Bracknell Liberal Democrats

LIB DEMS welcome overdue town centre regeneration - but substantial public concerns still need to be addressed by BFBC.

Several issues surround the regeneration of Bracknell town centre

Bracknell Liberal Democrats welcome the long overdue regeneration of Bracknell Town Centre - we have comments on the current plans plus observations on issues that we believe need to be covered prior to support for any detailed planning application.

Comments/Observations to Outline Planning Application 04/01129/OUT

1. The re-location of the bus station away from the railway station is unwelcome - the re-location may suit the needs of the developers in encouraging access to the new retail sector of the development however for people working and living in Bracknell it makes more sense to increase the convenience of using public transport through integrated multi-modal hubs rather than increasing the difficulty. We would like to see the development reconsider the discarded option of refurbishing the existing bus station.

2. Pedestrian access has been improved across Church Road and Millennium Way - however we have received concerns about the underpass into the town centre by the Met Office - the plans are unclear about this access route. People feel the underpass is unsafe and it discourages people from walking into town. This development provides an opportunity to integrate with and provide better pedestrian access for new proposed high density housing developments on the sites of the Met Office and the B&W College.

3. The proposed elevation of the new apartment buildings is a concern - Bracknell is already blighted by numerous buildings of the height of Winchester House - we should learn from this lesson for the future and restrict the height of new developments to avoid future eyesores - under the new plans we get a number of new residential tower blocks all of the Winchester House elevation.

4. All of the new proposed housing is formed from flats - this will generate high levels of residential car parking - we have seen elsewhere that council planning allocations for parking do not meet actual usage - we hope that residential car parking planning will reflect actual car ownership patterns.

5. We welcome the focus on "public realm" - we seek assurance however that public realm does mean that the public will be free to use the public space for all legal pursuits - e.g. petitions, demonstrations, performing arts - with no greater restriction than exists today.

6. Although the plans provide a blend of retail and leisure there is no mention of additional community facilities for those people living in the new development e.g. community centres/youth centres/sport (i.e. low cost places to meet).

7. There is concern that we may lose the small family businesses we currently have in the town centre: J.W. Smiths, Cheyney's, Bracknell Chiropody Clinic, Dental Surgeries etc. It would be a shame if Bracknell followed the fate of many other re-developed town centres and lost the local feel of independent traders at the heart of the community.

8. There is an absence of information on how people living in Bracknell will more easily access the town centre by public transport - there is still a strong assumption on the use of cars to access to the facilities in the town centre. We believe that encouraging car usage is not consistent with sustainability requirements. There would only be a need to ensure parking for those in the wider catchment area (i.e. a total of 3,500 car parking spaces).

9. Overall the plans need to provide for integrated educational & training needs, and we call on the BFBC to commit to a `joined up' plan for college and adult learning provision - in buildings accessible to the new centre, and to public transport. We see the opportunity for commuted S106 funding for Bracknell & Wokingham College - it makes sense that if the Wick Hill development does not proceed that the college is either brought into the centre of the new development or is substantially refurbished.

10. We would like to see an ongoing commitment from the developers to a town centre warden scheme to ensure that scarce BFBC resources are not sucked into maintaining the town centre at the expense of the rest of BFBC - a situation which many residents in Reading complain of who have seen reduced environmental services and lower priority for the allocation or warden and police resources. As part of this we would like clarification as to which party (BRP or BFBC) will be responsible for the on-going maintenance and care of the new development.

11. This regeneration project provides an excellent opportunity to address the area's chronic problem of affordable and key worker housing - our current understanding is that the plans will follow standard 25% affordable and 15% key worker housing requirements. Developments in similar high cost areas as Bracknell have shown that the figures for affordable housing can be pushed higher - e.g. 35%-50%. Has this been considered by BFBC?

12. As a general comment and following discussion with the developers - there is clearly a lot of risk in the plans proposed in terms of attracting the promised retail giants to Bracknell as well as two new hotels and filling the office space in an area with a glut of office space - It seems that the phasing of the redevelopment is pretty open - various parts are subject to "commercial viability at the time" and several significant plots belong to other developers. Should there not be a more modest Plan B made available by the developers - to reflect the level of uncertainty? We also seek assurance that empty sites awaiting development are not left to blight the town as Winchester House does today.