THE CORONAVIRUS pandemic has forced a lot of things to be delayed since lockdown began in March.
A pause in Bracknell Forest’s local plan process means “it is unlikely” that the draft submission local plan will be published for consultation until after August 2020.
The previous consultation on the revised growth strategy saw a range of responses from residents and organisations in response to the plan’s most controversial section — proposals to build 4,000 homes on the green belt in Warfield.
More than 200 hectares of land could be developed at the home of multi-national tech company Syngenta on Jealott’s Hill if the controversial plans get the go-ahead.
1,400 of the homes would be affordable and would be joined by a science park for Syngenta, two new primary schools, a new secondary school, recreational space, a community hub, a healthcare facility and more infrastructure would join the new homes if plans are made a reality.
Planning chiefs at BFC say the development will support economic development and support jobs in the borough while boosting housing supply and providing infrastructure in the area.
But only around one per cent of the total responses from residents from the consultation held in autumn 2019 were in favour of these housing plans, and neighbouring authority the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead opposed the proposal in its response to the development outline.
Here’s what Bracknell’s parishes had to say about the Jealott’s Hill idea.
Warfield Parish Council
Warfield Parish Council bosses wrote in their response their position was “unchanged” in their opposition to “substantial residential development” at the site.
It continued: “We recognise the importance, locally, nationally and internationally of the work undertaken at the Jealotts Hill facility, but we also recognise the value and importance of greenbelt and the biodiversity of the area and wildlife this supports.
“Warfield Parish Council has seen no evidence within the plan to justify the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required […] to change the Green Belt designation or boundary in the area.
The response also raised concerns about “unanswered questions” around transport and the delivery of community infrastructure.
Finally, the response ends by parish council chiefs urging BFC to remove the Jealott’s Hill proposals from the local plan so they can be “on their own merits.”
Binfield Parish Council
BPC’s response was shorter than Warfield’s reply, but was to-the-point in outlining its opposition to the Jealott’s Hill plan.
It read: “BPC does not support the housing development in the green belt.
“The science park could be developed without the need for housing on site. The location is not sustainable and would likely be mostly car-dependent, leading to a significant increase in traffic movements throughout the area.
“It is especially important for affordable housing to be in sustainable locations with easy access to public transport.
“As an area of open green belt, currently unspoilt and undeveloped this is currently a benefit to the environment.
“The proposed development of 4,000 homes would be a very visible detriment to the green belt.”
Winkfield Parish Council
Winkfield chiefs said they cannot support or object to the development at this stage as there is not enough detail in the local plan.
But the two main concerns they had centred around providing infrastructure and developing on the green belt.
Like with Binfield’s response, Winkfield pointed to the brownfield space available for Syngenta to build a science park without needing to build housing on green belt land and also raised concerns about the “additional strain on the already overburdened infrastructure in the local area.”
The response continued: “WPC considers it absolutely impossible to build 4,000 new homes on this site without MAJOR new infrastructure and would struggle to support the development proposal without sight of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).”
WPC said more detail needed to be provided on:
- Types of housing planned for the development
- Class of employment proposed
- Needing health facility and schools to be in place early on
- The impact on wildlife and biodiversity
The response — by far the lengthiest of all the parish councils — continued: “Warfield is a large and diverse semi-rural parish and NOT an extension of Bracknell Town!
“WPC considers it essential that a proper balance between economic growth and protection of the country’s land assets is achieved. The public in general, and local residents in particular, care passionately about their local environment and do not wish to see it permanently damaged by excessive development.”
Sandhurst Town Council
And for the shortest response from any of the borough’s councils…
“The Planning Committee of Sandhurst Town Council are in full support of the general plan for the Syngenta/Jealott’s Hill proposal.”
Bray Parish Council
BPC is not part of Bracknell Forest, and falls under the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, but was given a say on the plan.
Their response read: “To fund continuity on this site by Syngenta is not an exceptional circumstance that justifies the proposed changes to the Green Belt Boundary.
“The Current Bracknell Forest Plan addresses the required need for houses. The Jealott’s Hill development to 2036 would exceed the Bracknell Forest plan requirements by some 1100 dwellings, we do not, therefore, believe that there is any requirement to develop at this Green Belt site.
“As this is an isolated Green Belt site the repercussions of enlarging this site through development would set a precedent and allow other isolated Green Belt sites to be put forward for development.
“We, therefore, do not accept the creation of a new settlement to the north of Bracknell Town Centre.”
BPC laid out concerns about additional traffic on the A330 which “will have a major effect” through Holyport towards the M4, and expressed they had not seen anything in the plan which will mitigate this extra congestion that will travel through the parish.
Wokingham Borough Council
Short and simple — “The site is located wholly within the Metropolitan Green Belt and therefore exceptional circumstances will need to be demonstrated to release land for development.”
Surrey County Council
Concerns spelled out by SCC in March 2018 about transport congestion and air quality remain for the authority.
Their response read: “These cumulative cross-boundary transport impacts, along with the potential impacts on air quality, will need to be assessed to ensure that the plan meets the duty to cooperate.
“We welcome the provision of three primary and one secondary school to serve the proposed development on the Syngenta site. This will obviate any displacement factor that could otherwise impact on school place provision in Surrey.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel