It would seem that the only information being made public about the so called public consultation is coming from NAAG and that very few residents have heard anything or received any information about the current consultation on the SADPD proposals to build 1,000s of new homes in Binfield and Warfield.

Most of you are unlikely to be aware that there was a previous “Public Consultation” in Warfield and the plan to build 2,400 new houses was adopted by Bracknell Council as they did not receive any objections. What a surprise there were no protests, nobody knew about it.

Now the same Council is doing the same thing again, only this time it is much more serious. They have plans for 10,780 new homes mostly in and around the villages of Binfield and Warfield. They intend to move the defined settlement boundaries, which means that they can build on green land and you will not be able to complain or protest. They are unable to explain how the massive infrastructure works needed will be paid for, let alone say how the engineering for such an exercise can be achieved. They have almost no plans to build on “brown land” i.e. land previously built on, and nearly all the new building will be on green land i.e. the countryside.

At this moment in time the Borough Council say that they are consulting with residents and the public, but very few people have heard about the consultation let alone received any details.

It is possible to find details on the Council web site at:

http://consult.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/portal/planning/siteallocations/sadpdmod

however this matter is complex, the questions are complex and if you can find the time to wade through 199 pages of answers to the Planning Inspector, understand what answers are being given by the Council and why, then you would be in the great minority.

Public consultations are supposed to be simple to understand. They should be written in plain English and in such a way that the majority of the population can understand and answer the question.

This “public consultation” is an insult to residents and Council Officials alike and is a total abuse of the system.

We would urge you to write to the Planning Inspector today and let him know that the current tactics of the Borough Council are unacceptable and that you have the right to be consulted properly and in such a manner that you can understand the questions being asked.

If Bracknell Council are successful with their plans, then a once green and pleasant land will never be seen by your children other than perhaps as photographs in a museum.

Objections can only be officially received on the Bracknell Forest Council web site. You can find full details of the plans and make your views known on the web portal at:

http://consult.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/portal/planning/siteallocations/sadpdmod

Otherwise, if you do not have internet, write or email giving your full name, address, postcode, telephone number and e-mail address (if relevant). Ask for an acknowledgement of your response and request that it is forwarded directly to the Inspector.

Mr Max Baker Head of Spatial Policy Section, Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell (8.30am–5pm, Monday to Friday), Tel. 01344 351188. Email: Max.Baker@bracknell-forest.gov.uk

Bracknell Forest Council is planning to build up to 12,780 new houses, with 1,000s in and around the villages of Binfield and Warfield over the next few years, some of which have already been built. Whilst we believe that there is a need to build new homes, we do not believe that nearly all of these should be built on green land and that the Council should use at least some of the 1.5m sq. ft. of empty office space to build homes in and around the town centre and reinvigorate Bracknell.

In December the Council’s proposals were heard by a Government Planning Inspector and he asked for a number of changes to be made to the plans, including showing proposed new settlement boundaries, and for the Council to consult residents on these changes. The Council is pushing ahead with its plans, regardless of public opinion so far. This consultation is your last chance to make your views known.

The main areas affected are:

• Blue Mountain Golf Course – Plans are to build 400 houses; 3,000 capacity football stadium for Bracknell FC  with pitches and floodlighting;  secondary school, primary and special needs school; a multifunctional community hub. Work is planned to start in 2014/15.
• Amen Corner North – 400 residential houses
• Amen Corner South – 725 residential homes; primary school; neighbourhood centre (at Farley Wood).
• Warfield – 2,200 residential homes; two primary schools; neighbourhood centre; multi-functional community hub.
• In addition – houses are planned in the following locations:
• • Farley Hall, London Road, Binfield – 65
  • Land at 152 New Road, Winkfield – 12
  • Binfield Nursery, Terrace Road, Binfield – 33
  • Bog Lane, Winkfield  – 40
  • Popeswood Garage, Hilcrest and Sundial Cottage, London Road, Binfield – 14
  • The Football Ground, Largess Lane, Bracknell – 102
  • Land north of Peacock Lane, Bracknell (Binfield Parish) – 182
  • Sandbanks, Longhill Road and Palm Hills Estate, London Road, Winkfield  – 49
  • Land north of Cain Road, Binfield – 75
  • Land east of Murrell Hill Lane, south of Foxley Lane, north of September Cottage, Binfield – 67
  • Land at Battle Bridge House, Warfield House and garage Forest Road, Warfield – 10
  • Land at junction of Forest Road and Foxley Lane, Binfield – 26
  • Land at Wood Lane, Binfield  – 20

Bracknell Forest Council have opened their Public Consultation on their revised proposals following the Planning Inspector’s Ruling.

You can find full details and make your views known on their web portal at:

http://consult.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/portal/planning/siteallocations/sadpdmod

It would also be helpful to get as many friends and family to do the same. The more people who protest against these proposals, the more likely the Planning Inspector will listen to our concerns.

Please remember that the consultation period is very short and runs from  Monday 4 February to 5pm on Tuesday 19 March 2013.

The Northern Arc Action Group in conjunction with Binfield Village Protection Society have prepared a summary of the objections that we believe are important to make, and remember this is not just for you, but for your children and future generations who will no longer be able to enjoy the tranquillity of the countryside as the historic villages of Binfield and Warfield would become suburbs of Bracknell.

We have summarised the key objections to Bracknell Forest Council’s Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD) proposals and a detailed point by point response can be found on the NAAG web site at www.narcag.co.uk

KEY OBJECTIONS

• LACK OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION: there has been very little public consultation on the SADPD proposals and most residents are not aware of the plans. Representations made to the Council by informed residents and local action groups have been ignored.

• CHANGES TO SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES: There has been no previous consultation with residents or local communities over the proposals to change established settlement boundaries. Binfield and Warfield will be joined to Bracknell as one urbanisation.

• SOUTH EAST PLAN: Bracknell Council claims that their proposals are in accordance with the South East Plan, but make no allowance for the 70% requirement of new homes to be built on brown land. Nearly all new houses are being built on green land and there are no plans to build in the town centre or use any of the 1.5m sq.ft. of empty office space for homes or education facilities.

• NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK : We would contend that the proposed SADPD is in direct contravention of the NPPF and makes almost no use of brown land. Nearly all the proposed development is on green land, much of which is outside the existing settlement boundaries.

• BLUE MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE: The land is subject to a Section 52 Agreement which was signed on behalf of residents by the Borough Council, the present owner of the land and the County Council and was established to protect the land from future development and also to protect the gap between Binfield and Bracknell.  The Bracknell Council intend to tear up this agreement and build on nearly all the land. Write to Binfield Parish Council and ask them to make a legal challenge on our behalf. 

• INSUFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE:  The current infrastructure is insufficient to cope with the increased demand and the Council have confirmed that they do not have sufficient funds to build and widen roads nor construct new sewage and surface water disposal systems.

Objections can only be officially received on the Bracknell Forest Council web site. You can find full details of the plans and make your views known on the web portal at:

http://consult.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/portal/planning/siteallocations/sadpdmod

Otherwise, if you do not have internet, write or email giving your full name, address, postcode, telephone number and e-mail address (if relevant). Ask for an acknowledgement of your response and request that it is forwarded directly to the Inspector.

Mr Max Baker Head of Spatial Policy Section, Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell (8.30am–5pm, Monday to Friday), Tel. 01344 351188. Email: Max.Baker@bracknell-forest.gov.uk

Your MP – Adam Afriyie , House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Email: adam.afriyie.mp@parliament.uk

Monday 4 Feb 2013

BracknellForest: Site Allocations Development Plan Document

The Inspector at the Examination in Public (Mr Hetherington) has reported back to BFBC, requesting modifications to the SADPD.  The BFBC Executive has recommended that these be accepted and the Inspector has asked that they be put to full public consultation. That public consultation started on Monday 4 February and will run for six weeks, closing on Tuesday 19 March 2013. The Inspector also indicated that further public hearings might be needed.

The four modifications are:

• The inclusion of a policy on the presumption in favour of sustainable development to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
• The addition of settlement boundaries for the major urban extensions to give greater certainty on the location of development and better demonstrate compliance with Core Strategy Policy CS9. Also to include the insertion of illustrative concept plans for Amen Corner South and Warfield based on those in their respective adopted Supplementary Planning documents.
• Changes to the wording of the plan to achieve general conformity with the South East Plan (SEP), particularly in its housing requirement.
• The inclusion of a number of additional sites to provide a more robust housing land supply.

This Inspector is assisting BFBC to produce a sound document because central government says more houses must be built in the South East Region.

How do we challenge these modifications? 

Firstly we should note that the weight of responses might count. BVPS will prepare a response but it is just as important that all concerned Binfield residents reply to this consultation. Everyone is responsible for protecting Binfield from inappropriate development. We must retain some belief in the democratic process, not simply rollover and say nothing.

Please take a look at the NPPF. It reads as a developer’s charter. Can you think of reasons why sustainable development in Binfield is inappropriate or at least less appropriate than other parts of the Borough?

It is important to agree with the principle of settlement boundaries determining where development should take place.  But as residents watching the eating away of green space and countryside in Binfield, we need to continue arguing against unnecessary expansion of the settlement into the countryside.

 Everyone must be able to say something about the proposal to accept the housing numbers from the S.E. Plan, which requires Bracknellto plan for an extra 2000 houses on top of the numbers in the SADPD.  Given current demand levels the developers are being given a supply, which will take several decades to exhaust

 How about giving your view as to where in the Borough any additional sites might be found.  Please name at least 3 alternatives.

 I feel we must all take this opportunity to express our concern about developing Bracknell at an inappropriate time under dreary economic conditions, to the detriment of the quality of life in the whole of the Borough, with the loss of greenspaces that were part of the original New Town concept and our evidence, opinions and ideas being swept aside for ever.

Write or email giving your full name, address, postcode, telephone number and e-mail address (if relevant). Ask for an acknowledgement of your response and request that it is forwarded directly to the Inspector. If you would like more information before you write, use the links below or contact the borough by phone or in person.  Whilst rudeness is inappropriate, feel free to vent your anger. Please also be succinct and to the point.

• Mr Max Baker Head of Spatial Policy Section, Time Square, Market Street, Bracknell (8.30am–5pm, Monday to Friday), Tel. 01344 351188.
• http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/siteallocationsdevelopmentplandocumentpostsubmission)

• http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/siteallocationsdpdexamination

If you still care about NO development in Binfield’s gaps and green spaces, your letter as part of the latest consultation process will be welcomed. Copies to the following would be appropriate:

• Our Member of Parliament, Adam Afriye
• Our Borough Councillors, Mr Leake and John Harrison
• Our Parish Councillors via the Clerk, Mrs Sculley
• BVPS Chair designate, Simon Butcher, simon.butcher@bvps.org

Regards, Margaret Foster, Acting Chair, bvps

The latest proposal from Bracknell Forest Council for Blue Mountain is once more quite illuminating an as usual completely ignores the fact that they have signed a legally binding Section 52 Agreement on behalf of the residents stating that they will never build on this site.

Instead of the golf course, BFC is planning that you will have:

a. A new secondary school. Not that we need one as there are currently in excess of 1,000 school places available in existing schools. It is planned to use it for the extra houses at Jennets Park, Amen Corner and Warfield, but all of these are quite some distance away.

b. Between 450 – 900 new executive homes. Not that we need these either as the Council refuses to use previously developed land to build new homes and only seem willing to build on green land.

c. A 3,000 seater football stadium and assorted pitches for Bracknell Town Football Club. Binfield is already host to Bracknell FC as well as their own much more successful Binfield team. So why do we want another, complete with high level floodlights in the middle of the countryside – we do not!

d. A SANG. This is an area of public open space which will no doubt be fenced off so that access is both limited and difficult. The planners have kindly offered to share the parking for the SANG with the football stadium.

The so called “gap” between Bracknell and Binfield is being reduced to a strip not much wider than the back garden of Newbold College.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

We would draw your attention to a number of important changes in the Blue Mountain proposals, which have been reproduced below with our own comments in red italics:

 CM36 Section 2.4 Urban extensions, Land at blue Mountain, Binfield

Policy SA7 Blue Mountain – Page 26

Land at Blue Mountain Binfield as shown on the proposals Policies Map and Illustrative Concept Plan is identified allocated for a comprehensive well designed mixed-use development that maintains a buffer between Binfield and Bracknell,(the “buffer” is not much wider than the football pitches) including the following:

• • 400 residential units (including affordable housing). – The developer actually wants 900 houses.
• • Land for a range of educational facilities, include Primary, Secondary and Special
• • Education Needs.
• • Multi-functional community hub.
• • A new football ground. – this has grown significantly from the original proposal and now includes practice pitches and a 3,000 seater floodlit stadium .
• • Maintenance of a buffer between Binfield and Bracknell (comprising on-site open space and/or SANG) – the back garden of Newbold College is bigger than the proposed SANG

• • On-site open space and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).

The infrastructure required to support this development includes:

• • A comprehensive package of on and off-site transport measures to mitigate the development’s impact on roads and encourage sustainable modes of transport. - Unspecified and the council have admitted they have no funds.

• • On-site in-kind provision of a waste recycling facility. – This should go down well with neighbours.
• • Provision of land and Financial contributions towards on-site Primary School, Secondary School and Special Educational Needs places.
• • In-kind provision, or financial contributions towards an on-site multi-functional community hub, including land set aside for the delivery of a Full Daycare Nursery. – this is new

• • Measures to avoid and mitigate the impact of residential development upon the Thames Basins Heath Special Protection Area (SPA), in agreement with the Council and Council’s Thames Basins Heaths SPA Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy and relevant guidance. - Unspecified

• • A comprehensive package of on-site, in-kind Open Space of Public Value, in accordance with standards. – Unspecified

• • Protection and enhancement of Public Rights of Way. - Note, no additional rights of way. If it is existing how is it protected and enhanced?
• • Integration of Sustainable Drainage Systems. – all the surface drainage goes to the Cut, which is already overloaded and the sewage goes to the existing facility which cannot cope at the moment.
• • Provision of Green Infrastructure (in addition to elements listed above) - Unspecified

The above is not a comprehensive list of requirements. Further details of other mitigation required can be found in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Natural England. This will include provision in perpetuity of: - Are we wrong or was the Section 52 in perpetuity as well? This Council has proved just how deceitful they are, by trying to break a lawful agreement signed on behalf of the residents to protect this same land. How could anyone believe their promises?

o on-site bespoke SANG of at least 8ha per 1,000 new population; - This consists of a series of small strips of land that will no doubt be built on in the future as they are not much use for anything else.

o a financial contribution towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring;

and

o any other measures that are required to satisfy Habitat Regulations, the – this is farcical. Wild animals cannot live in the amount of space allocated nor can they differentiate between back gardens and open land.

CM38 Section 2.4 Urban Extensions Policy

Land at Blue Mountain, Para 2.4.17, Page 29

Phasing Delivery

2.4.17 The site is in single ownership, although there are leasehold interests affecting the site, including a Bracknell Forest Borough Council interest.(No mention of the Section 52 Agreement and Bracknells’ legal requirement not to build on Blue Mountain)

The delivery of the proposed Secondary School is an important priority for the Council, both to accommodate new pupils arising from planned development and those arising from within the existing population. (This is simply not true, there are currently more than 1,000 surplus places available in Bracknell schools)

The development of this site therefore needs to be progressed soon after the adoption of the SADPD. Why does the Council want to develop this site so soon? They have not started any of the housing yet and no developers have come forward to build (other than on the golf course). Some existing buildings will need to be cleared and the land re-graded in places. Provided that an acceptable scheme is negotiated and planning permission can be granted, it is envisaged that the site could start delivering housing in 2014/2015 2015/2016 (assuming the timely delivery of the SANG). ( The golfers were told by Crown Golf that they had at least until 2025. Crown Golf say that this was confirmed by the Council. Someone is telling a pack of lies.)

http://consult.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/portal/planning/siteallocations/sadpdmod

A 6 week consultation on the Proposed Modifications will commence on 4 February and finish on 19 March 2013.  After the consultation, the Council will submit any comments received to the Inspector for consideration.

A letter giving further details of the consultation and hard copies of the main documents will be delivered during the week commencing 4 February.

Please check the BFC  web site for updates, including dates of further hearing

sessions: http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/siteallocationsdpdexamination

Any queries can be referred to the Council’s Spatial Policy Section on 01344 352000.

An unedited version has been printed below:

ID/8
BRACKNELL FOREST SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN (SA DPD) EXAMINATION
INSPECTOR’S FURTHER NOTE TO BRACKNELL FOREST COUNCIL
1. I refer to your letter dated 22 January 2013, which enclosed the Council’s Schedule of Modifications following the conclusions of the hearings last December.
2. First – and notwithstanding my previous comments – it seems to me that, having now seen the full scale and scope of the proposed modifications, they should be the subject of a specific consultation exercise before the examination can progress further. This is because the modifications contain substantial proposals, including the definition of settlement boundaries and the identification of additional housing sites, which have not yet been the subject of full public consultation. Such a consultation exercise would inform my consideration of whether the proposed modifications could form the basis of any ‘main modifications’ needed to make the Plan sound/legally compliant. It would also allow the Council to gain feedback on its proposed minor changes.
3. My suggestion is therefore that the Council carries out a consultation exercise based upon the schedule (BFBC14) that you have sent me, subject to an amendment to the text of the final paragraph on the first page. This could read something along the lines of: The Council will submit this schedule to the Inspector for consideration. He will then identify the modifications that he considers are necessary for the document to be sound/legally compliant. These will be called Main Modifications. He may amend or add further Main Modifications. Additional Main Modifications would be subject to a further period of consultation.
4. Clearly, this raises the potential of an additional consultation exercise if I were to end up recommending further Main Modifications that differed materially from the changes that you are now suggesting. However any such exercise, if required, would be focussed narrowly on the further changes themselves.
5. In response to your specific procedural questions, I can comment as follows:
•The consultation exercise on the proposed modifications should be of a similar form (and length) to that required under the Regulations for the Plan as a whole prior to submission – and consistent with the Council’s SCI.
•The SA and HRA of the changes should made available for comment at the same time.
•A response form should be prepared: this should give an opportunity for respondents to comment on the proposed changes, and should indicate whether they wish to participate at any future hearing session(s). The form should state that comments are only being sought on the proposed changes and that comments that have previously been made about the Plan should not be repeated.
•There is no requirement to prepare a summary sheet of representations, although this may be helpful to all parties.
•Representations will need to be referenced (perhaps using, where possible, the existing representor numbers) and made publically
available – ideally on the examination website. I will need paper copies of all representations in due course.
6. I would aim to hold any resumed hearings as soon as possible following the closure of the public consultation period, albeit allowing some time to consider the issues raised. Bearing in mind that any hearings would need to be advertised with six weeks notice (i.e similar to the statutory requirements), there would be merit in finalising the likely hearing dates at an early stage. Clearly however the length and scope of any resumed hearings, which would focus on the proposed modifications and would not represent an opportunity to reopen previous discussions, cannot be finally determined until the scale and type of representations are known. The PO will advise you of possible dates separately.
7. There are a number of other outstanding matters that I mentioned when I closed the hearings last month on which I would welcome an update:
•It was suggested that the Council may be able to seek common ground with Wokingham BC about the Strategic Gap and with Natural England regarding the ‘Look Out’ parking change. Have either of these been progressed?
•Was the Council intending to submit any additional evidence in respect of the viability aspects of the Broadmoor redevelopment? As I advised at the hearing, any such evidence would need to have already formed part of the Council’s considerations and would need to be made publically available as an examination document.
8. I would welcome your comments on the above as soon as possible, so that an appropriate timescale can be arranged. If you have any queries, please contact me via the PO.
Michael J Hetherington Inspector 23 January 2012

NAAG will keep you updated on further developments.

Summary

Following the first two sets of hearings into the SADPD the Inspector has invited the Council to propose a set of changes to the SADPD in order to make it sound.  The most significant of these are known as main modifications.  The Inspector has indicated four main areas requiring changes as follows:

• The inclusion of a policy on the presumption in favour of sustainable development to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);
• The addition of settlement boundaries for the major urban extensions to give greater certainty on the location of development and better demonstrate compliance with Core Strategy Policy CS9 (to include the insertion of illustrative concept plans for Amen Corner South and Warfield based on those in their respective adopted Supplementary Planning Documents [SPDs]);
• Changes to the wording of the plan to achieve general conformity with the South East Plan (SEP), particularly its housing requirements; and,
• The inclusion of a number of additional sites to provide a more robust housing land supply.

The next stage will be for the Council to provide a full schedule of all proposed modifications to the Inspector. This list includes modifications to address the four main issues listed above and a number of what officers consider to be minor changes which do not affect the document’s overall soundness but would improve its clarity and consistency and provide more up to date references.

From this schedule the Inspector will determine which are main modifications required to make the document sound.  He may make changes to these main modifications and may add further main modifications of his own.  It is only the main modifications which will be subject to further consultation and potentially further hearing sessions before the Inspector produces his final report.

Site specific hearings (which are open to the public and begin at 10am each day in the Hilton Hotel, Bagshot Road, Bracknell) will be held as follows:-

Tuesday 11 December –                 Crowthorne sites

Wednesday 12 December –           Binfield sites, including Blue Mountain; land at junction of  Forest Road and Foxley Lane; land east of Murrell Hill Lane/ south of Foxley Lane/ north of September Cottage

Thursday 13 December –                Amen Corner North; Amen Corner South; land at Warfield

Friday 14 December -                      Other sites offered to the council for development but not included in the SADPD

Some encouraging signs emerged from the two-day opening session of the public examination into Bracknell Forest Council’s Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD), held  on 7 and 8 November – along with a warning that sites for another 2,000 homes may have to be found.

The examination is being conducted by planning inspector Michael Hetherington, who advised the Council planners that he might not agree that all of the housing sites proposed in the SADPD were acceptable. If he comes to this conclusion following the site specific hearing sessions in December, more new housing sites will have to be identified to meet the shortfall.

He also commented that the council’s housing target of 10,780 new homes for the borough between 2006 and 2026 was 2,000 less than the total required by the South East Regional Plan, which has not yet been revoked although the Government has indicated that it intends to do so. Unless the inspector accepts that the council’s lower figure is in “general conformity” with the South East Plan, he could require sites to be identified for another 2,000 homes.

Mr Hetherington questioned the council planning team closely about the method used for site selection, particularly how the sites were prioritised one way in the initial findings and in reverse order finally. He voiced concern that the Sustainability Appraisal scoring does not support the selection of the four Urban Extensions – two in Binfield at Blue Mountain Golf Course and Amen Corner North, and two in Crowthorne at the TRL and Broadmoor. This will be considered further at the site specific hearings.

He asked for a comparison table to be produced by BFC of all eight broad areas considered in the original site selection process, and justification for how these eight were reduced to the four sites finally chosen.

Mr Hetherington also noted that many of the technical documents used by the council as its evidence base for the selection of the Urban Extensions were published after the four sites were selected. The council team said these documents were prepared before the site selection but not made public.

The inspector asked for a brief audit trail to be prepared of the site selection process itself and the transport modelling process, also information about what proportion of the development is proposed on previously developed land.

He accepted that the South East Plan seeks 60% of new housing to be built on previously developed land, but added that this was a regional target, not a requirement for each borough. The development plan must be presented according to the South East Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, with the latter taking precedence.

The inspector was concerned that the SADPD does not show revised Defined Settlement Boundaries to include the proposed new Urban Extensions, and that the council planned to defer this until the Local Plan stage.

He said that redefining settlement boundaries was a key issue and would be examined during the site specific hearings, when he expects to see a map of each site showing the location of proposed land uses, facilities, open space, SANG and boundaries. He considered that local and strategic gaps for settlement separation should be more closely defined.

Mr Hetherington stated that  he would set out his conclusions on all matters discussed at the hearings in a single statement after the hearings have been completed. He may propose many changes to the SADPD, which would require another public consultation. Or he may find the plan ‘unsound’, which would result in the council having to make significant changes and require a new public examination.

He acknowledged concerns voiced by residents about the council’s public consultations over the selection of the four Urban Extensions but said he was “unable to turn the clock back.”

The first hearing was devoted to the overall approach to the plan and an overview of the allocations, and the second to the council’s duty to co-operate with other local authorities and agencies – particularly whether concerns raised by the Highways Agency about the plan’s transportation evidence base had been addressed.

Site specific hearings (which are open to the public and begin at 10am each day in the Hilton Hotel, Bagshot Road, Bracknell) will be held as follows:-

 Tuesday 11 December –                 Crowthorne sites

Wednesday 12 December –           Binfield sites, including Blue Mountain; land at junction of Forest Road and Foxley Lane; land east of  Murrell Hill Lane/ south of Foxley Lane/ north of September  Cottage

Thursday 13 December –              Amen Corner North; Amen Corner South; land at Warfield

Friday 14 December -                     Other sites offered to the council for development but not included in the SADPD

They have put a note in the Bracknell News, put posters locally and delivered to nearby houses.