An e-petition containing 1,287 signatories was submitted to the Council on 20 February 2017. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be reported to, and debated at, a full Council meeting.

The petition reads as follows:

“We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to say “no” to 350 new houses on (mainly) green belt in the centre of Ascot.  Landowners in Ascot want to build 350 new houses on either side of Ascot High Street - land that is either Green Belt or open space. This will also mean losing many of the mature trees which frame the Ascot views. How will the already gridlocked High Street and surrounding roads cope with the increase in traffic? Where will workers & shoppers be able to park, when all the car parks are built over? What will happen on Race Days? We see no answers to any of these questions. We believe this development will have a massive and unacceptable impact on our local communities - both in Ascot and the surrounding area. We call on the Royal Borough to NOT remove this land out of the Green Belt and to NOT include this site for housing in the Borough Local Plan”.

The Constitution provides for a maximum time of 30 minutes to debate such petitions; this can be overruled at the Mayor’s discretion.

In accordance with the Constitution, the order of speaking shall be as follows:

An e-petition containing 1,287 signatories was submitted to the Council on 20

February 2017. In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, it was requested by the lead petitioner that the petition be reported to, and debated at, a full Council meeting.

The petition read as follows:

“We the undersigned petition The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to say “no” to 350 new houses on (mainly) green belt in the centre of Ascot. Landowners in Ascot want to build 350 new houses on either side of Ascot High Street - land that is either Green Belt or open space. This will also mean losing many of the mature trees which frame the Ascot views. How will the already gridlocked High Street and surrounding roads cope with the increase in traffic? Where will workers & shoppers be able to park, when all the car parks are built over? What will happen on Race Days? We see no answers to any of these questions. We believe this development will have a massive and unacceptable impact on our local communities - both in Ascot and the surrounding area. We call on the Royal Borough to NOT remove this land out of the Green Belt and to NOT include this site for housing in the Borough Local Plan”.

The Head of Planning introduced the petition. She explained that the proposals for land fronting and around Ascot High Street came forward through the made Ascot and Sunnings Neighbourhood Plan. Chapter 9, which was about projects not policies, talked about the vision for how Ascot centre could be rejuvenated. It explained that it was not within the remit of a Neighbourhood Plan to redraw Green Belt boundaries; only the Borough Local Plan could do this which is why the area was not included in the Neighbourhood Plan as a policy. Development of the land, which was supported by the majority of the community in consultation, was important in delivering the overall vision for Ascot. The plan went on to set out what the site might bring forward, including open space and community facilities. As the local planning authority, the council had been speaking to a consortium of land owners including Ascot Racecourse, Ascot Car Parks Ltd and the Crown Estate who were working to bring forward a development brief as required by the Neighbourhood Plan. The group launched an Ascot Centre consultation webpage. At a consultation open day on 1 December 2016 the consortium set out updated proposals for up to 350 new homes with a new community facility for Ascot. The other two key areas identified were the High Street and highways. In parallel, the council was at first stage consultation on a draft Borough Local Plan. The Regulation 18 draft included a strategic housing allocation for the landowners consortium site together with land known locally as the Shorts site. the draft borough Local Plan suggested around 300 homes together with a community facility, retail facilities and open space. It also identified constraints including significant mature trees on site and existing open space. The draft plan noted the intention to remove the land from the Green Belt as was envisaged by the projects section in the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Lead Petitioner, Mrs V. Grimes, addressed the meeting. She represented the 1,287 petitioners who had expressed deep concern at the loss of Green Belt in Ascot centre. She had additional hard copy signatures to submit ad would pass these to the Petitions Officer. Mrs Grimes commented that at the heart of the concern lay the sense of an indiscriminate focus on housing, opaque and ill-considered planning and a lack of due consideration of the daily realities of both living and working in Ascot. Mrs Grimes had attended the consortium workshops; it had been refreshing that this dialogue had been opened. The original vision and aspiration for a rejuvenated Ascot was based on work by the Princes Trust and the Neighbourhood Plan. The vision had been ‘twisted’. Petitioners were not blind to the national housing needs. In Ascot, windfall and change of use sites were becoming available for residential development right in the centre.  Residents now faced the Green Belt being sacrificed forever, for an indiscriminate focus on housing at unheard of levels. The approach appears poorly considered in its entirety even at this very early stage. Ramifications of widespread development served to amplify concerns about parking, traffic, commuter and worker access, crucial amenities and a lack of infrastructure in the village. Back in 2012, joined up working fostered by the Prince’s Foundation and the Neighbourhood Planning Group saw localism at work. 86% of residents supported the resulting vision, albeit with reservations. The Neighbourhood Plan clearly communicated the community’s desire to maintain Ascot’s distinct character, to preserve the Green Belt, create a successful economic environment and ensure safe and accessible roads and streets. It also recognised the village’s world famous neighbour, the racecourse, which brought unique aspects to the reality of living and working in the area. There was much needed income brought into the village as a result of the visitor numbers, but there were significant logistical plans also required. The Neighbourhood Plan recognised the potential for the adoption of Green Belt where there was a proven need to do so. Residential development was included in the rejuvenation vision as a means to raise funds for improvements. Now it seemed planning for Ascot was opaque and irresponsible. Landowners and consultants had their clear priority topics but the experience of the workshops was they saw no further. Indeed Ascot as one entity did not seem to be reflected in the Borough Local Plan. The grab for Green Belt would represent major changes in the village with unique pressures. There had been unsatisfactory consideration of a joined up strategy. A picture of house building aspiration was forming; perceived promoted or planned, it was forming. As petitioners to elected officials, residents were saying no to the loss of Green Belt and asking for joined up strategic thinking for the Ascot area.

Councillor Hilton, Ward Councillor, explained that as a result of the Neighbourhood Plan in 2012 a series of community workshops facilitated by the Prince’s Foundation had led to the publication of the Ascot Settlement report. The report proposed opportunities for the rejuvenation of Ascot and its centre to better reflect the image of the racecourse. Residents agreed a bold vision to take land to the south of Ascot High Street out of the Green Belt. This led to meetings to resolve a series of issues raised by the landowners, therefore the council had been surprised to not be asked for its views on the public consultation held on 1 December 2016. The ill-conceived consultation had been a disaster with the only new information being a proposal for 350 dwellings. This had been the catalyst for the petition.  Councillor Hilton had met with the landowners and explained that they had done damage to their cause, and to the council. They had been advised to fundamentally change and seek views through stakeholder groups on public facilities, open space, retail, traffic and parking. Councillor Hilton had said if there was no change, he would support the petition. However change did occur with a new Project Manager in place and meetings that led to a development brief supplemented by a detailed master plan, and reassurances of what would be brought forward in planning terms. As a result, he would not be supporting the petition, and put forward a motion to this end.

Councillor Bateson explained that in late 2014 the Head of Planning and councillors had persuaded the three landowners to work together to produce a development brief as required by the Neighbourhood Plan. She had attended the consultation on 1 December and understood the level of frustration caused as there had been very limited information and there had been a refusal to accept questions on the presentation. A strong line was taken with the landowners at the next meeting, to explain what they needed to do to get the project back on track and get the council’s support. Thankfully they listened and in the last few weeks she had attended two of the three meetings held to look at open space and community facilities, housing and High Street and highways issues. Those that took part would be invited to attend a further meeting to review the outcome of the consultation before the development brief was written. There would be public consultation on the development brief, which would be presented to Cabinet for approval. Councillor Bateson stated that things were changing, otherwise she would have supported the petition.

Councillor Dr L Evans stated that she supported her fellow Ward Councillor. She had also attended meetings with the consortium; it was good to see open dialogue.

Councillor D. Wilson commented that he too had been surprised at what had been presented on 1 December, as there had been no discussions with the council. Councillor Hilton did ‘read the Riot Act’ to the landowners; it had been important to place on record that something needed to be done and that it was not acceptable to have a presentation in that format. The wording of the petition referred to the loss of mature trees, increased traffic and parking issues. These would be addressed by the development brief for the site. The land had originally been earmarked as a project site in the Neighbourhood Plan and would be included in the Regulation 19 consultation along with land to the south known as the Shorts site. He believed that significant progress had been made and he therefore could not support the petition.

Councillor E. Wilson asked for clarification as to whether the discussion was about the Borough Local Plan or a development brief for a specific site. He had a similar situation in west Windsor, site HA11, where 650 houses were being planned.

Councillor D. Wilson commented that the site councillor E. Wilson referred to was contained within the Borough Local Plan and was in the Regulation 18 consultation. The Regulation 19 consultation would come before Full Council on 25 April 2017.  The development brief was a separate issue and would give clarity to local residents on a number of issues of concern,

The Head of Planning commented that there were a number of layers of planning: the national layer represented by the NPPF, the Borough Local Plan and then Neighbourhood Plans. The Neighbourhood Plan for Ascot was an adopted plan that specifically set out the requirement for a development brief. Such briefs would be endorsed by Cabinet as part of the formal process and in the area under discussion, this was expected to be accompanied by a masterplan.

Councillor Saunders commented that the item had emerged when he had been Lead Member for Planning and had stayed in the democratic process through Regulation 18. He echoed the need for clarity for which Councillor E. Wilson had called. As part of the Borough Local Plan process, in terms of establishing planning policies and appropriate provision of housing to meet the borough’s Objectively Assessed Need, there was a need to identify a series of sites some of which, very regrettably, were in the Green Belt.  Sites not in the Green Belt were being developed as profoundly as possible but simply did not support the adequate volume of houses need to offer the right balance for the community. The site was allocated as part of the Borough Local Plan process and was referenced in the Neighbourhood Plan. To agree to the request to remove it from the Borough Local Plan would be to undo all the sequences followed hitherto. He strongly believed the council could not respond to the specific request at the foot of the petition. Every single site would also be unambiguously subject to the scrutiny of the appropriate planning process. Allocating a site in the Borough Local Plan did not give an open door to development. The emerging Borough Local Plan would actually give enhanced protection for several policies. It was not for the council to throw out a site at this stage because of fears a later application may not be appropriate.

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor D. Wilson and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

i)             This council refuses the petitioner’s request

ii)            The proposal to remove land to the south of Ascot High Street from the Green Belt would continue

iii)           The proposal to retain the site within Regulation 19 would remain extant

Councillor Dr L. Evans left the meeting.