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.)

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BRAYWICK COURT SCHOOL'S PLANNING APPLICATION & WHY HAVE THEY IGNORED ALTERNATIVE SITES?

Please CLICK HERE to send an email with your objections to the planning application.

Feel free to use information from this website as a guide for key points but please write in your own words & mention the issues that you feel most strongly about & those that affect you personally. Your letter doesn't have to be long either, even just a few sentences.

There are some very detailed letters of objection already submitted which can be viewed under any 'community comments' on the RBWM website but here are some bullet points that may be of use:

The main point is that the proposed site is far too small to accommodate the proposed new building without having significant adverse effects on the local area.

1. The site has no on site car parking and no proper road access. Thus the proposed development would be likely to cause traffic problems by virtue of increased traffic generation, access and road safety problems. It is also likely to adversely affect users of Braywick Park as the only vehicular access to the school site is through the park itself. (For example construction traffic & ongoing services access such as waste disposal). The mere fact that this site was suitable for a Victorian village primary school to which most pupils would have walked, does not mean that it is suitable for a 21st Century primary school, more than double the capacity, where most pupils are delivered by car

2. The proposed development would result in significant loss of trees in Braywick Park, despite the fact that the application states no trees to be removed.

3. The proposed development would damage the natural environment in that it would have an adverse effect on the adjacent Local Wildlife Site in Braywick Park. In this respect the scheme would involve the loss of loss of at least 6 trees to the east of the site boundary and three near the proposed entrance to the school, although for some reason this is not referred to in the application (other than in the Development Tree Survey).

4. The proposed development is not in keeping with the scale or character of the local area.

5. The proposed development would have negative impact on the amenity of existing residential properties, through noise, overlooking, and loss of privacy.

6. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the terrace of five cottages opposite the school building, which are Grade 2 Listed Buildings.

7. Lastly (and by no means the least important), the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would have an adverse effect on its openness. Although the applicant claims that this development is not inappropriate as it is simply replacing an existing building in the same use. The proposed building is over 300% larger in terms of overall floorspace - 1211m2 compared to 350m2) and the footprint is almost 2.5 times greater (784m2 compared to 319m2). The front façade of the two storey part of the building would be much closer to the road than the existing building, particularly in the south eastern corner of the site and the building would be contiguous with the eastern boundary. The bulk, height and siting of the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

All the above points are in direct conflict with approved planning policies that are set out in both the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and with the relevant saved policies in the RBWM Local Plan. We have deliberately not set them all here in order to keep this post as short and succinct as possible.

--------

THE ALTERNATIVE SITE

There is however another larger site, referred to in the applicant’s Planning Statement, and which is understood to be available, but which appears to have been dismissed from consideration by the applicant without any apparent reason. The site in question, also within the Braywick Park sports complex is owned by RBWM, as indeed is the current application site. It was identified in the Oldfield School site assessment study as a potentially suitable site, but did not proceed at that time as it was a little remote from that school’s main catchment.

The Council has previously offered this site to the BPET/The School. Ann Pfeiffer, head of Childrens' Services has stated: "Should the Trust want to pursue this option further then there is no established reason why it cannot do so".

At the present time it remains undeveloped and with a site area of 0.385ha, is more than
twice as large as the Hibbert Road site. Locating the proposed new Braywick Court School building here would overcome virtually all the problems and harmful effects that are inherent in the present proposal. Yes, it is still within the Green Belt but the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm would be substantially less than is the case with the Hibbert Road site.

In summary, the main advantages of locating the new school on the ALTERNATIVE SITE rather than on the present application site are:

- There would be far fewer of the harmful effects to the Green Belt that are inherent in the present proposal;

- The site is larger and thus would permit a building with far better facilities including outside play areas and parking and servicing arrangements than the present proposal can achieve;

- The site would be served from a better road access point – the access for drop off and pick up of children is exactly the same as has been proposed in this application – but the contrived ‘park and stride’ scheme would not be necessary;

- The site is considerably closer to, and indeed within reasonable walking distance of the projected areas of new residential development both within and to the south of the town centre, from where the school’s future pupils are most likely to be drawn.

The end product would be a far more satisfactory development all round both for the school, parents transporting children, residents and park users.

Please CLICK HERE to send an email with your objections to the planning application.

(You can view all the official documents relating to the plans if you click here.)

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."