Bracknell Forest
Council
Bracknell TownNeighbourhood Plan 2016-2036
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended)
POST EXAMINATION DECISION STATEMENT
This document is the ‘Decision Statement’, required to be prepared under Regulation 18(2) of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 (as amended)[1]. It sets out the Council’s response to each of the recommendations contained in the Report to Bracknell Forest Council of the Independent Examination of the Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Development Plan (“the Plan”) by Independent Examiner, John Slater, which was received by the Council on 23 April 2020.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), Bracknell Forest Council (“the Council”) has a statutory duty to assist communities in the preparation of neighbourhood (development) plans and to take plans through a process of examination and referendum.
1.2 This statement confirms that the recommendations proposed in the Examiner’s report have been considered and accepted, that the Plan has been altered as a result of it, and that it may now be submitted to local referendum.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The Plan relates to the area that was designated by the Council as a Neighbourhood Area on 11 February 2014. The area coincides with the area covered by Bracknell Town Parish and is entirely within Bracknell Forest.
2.2 Bracknell Town Council undertook pre-submission consultation on the draft Plan in accordance with Regulation 14 between 9 June and 20 August 2018.
2.3 Following the submission of the Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Plan, the Council publicised the submitted Plan for a six-week period and representations were invited in accordance with Regulation 16. The publicity period was undertaken between 7 January and 18 February 2019.
3.0 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION
3.1 The Council appointed Mr John Slater, with the consent of Bracknell Town Council, to undertake the examination of the Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Plan and to prepare a report of the independent examination.
3.2 The independent examination of the Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Plan has comprised several stages:
· Following an initial assessment of the plan and accompanying documents, the Examiner held a public hearing on 14 May 2019.
· Following the hearing, the Examiner issued ‘Interim Conclusions’ (June 2019), and gave the Town Council three options. The Town Council decided to follow option 1. This was to reconfigure the submitted documents.
· In response to the Examiner’s ‘Interim Conclusions’, Bracknell Town Council submitted an amended Plan, and Schedule of Changes. The Examiner then issued ‘Further Comments’ (November 2019).
· A focused consultation in response to the amended plan was held between 18 November and 16 December 2019.
· Following the focused consultation, the Examiner issued a ‘Mapping and Document Issues’ document (February 2020), which required the Town Council to address some specific requirements before the Examiner could issue their final report.
3.3 The Examiner’s final report was received on 23 April 2020. The report concluded that subject to making the modifications recommended by the Examiner, the Plan meets the basic conditions set out in the legislation and should proceed to a Neighbourhood Planning referendum. The Examiner also recommended that the referendum area be based on the Neighbourhood Area that was designated by the Council on 11 February 2014.
4.0 DECISION AND REASONS
4.1 Regulation 18 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) requires a local planning authority to outline what actions it is intending to take in response to the recommendations in an Examiner’s report.
4.2 Having considered each of the recommendations made in the Examiner’s report and the reasons for them, the Council, with the consent of Bracknell Town Council, has decided to accept the modifications to the submitted Plan under paragraph 12(6) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Council is satisfied that, subject to those changes/modifications which it considers should be made to the Plan, as set out in tables below, that the Plan meets the basic conditions set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), is compatible with the Convention rights and complies with the provision made by or under 61E(2), 61J and 61L of the said Act.
4.3 Table 2 also includes some further modifications agreed by the Council, with the consent of Bracknell Town Council, in accordance with paragraphs 58 and 142 of the Examiner’s report. These provide clarity, relate to consequential changes (as a result of other changes to the Plan), or factual corrections/updates, which are considered to be minor modifications, which do not change the nature of the plan which was subject to examination.
4.4 The Council is also required to consider whether to extend the area to which the referendum is to take place under Regulation 18(1e). The Examiner recommended that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to a referendum based on the area that was designated by Bracknell Forest Council as a Neighbourhood Area on 11 February 2014. The Council has considered this recommendation and the reasons for it and has decided to accept it. The referendum on the Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Plan will be based on the designated Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Area.
4.5 Regulation 18(2) the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) refers to the need to publish the ‘Decision Statement’ on a local planning authority’s website and in such other manner as is considered likely to bring the ‘Decision Statement’ to the attention of people who live, work or carry out business in the Neighbourhood Area. Normally, in addition to placing documents on the Council’s website, paper copies would be made available at the Council’s offices in Bracknell, and at Bracknell Town’s Council’s offices. However, due to the current restrictions in relation to COVID-19, documents will only be available on Bracknell Forest Council’s and Bracknell Town Council’s websites. A copy of the Plan will be available in hard copy (viewable by appointment) at Bracknell Central Library (Town Square).
The links to the relevant sections of the Councils’ websites are as follows:
· Bracknell Forest Council Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Area page: https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning/planning-policy/neighbourhood-planning/bracknell-town-neighbourhood-area
· Bracknell Town Council Neighbourhood Plan page: https://bracknelltowncouncil.gov.uk/bracknell/bracknell-town-neighbourhood-plan/
Table 1: Schedule of Examiner's recommended modifications, the Council’s decision on each of these and justification/reason for this decision
BTNP = Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Plan (Interim Report version)
NB: the following refers to the Examiner’s wording. However, due to the recommended deletion and merging of some policies, in the referendum version of the Plan there has been consequential updates to the policy and map numbering, which is not reflected in Table 1.
BTNP Policy/ Para. |
Examiner’s Report ref |
Examiner’s recommendation(s)
(changes to policy wording, bold/underline is amended text, strike through relates to deleted text)
|
Council’s decision |
Justification/reason |
EV1 |
Paras. 70-72 |
Omit Jubilee Gardens from the open space designation. |
Agree |
The site forms an existing allocation, which has already been compensated through alternative space (known as Station Green). Would not meet basic conditions in terms of sustainable development and conformity with strategic policies if the open space designation is maintained on this specific site.
|
EV1 |
After para. 75 |
· Retitle Policy EV1 as “Open Space of Public Value” · In the first paragraph delete “Active” and replace the remainder of the paragraph after “provision” with “as shown on the Policy EV1 Open Space of Public Value Map” · In the third paragraph delete “Active”. · Delete the final paragraph of the policy
Amended Policy wording:
Development
proposals are expected to retain all
Where there is sufficient quantity of existing provision, contributions will be sought from development towards their improvement if the improvement increases the capacity of the provision to meet the needs of the development.
Proposals that
would result in the loss of
Alternative public open space provision proposed as part of such development proposals will be required to meet the following criteria:
• the scale of alternative provision must be of at least an equivalent scale to the existing public open space provision and • any alternative site must be of at least an equivalent standard, or better, in terms of layout to the existing public open space provision and • ancillary uses which are required to complement the provision of the open space must not significantly reduce the overall area of open space and • the location of the alternative provision must be generally accessible by foot and within or adjacent to the existing settlement boundary of Bracknell Town.
|
Agree |
Planning control does not differentiate between different types of open space, and to have separate polices for active and passive open space would raise expectations on how different areas can be used. The NPPF also refers to ‘open space’.
Merging the two polices which are almost identical will also simplify the policies. |
EV1 Policy map |
After para. 75 |
On revised Policy EV1 map, show all designated sites as OSPV |
Agree |
Clarity |
Policy overview map |
After para. 75 |
Amend the Policy Overview Map to reflect designation as OSPV rather than as Community Leisure Provision and remove that cross hatching from land which is also designated as Local Green Space.
(In para. 73 of the Examiner’s report the Examiner specifically refers to: “I have seen that on the Policy Overview Map that two areas that are shown as Local Green Space, namely Lily Hill Park and South Hill Park are also cross shaded so as to be covered by this policy. As local green space designation confers a higher level of protection there is no benefit in protecting them by both this policy as well as Policy EV3.”)
|
Agree |
For clarity and to avoid ambiguity in which sites the policy applies to.
Some areas of open space are also shown as Local Green Space (namely Lily Hill Park and South Hill Park). As Local Green Space designation confers a higher level of protection, there is no benefit in protecting them by both policies.
|
EV2 |
After para. 75 |
Delete Policy EV2
Amended Policy wording:
|
Agree |
See above. |
EV3 |
After para. 79 |
On Revised Policy EV3 Overview Map’s key replace “Green Space Justification Areas” with “Local Green Spaces”.
|
Agree |
For clarity. |
EV3 |
After para. 79 |
Replace the wording on the last paragraph with “New Development on these Local Green Spaces is ruled out except in very special circumstances”
Amended Policy wording:
Protection and Maintenance of Local Green Spaces
The following areas as shown on the policies maps are designated as Local Green Spaces:
A: South Hill Park B: Lily Hill Park C: Easthampstead Park D: Great Hollands Recreation Ground E: Jurassic Park (Great Hollands Playing Fields) F: Mill Park and Wildridings Playing Fields G: Harmans Water Playing Fields and The Parks Playing Fields H: Calfridus Way Playing Fields I: Braybrooke Recreation Ground J: Queensway and Brook Green K: The Elms Park
New Development on these Local Green Spaces is ruled out except in very special circumstances.
|
Agree |
To better reflect the form of wording set out in para. 76 of the 2012 NPPF. |
EV4 |
After para. 83 |
On the Revised Policy EV4 Maps, remove all trees and TPO trees and only show the avenues of trees to be protected by the policy. If possible show the avenues at a larger scale.
|
Agree |
For clarity, and to avoid ambiguity in where the Policy is to be applied. |
EV4 |
After para. 83 |
· In the policy, replace “policy maps” with “Revised Policy Maps EV4 (or such number as allocated following rationalisation of the policy and plan numbering)” · After “possible” insert “and where it is appropriate”
Amended Policy wording:
Tree Heritage: Avenues of Trees
Development proposals
will be required to recognise the heritage value of avenues of
trees in Bracknell Town as shown in the Revised Policy Maps
EV4 (or such number as allocated following rationalisation of the
policy and plan numbering)
|
Agree |
For clarity. |
EV5 |
After para. 87 |
· Retitle Policy EV5 “Protection of trees” · Replace Policy EV5 with new wording.
Amended Policy wording:
Protection of Trees
Development proposals will be expected to retain all trees of in good condition and which possess amenity value, especially ancient trees, which either individually, or collectively, contribute to the sylvan character of the immediate area and the town in general.
|
Agree |
Three policies previously which could lead to uncertainty at the development management stage as to reason trees are being retained and protected (for example an ancient tree could add to the treed character of an area, which in turn contributes to the sylvan character of the area.
Policies therefore split into two new policies, one relating to protection, and one relating to tree planting as part of development proposals. |
EV6 |
After para. 87 |
· Retitle Policy EV6 New Tree Planting · Replace Policy EV6 with new wording.
Amended Policy wording:
New Tree Planting
Wherever possible and where appropriate, all new development, particularly at gateway locations, will be expected to incorporate tree planning within their landscaping proposals, including trees of an appropriate size and species, that can make a significant contribution to enhancing the sylvan character of the town, as well as add to the visual amenity of the immediate area.”
|
Agree |
See above. |
EV7 |
After para. 87 |
Delete Policy EV7.
Amended policy wording:
|
Agree |
See above. |
EV8 |
After para. 89 |
On the Policy Overview Map show the extent of the South Road allotment site.
|
Agree |
For clarity, and to avoid ambiguity in where the Policy is to be applied. |
EV9 |
After para. 90 |
Delete the second sentence of the policy.
Amended Policy wording:
Cemetery Space
The provision of further cemetery space to
serve the needs of the population of Bracknell Town will be
strongly supported.
|
Agree |
No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the specific site referred to is a viable or practical option. |
EV11 |
After para. 94 |
Reword Policy.
Amended Policy wording:
Air Quality Development proposals which introduce new sensitive receptors (for example new dwellings) within and adjacent to Air Quality Management Area(s) will be expected to demonstrate that UK legislative limits for human health can be met within the development.
|
Agree |
As originally drafted the policy placed onerous requirements on all development within Bracknell Forest, where as the focus is to address the impact of air quality on development within or adjacent to air quality management areas
The policy also needs to retain flexibility to allow it to apply to any AQMA which may be designated in the future. |
EV12 |
After para. 96 |
On Revised Policy EV12 Map remove the extent of the LGS designation and the green shading and the key “Area Covered by Title Deed BK 256982”.
|
Agree |
A policy that supports development proposals, albeit for use as an art centre/theatre, on green space with the highest level of protection, would be contradictory and result in inconsistencies in how different policies relating to same site are applied.
Leasehold/freehold are not matters of planning consideration.
|
EV12 |
After para. 96 |
Revise the policy after “Park” to insert “as shown on Policy EV12 Map”
Amended Policy wording:
Arts Centre: South Hill Park
Development proposals that will help to retain the use of South Hill Park as shown on Policy EV12 Map as an arts centre/theatre by continuing to provide high quality, accessible, cultural, community resources will be strongly supported.
|
Agree |
For clarity. |
EV13 |
After para 98 |
Reword policy.
Amended Policy wording:
Colocation of Community Facilities
Development that will allow for the introduction of a mix of complementary uses alongside both present and future neighbourhood community facilities, which maintain and enhance their primary community support function, will be strongly supported.
|
Agree |
Policy amended to avoid ambiguity, and make more explicit that a mixed-use aspiration is supported. |
HE1 |
After para. 100 |
Reword policy:
Amended Policy wording:
Protection of Parks and of Parkland Features of Historic Parks and Gardens
Proposals that contribute positively to the conservation and enhancement of Bracknell Town’s historic parks, Lily Hill Park, Easthampstead Park and South Hill Park, as shown on Map HE1 will be supported.
Where development proposals will affect the parks or their setting, they will be required to provide analysis of the potential impact of proposals on the significance of these parks as heritage assets, including effects on the value of access by the community.
Proposals in these areas will be expected to demonstrate that they have sought to avoid or minimise conflict between the conservation of these heritage assets and any aspect of the proposal.
Great weight will be given to the conservation of South Hill Park, Lily Hill Park and Easthampstead Park to be considered alongside other potential benefits of development.
Proposals that would harm the significance of any of these heritage assets will only be permitted where it can be robustly justified, on the basis of the need to provide public benefits that outweigh the harm and cannot otherwise be delivered in a less harmful way.
|
Agree |
Amend to reflect the wording proposed by Historic England which sets out with greater clarity the tests that development that affect the parks should meet.
Not necessary to differentiate between the status of the three Parks, nor duplicate references in the policy to particular aspects of significance that need to be protected as they are covered by other policies in the Plan (such as the avenue of trees at the approach to Easthampstead Park). |
HE1 |
After para. 100 |
Retitle Policy HE1, HE2 and HE3 Map as “Policy HE1 Protection of Parks and of Parkland Features of Historic Parks and Gardens Map”
|
Agree |
For clarity. |
HE2 |
After para. 105 |
· Retitle policy “Protection of the setting of Heritage Assets” · Reword the policy.
Amended Policy wording:
Protection of the setting of Heritage Assets
Development proposals which cause substantial harm to the setting of a designated heritage asset will not be supported unless substantial public benefits outweigh that harm. Where proposals will cause less than substantial harm, that harm must be weighed against the public benefits arising from the development.
Development affecting the setting of a locally listed building will be assessed having regard to the scale of any harm against the significance of the non-designated heritage asset.
Development proposals which affect the setting of a listed building will be expected to enhance that setting, including that of any historic parks and gardens, through careful consideration of building heights, layout and materials, appropriate use of landscape buffers and the placement of open space.
|
Agree |
Policy amended to reflect that there are local listed buildings.
In relation to impact of views on the significance of assets, this has been amended to more appropriately relate to the impact of tall buildings which will impact on the setting of assets, so reference to building heights has been included.
|
HE3 |
After para. 108 |
· Retitle Policy “Protection of Heritage Assets” · In the first paragraph remove “both” as well as “and non-designated” · Add a new paragraph “Developments affecting non-designated heritage assets will be expected to balance the scale of any loss or harm and the significance of the building.” · Delete the final paragraph of the policy.
Amended Policy wording:
Protection of Heritage Assets
Development affecting
Developments affecting non-designated heritage assets will be expected to balance the scale of any loss or harm and the significance of the building.
|
Agree |
The policy does not align well with the NPPF, so amended to reflect the balance sought by para. 197 of the 2012 NPPF, so that the policy will meet the basic conditions.
Second paragraph deleted as it is factually incorrect as proposals affecting Easthampstead Park will have to have regard to other planning Policies, including those within this Plan. |
HO1 |
After para. 109 |
In the first paragraph, omit “including extensions and outbuildings” and replace “protect” with “not unacceptably adversely impact on”
Amended Policy wording:
Infill and Backland Development
All infill and
backland development,
It will have a similar form of development to properties in the immediate surrounding area. This is particularly important for applications for two or more dwellings on a site currently or previously occupied by a single property. |
Agree |
Amended to better reflect the 2012 NPPF which states that one of the overarching planning principles is that planning should seek to maintain "a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land".
Remit of the policy amended by removing reference to extensions and outbuildings which fall outside of the generally recognised remit of “infill and backland development”.
|
HO2 |
After para. 114 |
· In the first paragraph replace “not be permitted unless” with “be supported if” · Delete the first bullet point. · Delete the fourth and fifth bullet point
Amended Policy wording:
Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO)
Applications submitted
for changes of use to houses in multiple occupation (HMO) will
· the design, layout and intensity of use of the building would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenities and · internal and external amenity space, refuse storage and car and bicycle parking would be provided at an appropriate quantity and would be of a high standard so as not to harm visual amenity and
|
Agree |
As written the policy is drafted as a negative policy, which states that permission will not be granted unless… the objectives of the policy can be achieved by rewording in a positive manner namely that ‘permission will be granted if’. This would align with the requirements of the NPFP which state that plans should “positively support local development, shaping and directing development in the area”.
As the policy relates to change of use of an existing property, it is not considered that the particular usage of the property would be capable of harming the appearance of the building, adjacent buildings or local landscape context, therefore first bullet point is deleted.
In relation to the fourth bullet point, it is considered that the requirement not to cause unacceptable highway problems would be difficult to predict when compared to the potential occupancy of a C3 residential use, especially where adequate car parking is provided, and is therefore deleted.
The final element relates to an over concentration of HMOs in any one area of town. However, the policy does not define what would constitute an “over concentration” and over what area that would be assessed, so is therefore deleted.
|
HO3 |
After para. 116 |
In D delete “comfortably”
Amended Policy wording:
Driveways and Hardstandings on Front Gardens
Where proposed work to a front garden of an existing dwelling requires a planning application, this should demonstrate that it will:
A. preserve the local character of and be in keeping with the existing planting in the streetscape, B. provide level access, where appropriate, ensuring safety and C. where possible, use a permeable surface to drain rainwater
D.
be of sufficient size
to
|
Agree |
Referring to the spaces being of a size to “comfortably accommodate” the proposed number of vehicles is unnecessary, as it is essentially too vague. |
HO4 |
After para. 117 |
Insert “residential” before “development”
Amended Policy wording:
Managing the Streetscape
New residential development proposals will be expected to provide well designed, integrated
· external amenity space and · waste and recycling storage and · car and bicycle parking, as required by the Bracknell Forest Council Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document or any successor document,
to ensure a high quality and well managed, co-ordinated, streetscape.
|
Agree |
The policy as written applies to “all new development”. The requirement to relate to external amenity space is imprecise, especially in terms of what is expected by the term integrated external area. Therefore the policy amended to relate to ‘residential’ development’ |
HO5 |
After para. 118
|
Reword policy:
Amended Policy wording:
Private Gardens: Green infrastructure and biodiversity networks
On all future residential development, including any infill development, the configuration of private gardens, and their means of enclosure, should provide a degree of connectivity to enable wildlife such as hedgehogs, to travel between gardens and onto any adjacent areas of green space.
|
Agree |
For clarity, so that the expectations of the policy are clear. |
HO6 |
After para. 119 |
Delete policy.
Amended Policy wording:
|
Agree |
This is a matter which falls within the Buildings Regulations regime, so is not a mater dealt with under planning policy. |
HO8 |
After para. 123 |
· Replace “density” with “grain of development” · After “proposals” insert “within the Bracknell Town neighbourhoods” and then delete the subsequent “Bracknell Town”
Amended Policy wording:
Buildings: Local Character
Development proposals within
Bracknell Town neighbourhoods are expected to demonstrate
that they are in keeping with the, footprint, separation, scale and
bulk of the buildings to the
|
Agree |
Density is a crude a measurement, the objective can be achieved by use of ‘grain of development’.
For clarity, and to avoid ambiguity in where the Policy is to be applied. |
EC2 |
After para. 126 |
Replace “can be made” with “is available to serve the development”
Amended Policy wording:
Micro and Small Businesses
Development proposals
to provide B1 class floor space, (either new provision or change of
use), including serviced offices, that is suitable for micro
businesses will be strongly supported, subject to demonstrating
that appropriate parking provision is available to serve the
development. |
Agree |
The policy as written implies that all proposals must demonstrate that adequate appropriate parking provision can be made. It may well be that in some locations such as in the town centre or where there are units created through the change of use of existing buildings that it is sufficient for the applicant to demonstrate that appropriate parking provision is available. |
EC4 |
After para. 128 |
That the extent of the two sites be shown on the Policy Overview Map.
(relates to Bracknell and Wokingham College, and Bracknell Open Learning Centre)
|
Agree |
For clarity, and to avoid ambiguity in where the Policy is to be applied. |
EC5 |
After para. 129 |
Delete “not included in the current regeneration” and insert “as shown on Plan Overview Map” and after “housing” insert “leisure, offices”
Amended Policy wording:
Town Centre Future Development Sites: Mixed Housing and Retail Uses
Development proposals
in the town centre, as shown on the Plan Overview
Map
|
Agree |
Reference to ‘current regeneration’ removed as this was more applicable when the plan was first being drafted.
Policy expanded to include other uses appropriate within town centres.
|
EC6 |
After para. 130 |
· In the first sentence after “should be” insert “capable of being”. · Delete the second sentence and “In such circumstances” from the final sentence.
Amended Policy wording:
Broadband
All new residential,
commercial and community properties within the Neighbourhood Plan
area should be capable of being
served by a superfast
broadband (fibre optic) connection.
|
Agree |
The policy requires the actual connection to the superfast broadband network, which is beyond the remit of most developers. The provision of a service including the necessary wiring is a matter for the telecommunication provider. Therefore, it is only reasonable to require the necessary broadband infrastructure to be provided such as ducting so that the property is capable of connection to the network. |
TR2 |
After para. 132 |
Replace “maintain” with “retain”
Amended Policy wording:
Cycleways and Footpaths
Development proposals
are expected to
|
Agree |
For clarity – the policy relates to “development proposals” rather than any specific sites where existing cycleways run through the scheme, which are required to be retained. |
TR3 |
After para. 134 |
That the final sentence be deleted.
Amended Policy wording:
Cycle Racks
The provision of cycle racks in the following locations in particular:
Bracknell Town Centre
at the bus station and elsewhere, at all the Neighbourhood Shopping
Centres, on the Western and Southern Employment Areas and at
Braybrooke, Great Hollands and Mill Park Recreation Grounds will be
strongly supported.
|
Agree
|
There is no evidence to justify such contributions being required to make a development acceptable. |
TR6 |
After para 137 |
Delete policy.
Amended Policy wording:
|
Agree |
There is no evidence submitted as to the need for such a policy and how this would meet the tests of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations. |
TR8 |
After para. 139 |
Reword policy.
Amended Policy wording:
Road and Transport: Traffic and the Environment
Where a Transport Assessment or Transport Statement identifies that the proposed development will have a severe residual cumulative impact on the highway network, the developer will be expected to carry out or contribute to such highway improvements or such traffic management measures as are necessary to address the extent to which their development will exacerbate any existing issues, including those due to lack of capacity or congestion, in particular on the A322 and A329.
|
|
Policy reworded so that expectations are clear, and aligns with national advice (para. 32 of the 2012 NPPF).
|
Table 2: Schedule of the Council’s modifications in accordance with para. 142 of the Examiner’s report and any factual updates required together with the justification/reason for these.
BTNP = Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Plan (Interim Report version)
NB: Due to the recommended deletion and merging of some policies (in line with the Examiner’s recommendations, set out in Table 1), there has been consequential updates to the policy and map numbering (including consequential changes to policy/plan numbering within the Examiners recommended Policy wording), which is not reflected in Table 2.
BTNDP Policy/ Para. |
Council’s modification
(bold/underline is amended text, strike through relates to deleted text)
|
Justification/reason |
Whole document |
Due to some policies being deleted and/or merged, throughout the document, policy numbers, associated maps and cross references have been updated/renumbered.
Where a policy is to be deleted/merged, the associated supporting text has also been deleted. This also has a knock on implication for changes to pagination.
(Every instance of a renumbering is not set out within this table).
|
Consequential modification. |
Whole document |
Paragraph numbers added. |
Editorial modification. |
Whole documents |
‘Interim report’ version has been substituted with ‘Referendum version’ |
Factual modification. |
Foreword |
Additional thank yous included |
Do not relate to the main content of the Plan, therefore no implications.
|
Introduction |
‘A note on the future’ added:
Under the 2020 Corona Virus pandemic UK lockdown, during the final revision of this document prior to Referendum, now delayed until 06 May 2021, the Bracknell New Town heritage of extensive landscaping is definitely proving its worth to its residents. Whilst the UK New Town movement which inspired it did not want to return to the worst aspects of the design of some cities and their living conditions due to the C19th Industrial Revolution, none of its proponents could have foreseen quite how vital the public open space layouts they fought for would be for this country’s increased population during this epidemic, an event outside the statistical norm, which, according to Mark Harrison’s Disease and the Modern World, is one of the principal threats to the order and prosperity of modern states as it involves person to person transmission.
When the Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group started work, it asked our town’s residents why they valued its green spaces and, while some of the answers clearly conveyed that they were very agreable added extras, no one then thought that, later on, in 2020 & in 2021, our green spaces would be there for us, essential for everyone’s wellbeing, ready to be cycled through and walked in during the daily hour of exercise allowed under emergency legislation.
What changes will now follow the biggest economic annual decline in 300 years to where people will work, how often they will travel to work and what form retail will take, for instance, are yet to be seen and it will be for those who undertake the implementation and monitoring of this 2016-2036 BTNP to face the challenge of adapting to them in the future of Bracknell Town
According to Bill Gates’ book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, failing to remove the 51bn tonnes of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere every year would cost more than the 1.5 million lives already lost to Covid 19…Gates calculates that using more renewables and fewer fossil fuels would account for 27% of the reduction needed in carbon emissions, changing how we would manufacture our goods (31%), growing our food (18%), travel (16%) & keeping our buildings warm or cool (6%) so this an even bigger challenge for those who revise our plan and adapt its policies accordingly.
|
Does not relate to the main content of the Plan, therefore no implications.
|
Supporting text to EV1 |
Information note added to explain the position in relation to Jubilee Gardens (to be added after policy justification section, and before Policy):
Information Note : Play, Open Space and Sports Study for Bracknell Forest (2016-2036) August 2017, p51 Summary of Policy Recommendations 3 refs. & also p140 Recommendations for new planning policies and guidance. The definition of Open Space of Public value in sections i & ii to the word ‘life’ is referred to in para 64 of Examiner J Slater’s BTNP Report 23 April 2020.
Para 70 refers to Jubilee Gardens & to Station Green & in para 72 refers to Bracknell Forest Local Plan p 146 Proposal PEii Land at the South of Bracknell Town Centre and its paras 9.15 to 9.21 (especially 9.21) referring in particular to the words “to provide a suitable amount of replacement open space. Jubilee Gardens is registered as BK285414: land on the North West Side of the Ring Bracknell & as BK288580:Jubilee Gardens, The Ring, Bracknell and Station Green is registered as :BK471941: land At, Replacement Park Station Road, Bracknell. Jubilee Gardens: POSS site 72, has been deleted from the BTNP Referendum version Appendices 5.2, 5.21, 5.22 & 5.23 where Station Green: POSS site 355 is already listed. The EV1 Policy Map has also been amended
|
Consequential change to the Plan to be consistent with Examiner’s recommendation in relation to removing open space on this site, and to provide information.
|
EV1 Map (open space) |
Policy Map within the Plan.
Remove open space areas relating to:
South Hill Park (open space numbers on plan: 369, 126a, 126b, 17, 125 and 206) Lily Hill Park (open space number on plan: 83)
|
Consequential change to the Plan to be consistent with Examiner’s recommendation in relation to removing open space designation from Lily Hill Park and South Hill Park, which are also covered by a Local Green Space designation. |
EV1 appendices in 5.2
|
Appendices updated to remove reference to Jubilee Gardens and open spaces associated with South Hill Park and Lily Hill Park. |
Consequential change to the Plan to be consistent with Examiner’s recommendations.
|
Policy justification for EV3
Page 9 of 34 |
Remove text at bottom of page:
|
Consequential change to the Plan as result of deleting Appendix 11 and 12. |
EV4 (avenue of trees)
Page 12 of 34
|
Additional text added to describe the pictures of the three trees:
The three trees illustrated above, that is the Cedar, the Lucombe Oak and the ancient Yew tree, are clear examples of the crucial importance of the retention of ancient trees of arboricultural and amenity value.
|
Factual modification – provides explanation of what the photos are – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
EV5 (tree protection)
Page 17 of 34 |
Additional text added:
However, it is relevant at this point to include a caveat in this plan and to say that, since many of the trees we continue to fell are older specimens, we must also understand what proper compensation looks like, according to author and biologist Amy-Jane Beer who goes on to say that replacing a 150yr old beech or even a youthful 50 yr old pine with a single sapling, with slim chances of growing to a similar age and stature, is an almost meaningless gesture. We should be planting, or encouraging the natural regeneration of dozens of replacements for every mature tree felled to achieve some kind of balance. |
Consequential modification as a result of the previous three policies being split, and merged into two new policies - does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
EV5 |
Deletion of word ‘of’ within first sentence
Wording below reflects the Examiner’s recommendations as set out in Table 1, further changes to the Examiner’s working are shown as strikethrough text:
Amended Policy wording:
Protection of Trees
Development proposals
will be expected to retain all trees
|
Editorial modification to improve the readability of the Policy – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
EV6 |
Added in reference to ‘suitable longevity’ to policy wording, and correct use of word ‘planning’ and change to ‘planting’.
Amended Policy wording (to also reflect Examiner’s recommendations, as set out in Table 1):
New Tree Planting
Wherever possible and
where appropriate, all new development, particularly at gateway
locations, will be expected to incorporate tree
|
Consequential modification as a result of changes to the tree policies overall. This does not fundamentally change the aim of the policy or policy requirements, but provides further clarity in the application of the policy - does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
EV11 map (air quality) |
Added on air quality monitoring points to this map and Policy (Parish) overview map. |
Factual modification to provide clarity where monitoring points are locations – does not affect the nature of the Plan.
|
Section 4 - Heritage |
This section has been reworked in order to improve the flow of the chapter – text largely relates to Interim Report text, which has been re-ordered.
|
Consequential modification as a result of changes to the heritage policies - does not affect the nature of the Plan.
|
HE1 |
Pluralise word ‘setting’ in second paragraph, and pluralise word ‘proposal’ in third paragraph.
Wording below reflects the Examiner’s recommendations as set out in Table 1, further changes to the Examiner’s working are shown as bold/underline:
Amended Policy wording:
Protection of Parks and of Parkland Features of Historic Parks and Gardens
Proposals that contribute positively to the conservation and enhancement of Bracknell Town’s historic parks, Lily Hill Park, Easthampstead Park and South Hill Park, as shown on Map HE1 will be supported.
Where development proposals will affect the parks or their settings, they will be required to provide analysis of the potential impact of proposals on the significance of these parks as heritage assets, including effects on the value of access by the community.
Proposals in these areas will be expected to demonstrate that they have sought to avoid or minimise conflict between the conservation of these heritage assets and any aspect of the proposals.
Great weight will be given to the conservation of South Hill Park, Lily Hill Park and Easthampstead Park to be considered alongside other potential benefits of development.
Proposals that would harm the significance of any of these heritage assets will only be permitted where it can be robustly justified, on the basis of the need to provide public benefits that outweigh the harm and cannot otherwise be delivered in a less harmful way.
|
Editorial modification to improve the readability of the Policy – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
HE2 |
Pluralise word ‘setting’ in policy title.
Wording below reflects the Examiner’s recommendations as set out in Table 1, further changes to the Examiner’s working are shown as bold/underline:
Amended Policy wording title:
Protection of the settings of Heritage Assets
|
Editorial modification to improve the readability of the Policy – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
Supporting text for Policy HE2 and HE3
(Page 10 of 12 ) |
Additional text added:
With regard to other heritage assets in Bracknell Town, on 22 October 2019, Bracknell Forest Council’s Executive approved item 8, the Local List of Buildings and Structures of Local Architectural or Historic Interest, which designated the following buildings within the plan area as locally listed buildings:
• Larges Lane Cemetery, Bracknell, RG12 9AL • Downshire Arms, Downshire Way, Bracknell, RG12 7AA • Lily Hill House, Lily Hill Road, Bracknell, RG12 25J • Market Inn, Station Road, Bracknell, RG12 1HY • Ranelagh School, Ranelagh Drive, Bracknell, RG12 9DA • Spring Lanes House, 10 Holly Spring Lane, Bracknell, RG12 2JL • The Boot, Park Road, Bracknell, RG12 2LU • The Royal Oak, London Road, Bracknell, RG12 2NN • The Green Man, Crowthorne Road, Bracknell, RG12 7DL
|
Factual modification/consequential modification to reflect matters which were taken into account by the Examiner (see para. 103 of the Examiner’s report).
Also provides clarification in relation to the application of the reworded policies, following the Examiner’s recommendations (which now refer to non-designated assets and locally listed buildings).
This information was unable to be included in the ‘Interim report’ version of the Plan, as at that point BFC had not published the Local List – does not affect the nature of the Plan.
|
HO1 |
Add the word ‘will ‘between ‘the amenity of neighbours’ and ‘reflect the scale’…
Amended Policy wording (to also reflect Examiner’s recommendations set out in Table 1):
Infill and Backland Development
All infill and
backland development,
It will have a similar form of development to properties in the immediate surrounding area. This is particularly important for applications for two or more dwellings on a site currently or previously occupied by a single property.
|
Editorial modification to improve the readability of the Policy – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
Supporting text for Policy HO2
(page 3 of 20)
|
Additional text added:
Using an Article 4 Direction would be a proactive measure supported by the BTNP. BFC has not designated an Article 4 Direction which removes the permitted development rights for the change of use from Use Class C3 to Use Class C4.
|
Consequential modification to reflect matters which were taken into account by the Examiner (see para. 114 of the Examiner’s report). This is a matter of fact – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
HO2 |
Remove the word ‘and’ from last bullet point of Examiner’s modified Policy.
Amended Policy wording (to also reflect Examiner’s recommendations set out in Table 1):
Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO)
Applications submitted
for changes of use to houses in multiple occupation (HMO) will
· the design, layout and intensity of use of the building would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenities and
·
internal and external
amenity space, refuse storage and car and bicycle parking would be
provided at an appropriate quantity and would be of a high standard
so as not to harm visual amenity.
|
Consequential modification to reflect that the preceding bullet points have been deleted from the Policy in line with Examiner’s recommendations – does not affect the nature of the Plan.
|
Supporting text for HO8 (buildings of local character)
(page 19 of 20) |
Changes to the list of definitions referred to in the supporting text (and also rearranged into alphabetical order):
Definitions: included here where relevant especially for the residents reading this community plan : • Bulk: the composition & shape of a building's massing. • Character : term relating to the appearance of any place in terms of its landscape or the layout of streets and open spaces, giving it a distinct identity
• Design: the plan of a building. • Footprint : the area on a project site that is used by the building structure and is defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, landscapes and other non building facilities are not included in the building footprint. • Landscape Character Assessment: a process of identifying and describing variations in the character of the landscape. It seeks to identify & explain why an area is distinctive. • Scale: the relative dimensions of a building. • Separation: the space between buildings • Townscape : the planning and building of structures in a town or city. • To define “grain of development, see This hierarchy of definitions: • Layout = urban structure, urban grain, urban density and mix • Scale : density & mix, height & massing, building type, façade & • Interface • Appearance : building type, façade & interface • Public Realm : façade & interface, details & materials, streetscape & landscape https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/councillorsguide-to-urban-design.pdf refers and see • Urban grain : The nature and extent of the subdivision of the area into smaller development parcels showing: • The pattern and scale of streets, blocks and plots • The rhythm of building frontages along the street as a reflection of the plot subdivision
|
Consequential modifications to provide a definition of the terms included in the reworded policy (which has been amended in accordance with the Examiner’s recommendations – see Table 1). |
Introduction to Economy section 7
Page 2 of 16) |
Additional text included:
The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Council Tax data for local precepting authorities 2020-21 shows Bracknell as no 16 after Weymouth, Chippenham, Salisbury City Council, Weston Super Mare, Dunstable, Central Swindon South, Leighton Linslade, Falmouth, Trowbridge, Banbury, Truro, Sutton Coldfield, Lowestoft, St Neots & Newquay.
|
Explanatory modification – provides some context on Bracknell in relation to other towns - does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
Supporting text to EC3
(page 7 of 16) |
Amendments to text:
Jennett’s Park
has been added to the New Town with a school and community centre
|
Factual modification to reflect the current position – does not affect the nature of the Plan.
|
Supporting text to EC4
(page 9 of 16) |
Amendments to text:
The Brakenhale School formally became an academy with the Greenshaw Learning Trust on 1st April 2016. The school has now been rebuilt.
|
Factual modification to reflect the current position – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
Supporting text to EC5
|
Amendments to text:
This policy is suggesting that adding more sites of mixed, complementary uses into the town centre will improve the type of environment the new residents of high density dwellings will be living in - all day - every day. Countryside Properties plc has 392 Bracknell plots in its landbank, according to its latest set of accounts p36.
|
Factual modification – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
Supporting text to TR5 |
Amendments to text:
There have been several attempts to have “walking buses” to help pupils to walk to school together under supervision.
|
Factual modification – does not affect the nature of the Plan. |
Appendix 3 & 4 |
Note to be added to Appendix contents relating to Appendix 3 and 4 that that information will be available electronically:
3. Appendix 3 EV2 Protection & Maintenance of Local Green Space: Justification A to K Ownership Spreadsheet: see Policy Justification
PRINTING NOTE too
large for A4 printing so do on BFC 2 x 4 ft format printer
reference only when needed. (Available by request from Bracknell Town Council). 4. Appendix 4 Policy EV2 Protection & Maintenance of Local Green Space: Justification A to K List of BK Title registers, plans & screenshots: see Policy Justification
PRINTING NOTE :
The large folder called Appendix 4 Policy EV2 P & M of LGS Justification A to K List of BK Title registers, plans & screenshots contains all the Appendix 4 individual electronic files of either BK title register entries, plans or screenshots of large plans but is kept for electronic reference only, when needed. (Available by request from Bracknell Town Council). It is indexed as the file called Appendix 4.1 in screenshots ready for printing 20 Feb 2021 used here for printing as A4 landscape & for inclusion in Document 2.
|
Explanatory modification, as copies of the information will not form part of the printed/electronic version of the Plan, and are available upon request from Bracknell Town Council. |
Appendix 10 & 11 |
Appendices relating to previous consultation material have been deleted from the referendum version of the Plan, and consequential update to rename former Appendix 13 and Appendix 11 |
Factual modification: these appendices relate to an earlier version of the Plan to demonstrate that appropriate public engagement had taken place, which is not necessary to include in the referendum version of the Plan.
|