‘THERE is still no justification for interfering with the green belt’ — that’s the response from countryside campaigners following major changes to plans to develop Jealott’s Hill in Warfield.
It is proposed around 2,000 homes and other facilities will be built on land totalling 240 hectares down from the 4,000 outlined in 2019.
Should the proposal go ahead as part of Bracknell Forest Council’s local plan, the homes would be built at the site of multi-national chemicals company Syngenta alongside a new science park, a primary school, country parks, traveller pitches and more community facilities.
As part of the revised plans, the amount of green belt land (land typically protected from development) at the site set to be taken out of the green belt will be reduced from 170 hectares to 116.
But the Save Jealott’s Hill campaign, set up in opposition to the 4,000 homes plan back in 2019, is not on board with the revised proposals.
READ MORE: Homes at Jealott's Hill development slashed down from 4,000 to 2,000
A spokesperson told the News: “This proposal is no less unacceptable than any of the earlier attempts have been.
“There is still no justification for interfering with the Green Belt for 2,000 dwellings rather than for 4,000 dwellings.”
Syngenta put forward the land for housing alongside plans to build a new ‘state-of-the-art’ Science and Innovation Park.
According to Bracknell Forest’s draft local plan, published earlier this week, Syngenta faces a funding gap of £68 million to build the Park as it is ‘not viable as a stand-alone commercial development’.
Therefore, it is hoped the cash for this project will be raised from the proceeds of the 2,000 homes set to be built at Jealott’s Hill.
Usually, only ‘very special circumstances’ can justify building on green belt land.
READ MORE: Plan to sell alcohol at watersports centre in Bracknell Forest unveiled
In this case, the council has agreed the proposal constitutes exceptional circumstances because allowing the development would mean Bracknell Forest retains a ‘globally important business’, which will help ‘stimulate the local economy’ and prevent a ‘process of staged decline’ at Jealott’s Hill.
But the Save Jealott’s Hill campaign argued against these exceptional circumstances.
“There is no conceivable justification for doing this in order to raise £68m to subsidise a Science Park which the Council admits is not economically viable in its own right and which, presumably, neither Syngenta nor its wealthy Chinese government-owned shareholders are prepared to fund.
“You have to ask yourself “why, if they don’t think the investment is justified, does the council feel justified in tearing up the green belt boundaries to provide the funding?
“Strategic industry investment is a role for central government, not local authorities.
“None of the original concerns surrounding this proposal have really been addressed other than reducing the number of dwellings, but that change opens up new questions.
“Is the site itself viable as a development now?
“Are the infrastructure and ‘on-site’ facilities for residents adequate, acceptable or sustainable?
“Does the absence of any sustainable public transport solution at such a remote location make it even more car-dependent than the earlier proposals?
“Is there a hidden agenda here to get the smaller development through this stage only to come later with a demand for it to be bigger to achieve sustainability?
READ MORE: Plans to build 900 homes at The Peel Centre in Bracknell revealed
“Our key issues remain:
- There are no exceptional circumstances to change green belt status
- The Science park is not commercially viable in its own right.
- There is no commitment to protect existing or future jobs by Syngenta
- There is sufficient land on existing site to build a business park, without encroaching on the green belt.
- The housing need to 2037 is already met with identified sites without needing Jealott’s Hill.
- The road traffic impact is not addressed by minor junction enhancements.
- There are major objections from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead”
Presenting the local plan when it was published on Monday, March 8, Cllr Chris Turrell, BFC’s planning boss, said: ‘The Local Plan will play a decisive role in how our borough evolves over the next two decades.
“The development of the plan has involved some difficult choices but we have listened to everyone’s feedback and made changes accordingly.
“We believe that it now represents the most sustainable means to shape the immediate future of our area. It also provides for more housing, including affordable housing, employment and business opportunities and the necessary supporting infrastructure like roads, schools and open spaces.
“The inclusion of a new Garden Village at Jealott’s Hill also provides the opportunity to design a sustainable exemplar low carbon development, supporting key employment sectors and meeting housing needs whilst providing extensive areas of accessible green space for new and existing residents to enjoy.
READ MORE: Eight traveller sites and other big ideas from Bracknell Forest's local plan
“The executive will consider if we should move forward to the next stage in preparing the Local Plan at its meeting later this month.
“This would involve asking residents for any more final feedback on the draft plan before submitting it to the government later this year alongside any comments received during the consultation.
What next?
You can have your say on these proposals over the coming months.
The council is set to approve a consultation on the new draft local plan at a meeting on Tuesday, March 16.
Should this be approved, the consultation will run from Tuesday, March 23 to Tuesday, May 11.
Following an examination from a planning inspector over the summer and winter of this year, and any subsequent changes, it is expected the local plan will be adopted by Spring 2022.
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