Current Campaigns:

Site Allocations - Development Plan Document

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

more information...

South East Plan

SECTION INDEX

• About GOSE and the South East Plan
   

• About Strategic Gaps and their importance to Binfield
   

• Copy of Binfield Village Protection Society's submission to GOSE
   

• Copy of ALERT sent to Members and Alerts subscribers

GOSE AND THE SOUTH EAST PLAN

GOSE: Government Office for the South East

GOSE work with organisations across the South East to deliver the Government’s policies and programmes in the region. The South East stretches from Kent and East Sussex in the east to Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in the south; West Berkshire in the west and Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale in the north.

The South East Plan provides a framework for the region’s development for the next 20 years, to 2026.  It compliments other regional strategies, such as those for economic development and public housing investment and, by including an Implementation Plan, has a strong focus on delivery.

For more information visit the GOSE website at: www.gose.gov.uk/gose/

STRATEGIC GAPS AND BINFIELD

Binfield Village Protection Society reviewed the South East Plan in some detail and was alarmed to see that the Secretary of State has decided to delete the policy recommending that Strategic Gaps be retained between settlements. We believe that Strategic Gap policy is vital in providing open countryside near to urban areas which provides a valuable amenity to the people who live in the nearby towns.

There is a Strategic Gap between Binfield and Wokingham, which Bracknell Forest Council have protected in their Local Development Framework Core Strategy.  If the strategic gap is lost, development could take place on that land, which could result in a development sprawl from Reading right through to London. 

Binfield Village Protection Society is also concerned that the additional 2000 homes recommended by the Panel of Planning inspectors and accepted by the Secretary of State is a floor, not a ceiling.  With our surrounding counties fighting the number of homes allocated to them, together with the plan opting for development south of the M4, we feel that Bracknell could still be forced to provide even more new builds. 

We have responded to the Government Office for the South East and our submission may be viewed below. On this occasion, we also used our “Alerts” system, to notify all the people who have subscribed explaining how they could add their voice to our concerns about the current SE Plan.  If you would like to be included in future planning alerts, please email your name and address to alerts@bvps.org.uk.

COPY OF OUR SUBMISSION TO GOSE:

RSS Team,  GOSE,
Bridge House,  
1 Walnut Tree Close,
Guildford,
U1 4GA                                                          Thursday, 23^rd October, 2008.

Dear Sirs,

I write on behalf of Binfield Village Protection Society (BVPS) to make two comments on the Draft South East Plan:

(i) on the number of houses allocated to Bracknell Forest Council and

(ii) on the removal of Strategic Gaps.

The number of houses allocated to Bracknell Forest Council in the Draft South East Plan is 2000.  It is understood by BVPS that the Bracknell Borough Council’s carefully constructed Core Strategy Development Plan was to ensure that all development in the borough up to the period 2016 – 2026, would be planning led.  The Core Strategy Development Plan was found to be sound by the Inspector, accepted and approved by Central Government and adopted in February 2008 by Bracknell Forest Council. It is now part of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework. The housing numbers issues had been fully addressed by the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and it would now appear that BFC are to provide 2000 more houses than was previously planned for.  Binfield Village Protection Society object strongly to this as it would be yet another erosion, by stealth, of the countryside we seek to protect.  See Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4 and CS5 in the chapter Sustainable Growth and CS9 in the chapter Environment;  Core Strategy Development Plan Document, BFBLDF.  February 2008

The  removal of “Strategic Gaps”  is even more serious.

Binfield Village Protection Society strongly opposes the deletion of Policy CC10b Strategic Gaps from the South East Plan.

Strategic Gap policy is invaluable, in areas of the South East such as the Thames Corridor and Blackwater Valley where pressures to develop are great. Strategic Gap Policies enabling towns to retain their own identity, preventing urban sprawl and preventing the coalescence of settlements.

The Strategic Gap between Bracknell and Wokingham prevents the development of a huge urban conurbation which would stretch from Reading to Greater London

Strategic Gap policy is vital in providing open countryside near to urban areas which provides a valuable amenity to the people who live in the nearby towns.

In the reference to PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas  we read that the reason for the Secretary of States proposed change is that it is felt that the national policy in this statement is sufficient to address development issues in the open countryside without further local designations.  We are referred to paragraphs 24 to 25 of the policy document but these paragraphs refer to landscape which has special qualities and that tools such as Landscape Character Assessments should provide sufficient protection.    This will not necessarily protect land which forms a Strategic Gap.  In  paragraph 26. Local planning authorities are required  to ensure that in their LDDs they  recognise the importance of the countryside around urban areas to those who live and work there.    This statement is in conflict with the deletion of Strategic Gap policy

Recommendation

In Rec.5.14  Strategic Gaps will only be acceptable where gaps between settlements cannot be protected by other landscape and countryside policies and the gap should be the minimum to prevent coalescence and is unlikely to be more than two miles in width.   The Panel’s recommendation was that the gap should  not be more than five miles wide.    The recommendation here is vague and leaves planning authorities without clear guidelines.   A maximum width of two miles means that a width considerably narrower is acceptable.    A width of a few metres, which this recommendation could lead to, is unlikely to provide separate settlements with their own identity or to provide nearby urban dwellers with any sizeable area of countryside.

Binfield Village Protection Society has always been concerned that Significant Land between Settlements has appropriate policies ascribed to these areas in all Local Plans. Bracknell Forest Borough Council, now Bracknell Forest Council, has ensured that this is established in various documents.

The documents and the policies in them relating to Strategic Gaps are listed below: 

Berkshire Structure Plan.  1991 -2006.

Policies affecting Bracknell Forest Borough.

Policy C6.  Green Wedges and Gaps  … will be identified in local plans where there is a risk of:

1. coalescence, loss of community identity or increased urbanised character
    

2. loss of access to open countryside  

This was confirmed in 2007 when the review of the Royal Berkshire Structured Plan was completed. 

North Bracknell Local Plan, Policy EN9  page 79.           February 1992

The areas of land lying wholly or partly within the Local Plan area identified in Policy EN6 RBSP are :-    

(i)   land between Wokingham and Bracknell.

                (ii)  land between Bracknell and Ascot

                (iii) land between Binfield and Bracknell.

“These areas are subject to development pressures which threaten their open, undeveloped character and if left unconstrained could lead to a merging of settlements.“     

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan: Policy EN8,  page 22.  January 2002.

Policy EN8  Development of land outside settlements

2.57   The countryside shall be protected for its own sake.

2.58   Of particular concern is the need to maintain the distinction between built-up areas and the countryside by controlling the spread of development outside settlements.   …

2.59   the local Plan includes Policy C6 of the RBSP and goes on to say:

Consequently, development which will narrow or erode the physical and visual gap between settlements will be resisted.

Bracknell Forest Council Local Development Framework.     

The Core Strategy Development Plan Document   February 2008.

Map 3 in the Core Strategy Document is a Key Diagram in which the Strategic Gaps are clearly indicated.

On Page 19 of the now approved and adopted Document is PolicyCS4 of the Core Strategy of BFC LDF.  It states

CS4 Land at Amen Corner (in the Parish of Binfield)

[76]  (iv) protection of the Strategic Gap between Binfield/Bracknell and Wokingham 

And

CS9 Development of Land Outside Settlements     - Page 24,

Green wedges and Gaps between settlements was firmly included in this recently approved and accepted document.

Binfield Village Protection Society contributed through detailed responses to this document and will look closely at all future documents that unfold from the Framework. We believe that the Strategic Gap Policy is invaluable.  In areas of the South East such as the Thames corridor where pressures to develop are great, strategic gaps enable towns to retain their own identity, preventing urban sprawl and preventing the coalescence of settlements.

It is very hard for the members of any community to look closely into a document the size of the Draft South East Plan but Binfield Village Protection Society will persevere.  The Society trust that the Government Office for the South East will consider our objections seriously and deal with them appropriately, to our satisfaction. We trust that as a result the Policy CC10b Strategic Gaps will not be deleted from the South East Plan.

E. Margaret Foster (Mrs.)

Chairperson,  Binfield Village Protection Society.  

cc   Bracknell Forest Council, Department of Planning Policy.
cc   Binfield Parish Council

'ALERT' SENT TO MEMBERS & SUBSCRIBERS:

15th October, 2008

Binfield Village Protection Society © 2010