RBWM Residents Action Group Needs your Support

Please read these flyers & head over to www.rbwmresidentsactiongroup.co.uk for more info.

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.)

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?

Bray Parish Council RECOMMENDS REFUSAL of latest plans.

Bray Parish Council have recommended that the latest Braywick Court School plans be refused, a step in the right direction! 

Reasons cited in their comments are "GB1 Impact/intensification on the Green Belt & GB2 Overdevelopment of the plot, highway & traffic issues as inadequate parking/access". 

Most councillors seemed to share our concerns & the vote was 7-3 in favour of refusal. Cllr Dudley left the room and did not vote, and Cllr Burbage was mysteriously absent during discussions/vote, but arrived immediately afterwards according to the Maidenhead Advertiser. He still hasn't responded to our messages on twitter asking if he would vote.

Thank you to the councillors who attended & took the time to properly look at the plans & understand all the issues at play. 

As was mentioned at the meeting, this is not about the school itself - it is about *these* plans, on *this* specific site. There are 2 or 3 alternative, larger, much more suitable sites incredibly close by, also in the Braywick area that need to be seriously considered & so far have not. 

More details to follow.

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?

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).

Bray Parish Planning Meeting - Monday 1st June 7:30pm at Braywood Memorial Hall, Fifield

Please come and attend the Bray Parish Planning Meeting on Monday 1st June at 7:30pm at the Braywood Memorial Hall, Fifield.

We need as many people as possible to attend if we want our voice to be heard.

We have written a letter to Bray Parish Council councillors asking them to recommend to the District Council that the planning application for the school to be refused for all the planning reasons that we have raised so far, and also to request the District Council to look again at alternatives.

We have also stated that residents are unhappy about the manner in which the Council has promoted the scheme since the cabinet report in March 2014.

CLICK HERE to read our letter to the Parish Council Councillors

PLEASE ACT NOW: OBJECT TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION

WE NEED YOUR HELP! PLEASE WRITE AND OBJECT TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION!

Braywick Court School and their backers BPET have finally submitted their planning application. All the (complicated) files can be read on the RBWM website CLICK HERE. 

Objections need to be submitted to the council by 31st May.

Please email your objections (include your postal address in the email) to planning.maidenhead@rbwm.gov.uk - include reference: 15/00801/FULL

You can also send your objection letter to RBWM Planning, Town Hall, St. Ives Rd, Maidenhead, SL6 1RF - include reference: 15/00801/FULL

Please write your letter in your own words & don't just copy and paste exact wording from this site.

Please note that some objections are invalid such as: "The development adversely affects my view / would have an adverse effect on property values / the construction would cause disturbance."

We have put together some detailed notes on specific points which you may find helpful when making your representation to the Council regarding the application (luckily some of us know about planning laws!). 

Apologies for the length of the article, but there are just so many issues with the planning application that are completely contrary to planning policy, and factual errors in there too - that it's important to point them out and fight this!

Most importantly write about the issues that you care about most.

Valid planning objections include the following:

1.     The proposed development is contrary to national or local planning policy etc.;

         Below, various objections are listed together with the policy reference from either the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or the saved policies from RBWM's Local Plan (LP).  The parking standards in the Local Plan have been superseded by Parking Strategy, 2004.

2.     The proposed development adversely affects the openness of the Green Belt.

     -   NPPF states in para. 79: 'The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.' 

     - LP Policy GB2 states that new development will not be permitted if it has a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than existing development on the site,

 

   -     The openness of the green belt would be adversely affected due to:

* the massing and height of the proposed development and its position close to the boundary wall;

* the need to replace the Nature Centre with a new building within the formal gardens;

* the proposed enclosure of the school site with 1.8 metre high weld mesh fencing

     - The proposed development is therefore contrary to national and local planning policy.

        

         The proposed development is an inappropriate development within the green belt;

     -   The NPPF in para. 90 states that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this include:

• Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;

• The extension or alterations of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

• The replacement of a building, provided that the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

• Limited infilling or the partial complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development”.

     -   Similarly LP Policy GB2 states: Permission will not be granted for new development or the redevelopment, change of use, or replacement of existing buildings within the green belt if it would:

A) have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt or the purposes of including land in it than an existing development on the site;

B) harm the character of the countryside because of:

1) the scale, siting or design of the development or the materials employed; or

2) a material intensification in the level of activity on the site; or

3) a material increase in the scale of development on the site; or

5) harm to residential amenities in the locality; or

6) conflict with any other policies of the plan.

 

 -       In the Planning Statement, the applicant makes the following extraordinary comment:

         'The NPPF confirms that the re-use of buildings (paragraph 90), the infill of brownfield sites, appropriate extension or alterations of a building and provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation (paragraph 89) are not inappropriate development. For these elements, there is no need to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ for planning permission to be granted.'

        

     -   These comments clearly disregard the caveats that any extension should not be disproportionately bigger than the original building, the replacement building should not be materially larger than the one it replaces, and the limited infilling would not have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt.   The new school development is almost 10 times bigger in terms of overall floorspace and the footprint is 7 times larger, and the building is over 2 metres higher than either the Nature Centre or the school buildings and is very close to the road.  The bulk and massing of the proposed development therefore has a significant adverse impact on the openness of the green belt.   

     -   The proposed new development is clearly inappropriate development in the green belt.  In terms of the very special circumstances set out by the applicant, it is stated that there is an educational need for the school and cites the Council's 10 Year School Expansion Programme.  The applicant also stated that there was a demand for places at Braywick Court School for 2015/2016.  The applicant also set out a number of alternative sites that had been considered but the preferred location was the Hibbert Road site.  

     -   However, no need has been put forward for the school for 210 pupils to be specifically located on the Hibbert Road site.  The school could be located anywhere in the Maidenhead area (though why 7 of the 11 sites looked at were in Slough is not explained…).   The applicant did not consider the possibility of a split site which has been advocated by local residents.  The fact that DFE (or EFA) can basically take control of any former educational site is considered the sole factor in the selection of this site.

     -   Para. 87 of the NPPF states:  'As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.'  And para. 88 states:  'When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.'

    -    It is not considered that very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of the inappropriateness of the development and other harm.  

    - The proposed development is therefore contrary to national and local planning policy.       

3.     The proposed development is likely to cause traffic problems such as increased traffic generation, access or safety problems;

     -   Para. 35 of the NPPF states that 'developments should be located and designed where practical to:

• accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;

• give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;

• create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones;

• consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.'

    

     -   RBWM LP Policy DG1 (Design Guidelines) states inter alia:

7) developments should provide adequate off street parking for vehicles and cycles in

     accordance with the Borough Council's adopted standards as set out in appendix 7. Such

     provision should be well landscaped and lend itself to a reasonable degree of surveillance;

8) development should provide adequate vehicle access, (including access for refuse collection and emergency vehicles), loading and unloading facilities and circulation space within the site as appropriate;

9) the traffic generated by the proposed development should not have an unacceptable effect on the local road network and the environment of the locality.

     -   RBWM's Parking Strategy 2004 states in para. 9.10.2:  Bus/coach loading and waiting areas either on the premises or on the highway will be required for most new schools and tertiary education facilities. Sufficient space should be reserved to allow buses to enter and leave the site safely.

  -      The Transport Assessment and the School Travel Plan (as well as the Planning Statement) all totally ignore the fact that Park and Stride is not working with just 30 pupils and will certainly not work with 210 pupils.  The Kiss and Drop scheme works at the moment but will become progressively more problematic as pupil numbers increase gradually to 210.  There is no information regarding the impact of increased traffic generation on Hibbert Road, the possibility of queuing out onto Hibbert Road, and concomitant road safety matters.    However, the intensification in the level of activity on the site and the substantial increase in traffic generation on Hibbert Road would have an unacceptable effect on the local road network and the environment of the area, giving serious concerns for road safety.  

     -   The application site itself cannot accommodate the delivery of goods and services - vehicles would be required to drive through the public car park to gain access to the school.  This would increase conflict between traffic and pedestrians in a well used public car park and would cause noise and disturbance to users of the formal gardens.

     -   Refuse collection is carried out on the public highway as there is no access into the site. The bin is left on the kerb so I suspect the Grundon Waste Management vehicle empties there.  Has anyone seen the bin emptied to confirm this? Collection is on a Wednesday I think.

        

     -   There is no mention in the Transport Assessment of where the occasional bus/coach parking will take place. 

     - The proposed development is therefore contrary to national and local planning policy. 

4.    The proposed development is not in keeping with the scale or character of the local area; The layout and density of the proposed development is inappropriate;

     -   The NPPF in para. 58 states that developments should “respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation.”  

     -   LP Policy DG 1 (Design Guidelines) states inter alia:  '

         3)the design of new buildings should be compatible with the established street façade having regard to the scale, height and building lines of adjacent properties….

         11) harm should not be caused to the character of the surrounding area through development which is cramped, or which results in the loss of important features which contribute to that character.'

 

   -     It is proposed to demolish a building with a footprint of 71m² and replace it with one of 514m².    The footprint of the proposed development is therefore over 7 times bigger than that of the existing building.     

        

     -   The total floorpsace within the new building is 762m² which is 10 times bigger than the one it replaces.

     -   The height of the existing school building to be retained is approximately 8 metres and the ridge line is located well over 25 metres from the boundary wall.  The height of the school building to be demolished is 5.7 metres and the ridge line is approximately 18 metres from the boundary wall. 

        

     -   The ridge of the Nature Centre roof is 5.77 metres, and height to the eaves is just over 3 metres.  

        

     -   The proposed new building is 9.77 metres to the ridge and a little over 6 metres to the eaves.  The ridge line is about 5.5 metres from the boundary wall, and the southern facade of the building is just 2 metres from the boundary wall at its closest point (which is near the Nature Centre). 

     -   Clearly the proposed new building is not compatible with the scale of existing buildings on the site (the school building or the Nature Centre) or in the vicinity of the application site.    

         As the proposed new development is far closer to the street, it will be overpowering in terms of mass and height.

     -   The development is extremely cramped which again is out of character on Hibbert Road.  (Note that the proposed north and south elevations and Hibbert Road elevation are not accurate.)

     -   In terms of design, the Nature Centre dates back to Victorian times  whilst the school is early 1800's; the height, massing, and design of the proposed building  are not in keeping with the style/character of these buildings.

     - The development is therefore contrary to national and local planning policy. 

5.     The proposed development will have negative impact on the amenity of another property, through noise, overlooking, overshadowing, loss of privacy, etc.

     -   The NPPF in para. 59 states: Local planning authorities should consider using design codes where they could help deliver high quality outcomes. However, design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally.

     -   LP Policy GB2 states: Permission will not be granted for new development or the redevelopment, change of use, or replacement of existing buildings within the green belt if it would:

B) harm the character of the countryside because of: (inter alia)  

5) harm to residential amenities in the locality;

 

     -   There are clearly issues of noise, overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly with respect to the Well House, Malvern House, Braywick Lodge, The Coach House, and  xx.  Please write your objections from your point of view.

     -   The proposed development is therefore contrary to national and local planning policy. 

6.     The proposed development provides insufficient parking/reduces the amount of car parking available;

     - LP Policy P4 states: The Borough Council will require all development proposals to provide car parking in accordance with the adopted standards as set out in appendix 7. (This has been superseded by Parking Strategy 2004 which states that the maximum required is 1 space per 1 full time equivalent.)

         LP POLICY P5 states: …… In all cases, on site operational car parking will be required.

     - The planning application site contains three distinct  areas, one of which is within the car park (the other two are the school site itself and the new area for the Nature Centre).  This site can accommodate only 8 cars which is not adequate for 8 teachers and 16 part time staff (full time equivalent is not provided on the planning application form.)    If the 'dedicated car parking' by the Maidenhead Target Shooting Club is a key part of the school's Travel Plan, then it should be included in the application site.

     - The lease of 8 car parking spaces to the school reduces the number of spaces available for the general public. 

        

     -   From the notes of the March Travel Working Party, the Head Teacher is trying to work out whether staff could use the Emperor of India car park or whether they would use the 'dedicated car park' by Maidenhead Target Shooting Club.  This matter is not addressed in the Transport Assessment or the School Travel Plan. 

     -   It is considered that given the lack of car parking on site, the failure of the Park and Stride scheme after only 3 months, the need for delivery vehicles and waste collection vehicles to travel through the car park, etc. there are firm grounds on which to speculate that the Hibbert Road car park would eventually be taken over by the school, were the development permitted.    This would represent a significant loss for members of the public who currently use and enjoy Braywick Park. 

     -   The proposed development is therefore contrary to local planning policy. 

7      The proposed development would impact the setting of listed buildings;

     -   The terrace of five cottages opposite the school building are Grade 2 Listed Buildings.

        

     -   The NPPF states in para 129: Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.  

 -       LP Policy LB2 states: The Borough Council will have special regard to the reservation of listed buildings and their settings and will (inter alia):

         5) ensure that development proposals do not adversely affect the grounds and/or setting of listed buildings.

   -     There is no site section showing the impact of the new development on the listed cottages.  The closest representation is the modelled view from The Causeway immediately adjacent to Rose Cottage.    Mike Alcock had requested a site section back in October/November but it was never provided and does not form part of the planning application.

   

 -       The proposed development is therefore contrary to national and local planning policy. 

8.     The proposed development includes insufficient landscaping and will result in significant loss of trees;

         The NPPF in para. 58 states that planning decisions 'should aim to ensure that developments (inter alia):

·  are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.'

     -   LP Policy N6 states: The Borough Council will, where appropriate, require applications for new development to:

1) submit a detailed tree survey as part of a planning application wherever existing trees are a feature of the site. Plans for new development should, wherever practicable, allow for the retention of existing suitable trees;

3) include an appropriate tree planting and landscaping scheme where the amenity value of trees outweighs the justification for development, planning permission may be refused.

    

     - The plans show a plethora of proposed new trees on site; however, it is very doubtful that 37 'large ornamental structure trees' would be planted on the school site, together with 12 fruit trees and three Scots pines of equivalent size to the existing yew trees.   A realistic landscaping scheme should be submitted so that the impact on the adjacent formal gardens can be assessed.

     -   The development involves the loss of the three yew trees plus two field maples and the two apple trees in the 'orchard'.    The yew trees would be replaced with an equivalent number and size of pinus sylvestris (Scots Pine).     The landscaping plans suggest that there will be 'proposed large ornamental structure trees' - 21 along the northern and western boundary and a further 16 on the southeastern boundary.   The plans show that the yew tree just outside the application site by the notice board would need to be pruned.  In addition, it is likely that the two holly trees by the northern boundary would also need to be pruned in order to get construction vehicles (tipper lorries, cement mixers, etc.) into the site. 

     -  The proposed development is contrary to national and local planning policy.

9.     The proposed development would damage the natural environment

         The NPPF in para. 109 states: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

·  protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

·  recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

·  minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible

         LP Policy N9 states:  In considering development proposals affecting local nature reserves and wildlife heritage sites, the council will have particular regard to the need to protect natural features and the availability of mitigation measures. Measures will be required to safeguard and enhance wildlife heritage sites included within any development proposals.

     - The application site is virtually adjacent to the Dell which forms part of the Local Nature Reserve, a statutory designation; the Dell is also a Local Wildlife Site though this does not have statutory designation.    The impact of noise and disturbance from 210 pupils may be addressed in the Ecology report but that is not available on the Council's website. (At least I haven't found it.)

     -   The application does not address where the pupils will play.  This past year, the pupils have been seen playing in the Dell.  Whilst the possibility of future impacts is not a valid planning objection, it is considered that there are legitimate concerns that an increasing number of children would  use the Dell; this would have an adverse impact on the LNR through noise and disturbance.   

     - There is no information on where the pupils would play other than in the insufficient spaces outside the classrooms.  RBWM stated in the Educational Case and Site Options Assessment May 2013 that the Building Bulletin 99 (2nd Edition) - Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects provides guidance on the number, type and size of spaces required for new school buildings and outdoor space.  For a primary school with an intake of 30 pupils (total 210 pupils), the likely site size is 9,592m² .   The site area of the proposed school is 2653m² , which is  only 28% of the recommended size.  Free schools however do not need to meet the standards expected of local authority controlled schools.    

     - It is considered that given the lack of open space, there are legitimate concerns that there will be pressure on the formal gardens for play space which would have an adverse impact on the environmental quality of these gardens which are well used by members of the public - and not just by dog walkers. 

     -   The proposed development is contrary to national and local planning policy.

10.  The proposed development would result in the loss of open space in Braywick Park which is important to the visual and environmental quality of the area.

     -   LP Policy R1 states: The Council will not approve proposals which would result in the loss of existing areas of important urban open land identified on the proposals map, and other areas of open space which are important to the visual and environmental quality of urban areas unless:

         1) they are replaced by new provision which is at least comparable in terms of facilities, amenity and location; or

         2) they can best be retained and enhanced through the redevelopment of a small part of the site.

         The above exceptions will not apply to land which is considered by the council to be of irreplaceable amenity value and, in any other case, the council will expect to be satisfied that a retention of the entire site for recreation or community use is not feasible.

     - The development involves the loss of open space around the Nature Centre which is to be taken over by the school and the loss of open space where the replacement Nature Centre is proposed to be located.   The formal gardens are well used by the public (not just dog walkers).  The visual and environmental quality of the formal gardens would be adversely affected by the massing and height of the new school development together with the 1.8 metres high weld mesh fence along the northern boundary, as well as by the proposed log cabin structure for the replacement Nature Centre.   The existing buildings on the site (with the exception of the single story school hall) date back to the 19th century.

     - It is considered that given the lack of play space within the application for the school, there are legitimate concerns that there will be pressure on the formal gardens for play space which would have an adverse impact on the environmental quality of these gardens which are well used by members of the public - and not just by dog walkers. 

     -   The proposed development is contrary to local planning policy.

11.  The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the Green Way recreational route

     - LP Policy R14 states: The Borough Council will safeguard and enhance the public rights of way network and recreational cycle routes. In particular the Borough Council will:

         2) support the establishment of the Green Way recreational route between Cookham and Bray as shown on the Proposals Map, through:

         (i) signposting and promoting the use of the green way for walkers and, where appropriate, cyclists;

         (ii) making the route accessible to the elderly, disabled and people with prams or pushchairs by removing steps and stiles;   

         (iii) resisting proposals which would prejudice the route or detract from users' enjoyment of it;

         (iv) encouraging improved access and landscape enhancement to areas adjoining the route.

         3) support the development of circular walks especially where these enhance the recreational value of the Green Way and/or the Thames Path.

     -   The following aspects of the proposed development would detract from users's enjoyment of the Green Way:

*  increased pedestrian/vehicular conflict due to an increase in vehicular movements (cars and delivery lorries) within the Hibbert Road car park through which the Green Way passes;

*  increased pedestrian/vehicular conflict due to an increase in vehicular movements (delivery vehicles and possibly waste collection vehicles) along the Green Way itself where it runs along the northern boundary of the school site to the entrance to the school;

* increased traffic generation on Hibbert Road alongside which the Green Way follows from the Hibbert Road car park to The Causeway;

* noise and disturbance from a 210 pupil school immediately adjacent to the Green Way (as compared to a school with 90 to 100 pupils);

     -   Whereas the Council seeks landscape enhancement to areas adjoining the Green Way, the proposed development involves the removal of the 3 yew trees and the two field maples which are in the garden area to the north of the Nature Centre and the addition of 1.8 metre weld mesh fencing  along the northern boundary.   The proposed new landscaping is rather questionable; it is difficult to see how 21 large ornamental structural trees can be accommodated along the northern boundary together with 12 fruit trees in the vicinity of the former Nature Centre.  Therefore it is difficult to assess the impact of the development in terms of landscaping unless a realistic landscaping scheme is submitted so that the impact on the adjacent formal gardens can be assessed.

     -   The proposed development is contrary to local planning policy.

12.  The proposed development involves the loss of the Nature Centre for use by the general public

     -   LP Policy CF1 states:  The Borough Council will not permit the loss of existing community facilities and buildings unless it is satisfied that:

         1. There is no longer a need for them; or

         2. An acceptable alternative provision is to be made elsewhere.         

     - The proposed development involves the loss of the Nature Centre, an attractive building with character dating back to the 19th century, together with its open space for use by the public, including schools, other user groups, and the general public.  It is not considered that the proposed log cabin development is an acceptable alternative provision.

     -   The proposed development is contrary to local planning policy.

* Note regarding the invalid objection that the construction of the building would cause disturbance: 

       In this case, the Transport Statement does not address construction impacts other than to say that Hibbert Road may need to be closed in order to crane in certain building materials.  Clearly the construction compound will not fit on the application site and therefore it seems inevitable that the Hibbert Road car park will be taken over completely during the construction process which will be a matter of many months.   There will be lorries taking away excavated material, cement lorries, and many lorry loads of building materials which will all have to go into the Hibbert Road car park.  There will be no room to store the materials within the application site for the school or the replacement Nature Centre.  Therefore, as there will be construction impacts - disturbance etc - outside of the application site, I think this matter should be raised as an objection, particularly for residents living opposite the car park.