner.

Here's some photos of some of the trees that will be removed from the front of the Nature Centre garden. (These particular ones are to be chopped down purely so that they can build an access road through it for all the HGVs and construction vehicles because there is no other way to get through to the small site.)

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

More details this week...

Braywick Park Car Park at Hibbert Road could be CLOSED to the Public for well over a Year

Braywick Court School's development within Braywick Park looks like it now may require the use of the whole car park at Hibbert Road for a construction compound for the duration of build phase, which is expected to last well in excess of 12 months.

Nowhere in the Braywick Court School planning application did Bellevue Place Education Trust address construction matters, in particular, where their construction compound would be located and the duration of the build.  As they doggedly pursued building the school on a very small site, they clearly needed land for the contractor's office and building materials.  

Whilst construction impacts are temporary and therefore not a planning matter, the issue of the possible use of the Hibbert Road car park for a construction compound was flagged up in at least one of the objections to the planning application.  

One resident has been asking the Council for over seven months whether part or all of the car park would be handed over to BPET during the construction of the school.  Having never received a response, a FOI request was made and the Council responded on the 18 November as follows:

"Whilst the borough offered some of the car park as a construction storage area the contractor has said he would require a lot more space, possibly all.  This matter is still under discussion therefore, no decision on available space and time duration has been taken."

According to the head teacher, the build will take well in excess of 12 months.

It is considered totally unacceptable for the public to lose the use of most or all of the car park for such a long period of time.  

BPET must have just presumed the council simply would hand over the car park on licence to the Trust.

This once again shows the arrogance of BPET and the Department of Education who have little or no regard or respect for the local area and the users of Braywick Park and the Braywick Nature Centre.

The Council has not been upfront about the potential impacts of the school on Braywick Park.

Please let the Council know your views on the potential loss of the car park for the duration of the construction process. 

Write to Cllr. Samantha Rayner who is lead member for Communities and Culture (which includes parks and open spaces) her email is:

cllr.s.rayner@rbwm.gov.uk

Braywick Court School's contractor has said they may need this whole car park as a construction storage area.

RBWM Planning officer's Report contained FALSE STATEMENTS, significant Omissions & was MISLEADING

The council has just advertised the disposal of a section of land adjacent to the Braywick Nature Centre in Braywick Park - as part of the development we campaigned against. [See below for where to write to object to this!]

One of our many points of objection to the planning application was that the school would be taking over public open space in the park.

The RBWM Planning Officer's report to the Development Control Panel, (to help councillors understand the application & advise on whether to approve or reject it) in response to our concern said, incorrectly "There is No Loss". 

Completely UNTRUE. 

RBWM Council's committee report said there would be no loss of open space for the Braywick Court School development, and now they are advertising that there WILL be loss open space.

We raised the point that open space would be lost as one of our objections, but the Council Planning Officer's report said there would be none. Only 3 months later they are handing over this public land.

People should rightly object to this loss of open space.

Objections to the intended disposal must be made in writing and submitted to Emma-Jane Brewerton, Lawyer, Select Business Services: Legal Solutions, Wokingham Borough Council, Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham, Berks, RG40 1BN by no later than 3 November 2016

Excerpt of the Planning Officer's Report to the Development Control Panel

Notice of Disposal in this week's Maidenhead Advertiser

The area in red is the section of land, adjacent to the Nature Centre to be 'disposed of' which will become part of the footprint of Braywick Court School.

Was the planning report deliberately misleading and deceptive?

Is using a site only 20% the size of a normal Primary School for Braywick Court a good idea?

A site 20% the size of other Primary Schools in the area. 

Completely inadequate playground Space. 

How long until the School applies to use more of the Park when they realise how cramped it is? 

What happens when the parents of 210 pupils no longer use the Car Park 500m away and instead take over the Nature Centre Car Park, and access via the narrow Hibbert Road? 

What happens to the Park - and the people who like to use it but no longer have access?

Did the parents that were persuaded to sign up their kids to Braywick Court School know it would mean possibly 3 years at Ellington/Riverside instead?

Does RBWM care?

BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL PLANNING APPLICATION INCLUDES PROPOSAL FOR SINGLE/DOUBLE YELLOW LINES ON HIBBERT ROAD

BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL PLANNING APPLICATION INCLUDES PROPOSAL FOR SINGLE/DOUBLE YELLOW LINES ON HIBBERT ROAD Hidden away in the pages of the new planning application are proposals to introduce parking restrictions (i.e. single or even double yellow lines) along Hibbert Road, from The Causeway all the way until the junction with A308/Braywick Road. None of this was mentioned in the School's 'Public Exhibition' in January, or is mentioned in any of the promotional material about the application. It has effectively been hidden. The School's Transport Assessment in para 4.10 (see photos attached) says this is 'an additional safeguard against parent/carer parking' that 'is a suggestion made by residents'. We are interested to see (and have requested) any documents where residents would suggest this - as many of us from the area need to park our cars on Hibbert Road (and always have done, long before Braywick Court School ever existed.) If Braywick Court School's Travel Plan & 'Home School Agreement' is as 'robust' as claimed, then all parents/carers will use the 'Park & Stride' car park by Braywick Sports Ground. That is the key promise which the Travel Plan hinges on, and the School's only, (and unenforceable) answer to residents' concerns about all the extra traffic, access & parking problems a school of this size, on this site will create. Concerns which were shared by the Highway Development Control when they recommended the previous application be refused permission, which led to its withdrawal. So which one is it? Will all parents access the school & park where the school promises they will, forever, or will they want to to park on Hibbert Road? Sounds like the School admitting its travel plan is completely unenforceable. Which is what we've always said. Will there be similar restrictions in the Nature Reserve Car Park? No, there can't be, and there is no way of legally preventing parents from dropping off their children there. So why restrictions on Hibbert Road - which only really affect residents? Is this a cheap attempt at 'payback' against residents that have complained about the previous planning application? Did they expect anyone to even notice? Why wasn't this part of the proposal made clear at the exhibition? What else is hidden in the pages of the new application? Maybe this is just a set-up gambit so that RBWM can remove the idea of these particular restrictions as a 'concessionary' condition when the application goes to panel so they can be seen to have supposedly listened to residents' concerns?