News

Campaigners now hope they can prevent building on the couirse
advertisement

Campaigners may block Blue Mountain housing plans

By Hugh Fort
October 20, 2011

Housing campaigners in Binfield have uncovered a crucial document they say gives them a reason to legally challenge plans to build houses on a popular local golf course.

Members of the Northern Arc Action Group (NAAG) have received paperwork following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Bracknell Forest Council for details on the planning process back in 1990 when the Blue Mountain Golf Course in Wood Lane was given permission.

They say the response has given them hope they can prevent building on the course, which the council has earmarked to take 400 homes.

NAAG’s FOI request has uncovered a section 52 document, seen by The Bracknell Forest Standard, signed by Berkshire County Council and the council, which states: “Not to use the golf course land for anything other than a golf course or other sporting or other recreational facilities or as open space and not to construct any buildings on the golf course land other than as reasonably required in connection with any of the uses mentioned in this paragraph.”

The campaigners believe this agreement is still legally binding and could give them an opportunity to take legal action against the council, should it continue with its plans.

NAAG Chairman Nigel Rennie said: “It’s a very interesting discovery. We believe it gives us the chance to force a judicial review if the council proceeds with its plans.”

The members of the group were out in force on Monday when they turned up to a meeting of the council’s ruling Conservative group to protest against the plans.

The 25-strong group took the opportunity to speak with the Tory councillors as they made their way into the civic offices at Easthampstead Park.

Mr Rennie added: “We were very impressed with Councillor Dorothy Hayes, who spoke very eloquently and sensibly to us. Others we weren’t so impressed with but we think we’ve got our message across.”

The protesters are keen the council looks at putting more homes on the large amounts of empty office space around the town centre, rather than in the countryside.

They are also pushing the council to delay its housing plans until the Government’s new planning laws are passed, as these may have a huge impact on decisions.

The council confirmed in September it has been looking into the option during the preparation of its latest planning document, which should go out to public consultation next month.

A public meeting was also held on Friday, where the village’s MP, Windsor’s Adam Afriyie, was the special guest.

He said afterwards: “There continues to be a great strength of feeling against the scale of the housing plans for the area – and rightly so.”

People in the village say the area will be swamped by the council’s plans which include 400 homes on the golf course and another 400 on land at Amen corner, where there are already 725 homes permitted.

This is in addition to another 2,000 homes proposed for land in Warfield under council plans to meet national housing building targets.

The campaigners say if you combine the 1,500 home development in Jennett’s Park, the plans across the A329 in Wokingham for another 1,500 homes and other projects in the two boroughs it will lead to more than 10,000 new homes surrounding the village.

The council said the section 52 could be varied under planning law.

| View Comments (9)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 9 of 9

The inequitable distribution of new housing over the northern parishes of Bracknell Forest is the result of a "pincer effect" caused by the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, Crown Estate and Green Belt leaving few options for the council, which was forced to set a housing target by the last government. Binfield, Warfield and Winkfield have some of the most beautiful and scenic rural areas of Bracknell Forest but that counts for nothing because of these constraints. It's just a question of when, not if, the land will be developed. The sites which were dropped from the Site Allocations process this time will merely be first in line, next time. This certainty invites speculators to buy land or options to build.

What is most frustrating about this is to me is that this forced development could at least be done in the most sympathetic manner possible, which would retain the most prominent elements of the rural landscape and could even enhance biodiversity in areas which are currently farmed. Instead, the imperative seems to be on maximising profits for land owners and developers, two parties that don't have to live with the results of their profiteering, unlike the rest of us.

So much of the Thames Basin Heaths area is not even good quality habitat for the endangered species it is supposed to protect. In Swinley Forest, as far as I'm aware, only Caesar's Camp has had tree clearance and heather re-established, but even there, birch saplings are reclaiming the space unchecked. Improving the quality of the protected area to allow the endangered species to flourish and hopefully cease to be endangered is the absolute minimum we can reasonably expect, in return for preventing new housing there, but there is precious little evidence of this. The first step on the path to improvement is removal of invasive non-native species, like the rhododendrons, but they seem to be taking over, rather than being removed.

Maybe in future, history books will tell of how "out-of-control capitalism" trashed the Bracknell suburb of Reading before the oil ran out.

R Parks
05/11/2011 at 14:54

As I understand it no-one has access to the large area that Golf course occupies apart from members? Using this space for a football club, a new school, as Garth is now full, and a few houses would give more people access to freen apsce. It would give some accessible green space to the residents of the rather built up Temple park! Goodness knows how much a legal challenge will cost the ratepayers? The Wokingham objection cost 600,000 I think? I spsupect that this is just a few fat cat NIMBY golf players that don't want everyone to enjoy the land.

Crimson Dawn, Bracknell
21/10/2011 at 17:02

so .... We have lots of empty office space ... and not enough available housing accross lots of different price brackets ... so no-one moves in .....

Answer - Convert all of the empty offices into lots of tiny rabbit hutch flats [i believe that NAAG has called for people to be crammed into the Town Centre rather than having a chocie to live in the green and pleasant countryside] .....

Result .... thousands of cramped small flats that no-one wants to live in ... and companies cant move to bracknell because there is no more space for offices ....

Winchester House could probably be mixed use, as could Ocean or Eagle House ..... but that doesnt address NAAGs aim of "not in my backyard ...." or NIMBYISM!

Tom Edwards - Bullbrook, Bracknell
21/10/2011 at 10:59

The over abundance of unoccupied office space is down to the planning authority within Bracknell Forest Council. They have permitted the construction of these office blocks in some vague hope that companies would flock to Bracknell. When, in fact, there's nothing here to attract them or their employees. The authority and Executive are now proposing to permit the construction of 10,000+ homes in the area, when there clearly isn't a demand for that number.

It seems that the cart is being put before the horse. They need to re-generate Bracknell town centre and its amenities. This will attract companies and their employees to Bracknell and thus drive the organic need for office space and homes. Unfortunately, re-generation is so far behind schedule that by the time Bracknell becomes attractive many of the empty offices will be past their 'use by' date and potential companies won't wish to occupy them.

There would not, therefore, seem to be a driving need to build vast numbers of homes on green land, when there is sufficient brown land available in and around Bracknell to meet demand.

Malcolm, Binfield
21/10/2011 at 10:10

Just when will residents of Bracknell and Wokingham wake up to the inevitable effects of putting additional housing into this area? Even if the planned houses are not right on your doorstep, you are still going to be caught up in the daily travel chaos that will follow once thousands of extra houses are built with no improvements to local infrastructure and public transport.

Forester

Forester, Bracknell
21/10/2011 at 00:11

The Northern Arc Action Group is not campaigning against all housing. We are against building nearly all the proposed housing on green land and not making use of brown land. We are also against destroying the green gap between the villages and turning the countryside into a massive urban sprawl. We are in favour of regenerating Bracknell Town Centre and making better use of the 1.5m sq ft of office space that currently lies empty. Nigel Rennie

Binfield Candidate
20/10/2011 at 20:02

Ooh look, immigrants, the generic reason for everything that's wrong with everything.

What about super-fast breeding English families as a reason for the population rising as well?

But it doesn't say that in the Daily Mail as often does it?

Megaman
20/10/2011 at 16:35

This housing is required only because of the unfettered and criminal immigration allowed by all Governments since 1945 and by the last shower especially.

DrBChing
20/10/2011 at 15:15

Trouble with putting homes on empty office space is that eventually that office space will be needed and we won't have it.

Maybe build those on the golf course instead?