11/00743/FUL - Broadmoor Hospital, Lower Broadmoor Road ...

Unrestricted Report 

ITEM NO: 06 

Application No. 

11/00743/FUL 

Site Address: 

Proposal: 

Ward: 

Crowthorne 

Date Registered: 

28 October 2011 

Target Decision Date: 

27 January 2012 

Broadmoor Hospital Lower Broadmoor Road 

Crowthorne Berkshire RG45 7EG 

Erection of replacement secure mental health hospital and 

associated development, involving demolition of some existing 

buildings, and construction of new access road and roundabout 

junction to the A3095 Foresters Road. 

Applicant: West London Mental Health Trust 

Agent: 

Oxford Architects LLP 

Case Officer: Trevor Yerworth, 01344 352000 

environment@bracknell-forest.gov.uk 

Site Location Plan (for identification purposes only, not to scale) 

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Bracknell Forest Borough Council 100019488 2004 

Planning Committee 15th March 2012

1 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (If Any) 

00/00925/FUL Validation Date: 18.09.2000 

Works to upgrade perimeter security including erection of perimeter security fence, wall 

and gates up to 5.2 metres high. Provision of internal access road and paths and 

perimeter road. Erection of 161no. 6 metre high lighting columns 

Approved 


Erection of new sports and visitors centre following the demolition of existing buildings. 

Approved 


Alterations to existing staff and visitors car park and cycle parking facillity including 

associated landscaping, relocation of lighting and CCTV columns and erection of new 

fence to enclose cycle parking area. 

Approved 

02/01142/LB Validation Date: 06.11.2002 

Application for listed building consent to demolish Yorkshire House, a building within 

the curtilage of a listed building. 

Withdrawn 


Erection of part two, part three storey building forming 70 bed unit for the 

accommodation, treatment and care of Dangerous People with Severe Personality 

Disorder (DSPD). Demolition of existing hospital buildings. 

Approved 

03/00426/T Validation Date: 25.04.2003 

Erection of prefabricated single storey building to provide meeting facilites for a 

temporary period of three years. 

Approved 

10/00823/OUT Validation Date: 09.12.2010 

Outline application for children's nursery with associated car parking, play area and 

landscaping. 

(No Decision – Application Currently Under Consideration) 

11/00744/LB Validation Date: 28.10.2011 

Application for listed building consent for the demolition of Lancashire House, Yorkshire 

House and the Richard Dadd Centre, and partial demolition of Berkshire House. 

(No Decision – Application Currently Under Consideration) 

2 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES 

Key to abbreviations 

BFBCS 

BFBLP 

RMLP 

WLP 

SPG 

SPD 

PPG (No.) 

PPS (No.) 

Core Strategy Development Plan Document 

Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan 

Replacement Minerals Local Plan 

Waste Local Plan for Berkshire 

Supplementary Planning Guidance 

Supplementary Planning Document 

Planning Policy Guidance (Published by DCLG) 

Planning Policy Statement (Published by DCLG) 


MPG 

DCLG 

SEP 

Minerals Planning Guidance 

Department for Communities and Local Government 

South East Plan 

Plan Policy Description (May be abbreviated) 

BFBLP EN1L Protecting Tree And Hedgerow Cover 

BFBLP EN3L Nature Conservation 

BFBLP EN7L Other Important Archaeological Remains 

BFBLP EN8L Dev On Land Outside Settlements 

BFBLP EN12 Historic Parks And Gardens 

BFBLP EN20 Design Considerations In New Development 

BFBLP EN22 Designing For Accessibility 

BFBLP E12 Identified Major Employment Sites 

BFBLP M4L Highway Measures New Development 

BFBLP M6 Cycling And Walking 

BFBLP M7 Access For People With Disabilities 

BFBLP M8 Public Transport 

BFBLP M9 Vehicle And Cycle Parking 

BFBLP R8 Public Rights Of Way 

BFBLP SC3 NoReductionInExistingComm Facilities 

BFBCS CS1 Sustainable Development Principles 

BFBCS CS7 Design 

BFBCS CS9 Development on Land Outside Settlements 

BFBCS CS10 Sustainable Resources 

BFBCS CS12 Renewable Energy 

BFBCS CS14 ThamesBasinHeaths SpecialProtectionArea 

BFBCS CS19 Location of Employment Development 

BFBCS CS24 Transport and New Development 

BFBCS CS2 Locational Principles 

BFBCS CS23 Transport 

SEP 52 Promoting Sustainable Health Services 

3 CONSULTATIONS 

(Comments may be abbreviated) 

Transportation Officer 

At present there are a number of issues that still need further work, these are 

summarised below. 


o The design of the access road including the roundabout junction on the A3095 

require further work to ensure that safety is not compromised and for vehicles and 

pedestrians. Details of the bus gate and car parking arrangement are also required. 

o Internal improvements of the existing roads may be required to enhance 

pedestrian and cyclist access 

o Further capacity analysis is required on the highway network and this should also 

include sensitivity testing 

o Impacts from car parking and on and off site highway works need to be 

considered against the viability of the listed building. 

o Construction traffic related to the access road needs to be considered. 

Biodiversity Officer 

No objection is raised subject to a condition requiring the implementation of the 

mitigation measures set out in the ES. 

Although mitigation for protected species is achievable an alternative access via 

Crowthorne village would be preferable from an ecological perspective. The access 

road drawings appear to show a footway running along the northern side of the access 

road which has previously been requested to be removed from the point at which it 

goes beyond the hospital perimeter. This needs to be amended. 

Crowthorne Parish Council 

Recommend approval for reasons below; 

Assuming that the listed buildings in planning application 11/00744/LB are demolished, 

Crowthorne Parish Council recommends approval in principle of this plan, on the 

proviso that any road to the bypass cannot become a 'rat run' into and out of 

Crowthorne village. 

Parks and Countryside Officer 

The Broadmoor Estate landscape is one of the most sophisticated asylum landscapes 

ever laid out. The proposed development would be harmful to the landscape character 

of the Registered Park and Garden, however the hospital development and the 

proposed access road are located away from the main area of parkland limiting the 

impact on the wider landscape as far as possible. The development will result in a total 

remodelling of the hospital and the access road sites with level changes of up to 7-8 m. 

The effect on the landscape and ecology can not be underestimated. 

It is accepted that the proposed location of the access road cutting through the 

woodland W12 is the best option although it leads to the loss of category A trees. Due 

to the steeper gradient further south the loss of woodland would be greater and the 

visual impact would be more severe. 

The proposed level changes to the existing public footpath would result in a gradient 

that is too steep and includes steps. Therefore an alternative route without steps and a 

gentler gradient should be created. It would be possible to create the alternative route 

from Eastern Lane to the east side of woodland W12 and bring it back along the south 

side of the access road to meet with the existing footpath route. Additional gates to the 

badger fence would be required. 

The proposed development would result in narrow woodland areas to the north of the 

development and some of the woodland to be removed up to the site boundary leaving 


a gap in the screen along the north eastern boundary. The space is too limited to 

screen the road adequately on the eastern side of the hospital. Additionally the road 

level is elevated along this section making it more dominant. The screening relies on 

the existing woodland outside the application site along the north eastern boundary. 

Any clear felling on the adjoining land could open views of the access road and the 

hospital development. 

The woodland areas to the north of the proposed hospital are important in screening 

the site but would be vulnerable to wind damage as the existing edge of the wood will 

be lost. Although woodland edge planting is proposed for this area, the planting will not 

protect the remaining woodland in the short term. 

Details for the proposed management of the retained woodland are required. 

Access Road Section 2-2' includes the area where the proposed cycleway was 

removed as a raised verge with amenity grass. This verge should be graded to existing 

levels and the acid meadow grass extended to this area. The cycle lane along the 

Access road is shown further than necessary. It should be stopped at the link with the 

perimeter road. 

Planting Plans 

The Heathy Grassland Verge mixes are not clear. The proposed percentages should 

be clarified within the separate groups of plants (shrubs, heathers and grass mixes). All 

mixes should add up to 100%. It is also not clear what the plant sizes are proposed for 

the shrub mix. The proposed shrub mix should not be planted through the heathland 

grass and heathers as the shrubs would quickly take over. The shrubs should only be 

included to the rear of the verges along the woodland edge. It also seems unnecessary 

to divide the shrub mix to different sizes and spacing within the mix. The spacing has 

not been specified for the heathland plants. 

Similarly the woodland edge mix includes two different size plant specification and 

planting spacings. 

As previously mentioned the grass areas should be simplified at the entrance to the 

new hospital. The wildflower area should be extended to cover the bank from the 

heathland mix at the roundabout up to the woodland edge planting and link with the 

proposed wildflower area to the west of the pedestrian access path. 

Detailed planting plans have not been provided for the proposed ornamental planting. 

A detailed planting plan should be provided or alternatively a landscape condition 

should be attached to possible approvals. 

Details of ground preparation, staking etc and a 5 year post planting management plan 

should be submitted or alternatively these details could be conditioned 

The Environment Agency 

The information submitted is inadequate to confirm that it is satisfied with the proposal, 

and therefore a holding objection is raised. 

Natural England 

No objection subject to conditions 

Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust 

Has some concerns with respect to air quality, lighting, construction noise, 

invertebrates, water quality and quantity on Wildmoor Heath and possible works to 


South Road and a crossing facility over Rackstraw Road. Consider like for like roost 

replacement for bats is required (not just provision of bat boxes in trees). 

Berkshire Archaeology 

The site is located within an area of archaeological potential and a number of undated 

features were located within the site during a small scale evaluation. Some areas of 

the site have been impacted to such a degree that no further archaeological 

investigation is recommended. However there are some areas whether further 

investigation is appropriate. The most suitable methods will depend on the current 

setting and the nature of the impact. A condition is recommended to secure an 

appropriate programme of archaeological work prior to development commencing. 

The Garden History Society 

(No comments received at time of producing this report). 

English Heritage 

New development will entail substantial harm to the cultural heritage significance of the 

Broadmoor estate which needs to be weighed against the public benefits, which are 

also accepted as being substantial. If the development is accepted it is essential that 

appropriate steps are taken to ensure that the listed building has a secure future; 

further details are provided so the impact of the access road on the park can be 

properly assessed (this must be as discrete as possible, conceived as an entrance 

drive through a park to a country house, involving a minimum of engineering works); 

revised proposals are submitted for the truncation of Berkshire House. 

Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds 

(No comments received at time of producing this report). 

Berkshire Gardens Trust 

The registered park and garden is a very good example of surviving Victorian asylum 

design and therefore is of particular significance. Concerned that proposed 

development will expand into currently undeveloped parkland or forest, introducing new 

roads, cuttings, fencing and buildings and that aspects of the development will have an 

adverse impact on the design, character and setting of the park e.g. the impact on 

views to the listed building and terraces as a result of the two lines of 5.2m high fencing 

with access roads on the edge of the park. Some elements will be particularly visually 

intrusive, detracting from the character and appearance of the park, and enjoyment by 

the public. Views east along the lower terrace from the upper storey of the male block 

will be adversely affected by the loss of enclosure presently provided by the listed 

building backdrop. However the proposed wall up to the listed building and the 

removal of lighting columns are in principle an improvement 

4 REPRESENTATIONS 

No representations have been received. 

5 OFFICER REPORT 

Summary Of Key Aspects Of The Proposal (If Any) 


Proposed site area (ha): 50 ha (area within new secure perimeter – 8ha) 

Proposed floor area (non-residential): High Secure Mental Health Hospital - 32,988 sq 

m (net increase) 

Proposed number of parking spaces: 547 (net loss of 145) 

INTRODUCTION 

This application is reported to committee because it represents a departure from the 

development plan as it conflicts with policies relating to land outside of settlements. A 

separate listed building consent application has also been submitted for the demolition 

of various curtilage listed buildings on the site to enable this development to take place. 

This is reported separately on this agenda. 

Broadmoor Hospital provides mental health services in a high secure environment for 

288 male patients from London and the South of England. Although the layout of the 

original hospital building has changed little since opening in 1863, the hospital has 

been subject to numerous built extensions in response to changes in the approach to 

mental health care and the changing needs of its patients. In 1871 it was expanded to 

include facilities for women. In 1985 a number of additional wards and support facilities 

were completed, including Oxford House; Bedford House; the Administration and 

Support Services Building and the Energy Centre and Support Services facilities 

outside the secure perimeter. Most recently the Paddock Centre was constructed in 

2005 to provide a facility for patients with dangerous and severe personality disorders. 

The existing hospital buildings are no longer appropriate for a modern mental health 

hospital and present the applicant, the West London Mental Health Trust (the Trust), 

with serious difficulties in delivering effective clinical care. In response to this the Trust 

has submitted the present application which seeks to redevelop Broadmoor Hospital to 

deliver a modern high secure hospital. 

PROPOSAL 

This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a new secure mental 

health hospital following demolition of many of the existing hospital buildings, a new 

access road and junction onto the A3095 Foresters Way and associated development. 

The existing Hospital currently provides a total of 288 beds. This will reduce to 234 

beds following the proposed redevelopment. 

The proposed hospital would be primarily located within a new secure perimeter on the 

east side of the existing hospital. The new hospital would include the existing Paddock 

Centre building which would be retained and extended. All the other buildings currently 

within the proposed secure perimeter would be demolished, including the curtilage 

listed female block and Essex House, newer patient wards and ancillary buildings like 

the energy centre. 

Outside the secure perimeter various administrative and ancillary uses would be 

located, including offices, car parking, and an energy centre (replacing the existing one 

that would be demolished). Most of these uses would be accommodated within 

existing buildings although some buildings such as the administration building would be 

upgraded. The retained Berkshire House would be used as administrative offices by 

the Trust. 

As well as the construction of a new hospital this application also seeks permission for 

a new 1.2 km access road linking the proposed hospital with Foresters Way. The 

proposed access road would have a carriageway width of 6.5m and be flanked by a 3m 


footpath and 2m wide verge along its western length or a 0.5m hard strip on both sides 

further east. The construction of the access road would require retaining walls, 

extensive ground excavations in the form of cuttings and embankments, fences and 

drainage features. A new roundabout is proposed at its junction with Foresters Way. 

The new road would extend westwards from this junction close to the northern 

boundary of the Broadmoor Estate, wrap around to the south of the fish ponds before 

crossing the public footpath, the Three Castles Way, and continuing up a steep slope 

onto the ridge. It would follow the eastern and northern boundaries of the proposed 

new secure perimeter before merging into the existing Kentigern Drive just east of the 

main car park. Shortly before it rejoins the existing road alignment there would be a 

mini-roundabout where a new access road leading to the main entrance of the new 

hospital would diverge to the south. A second mini-roundabout would mark the 

junction where this road splits with one arm going directly into the secure perimeter and 

the other serving the new parking area and administration buildings outside the secure 

perimeter. 

To accommodate the new buildings for the hospital while providing appropriate internal 

links to the retained buildings requires the creation of a plateau with the removal of 

some 5 metres of existing ground from the area around the existing energy centre. 

Even with this reduction in level there remains a significant level difference between the 

lower land to the south and across to Foresters Way and the levels of the new 

buildings. 

The new hospital would be accessed by vehicles from Foresters Way only. Pedestrian 

and cycle access would continue to be from Crowthorne village using existing routes 

along Upper and Lower Broadmoor Roads from the north and west and South Road 

and School Hill from the south. The new hospital inside the secure perimeter would 

have a single entrance for all users on its northwest side. To stop vehicles “rat 

running” between the new hospital and Crowthorne village a bus gate is proposed at 

the western end of Kentigern Drive. This would permit cycles, buses and emergency 

vehicles to pass but prevent all other vehicles from using the existing road network as a 

through route to the hospital. 

With the exception of the energy centre all of the new buildings proposed for the 

hospital would be located within the secure perimeter. This prevents patient access 

beyond the secure environment and controls external access to the hospital through a 

single controlled entrance building. The perimeter itself is presently formed by a wall 

but in the new hospital this would be comprised of two 5.2m high anti-climb, dark green 

or black steel mesh fences located 7.5m apart surrounding the hospital on all sides. 

The secure perimeter would include extensive electronic surveillance equipment, close 

circuit TV and lighting. A service road would run parallel to the entire secure perimeter 

on the outside. 

The new buildings would comprise a new two storey entrance building into the hospital 

itself which would control access through the secure perimeter and provide security 

functions and support accommodation. The building would have a maximum height of 

16m and would be clad in red brick and coloured render with an aluminium, gently 

pitched roof. 

Beyond the entrance building would be a three storey multifunctional central building 

forming the social hub of the hospital containing accommodation for healthcare, 

hairdresser, shop, café, spiritual suite, and supporting services. The elevational 

treatment would comprise horizontal bands of glazing of different heights cut from 

planes of coloured render and timber cladding. The building would have a flat “green” 

roof. 


Three new ward blocks would be located in a gradual curve on the eastern side of the 

new hospital between the central building and the existing Paddock Centre. The wards 

would wrap around a central garden. Each ward would be “C” shaped with patient 

gardens located between the two wings of each block. The ward blocks comprise 

patient living accommodation together with functional support facilities such as 

kitchens, laundry and offices. The northernmost ward block closest to the central 

building would be single storey while the other two would be two storeys with a height 

of 8.1m. The ward blocks have been designed to provide patients with views of the 

landscape outside the secure perimeter. The blocks would be clad in a coloured 

render with some limited use of timber cladding on the stairs at the end of the ward 

wings. Roofs would have aluminium finishes. 

The west side of the hospital would mainly be taken up with recreational facilities 

including a multi-use games area (MUGA), kitchen garden and indoor recreational 

space and music performance facilities in an extension to the Paddock Centre. 

DEVELOPMENT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION 

The construction of the new hospital would displace a number of existing uses such as 

staff training, transport and supplies. With the exception of the energy centre, works to 

buildings outside the secure perimeter that are required to accommodate these 

displaced uses will be subject to separate planning applications and do not fall to be 

considered under the current application. 

A substantial part of the existing hospital is accommodated within the original grade II 

listed buildings built between 1859 and 1863. A new wall is proposed to the west of the 

Paddock Centre to separate the new hospital from the retained listed buildings and 

terraces, and a number of modern buildings that form part of the present hospital. 

These buildings (i.e. all those buildings south of Kentigern Drive and west of the 

proposed new hospital) and the terraces and kitchen garden to the south do not form 

part of the current application and the applicant has indicated that once the new 

hospital is built and patients transferred the listed building and surrounding land will be 

surplus to its requirements and will be sold. The red line denoting the application site 

has been carefully drawn to include only land that it is intended will form part of the 

eventual hospital estate and to exclude those areas that would be sold. 

Notwithstanding that the listed building is excluded from the application site, the impact 

that the proposed development would have on the listed building, in particular in 

respect of the need to secure a viable reuse of the building once it has become surplus 

to the hospital’s requirements, is a material planning consideration for this application. 

Members will also be aware that Policy SA4 of the Draft Submission Site Allocations 

DPD (SADPD) which at the time of writing this report was the subject of a period of 

public consultation ending on the 12th March, provisionally allocates land at Broadmoor 

for a mixed development including a redeveloped hospital and a new access road, up 

to 210 residential units within the walled garden, up to 60 retirement apartments 

outside the walled garden, a small research park, the re-use of the existing hospital 

buildings for an appropriate use, a care home/nursing home, on-site open space and 

suitable alternative natural greenspace (SANG). Only the redeveloped hospital and the 

new access road fall to be considered under the current application. 

SITE 

The hospital lies within the wider Broadmoor Estate which comprises approximately 

130 ha of parkland. Within this estate the hospital itself is contained within a secure 


perimeter covering approximately 18 ha. Outside the secure perimeter are located 

various ancillary hospital facilities, including accommodation for staff training, offices, 

transport, supplies, an energy centre and car parking. Surrounding this built hospital 

core area is the park comprising many hectares of open woodland and farmland, the 

formal terraced gardens, kitchen garden, fish ponds and playing fields. There are also 

numerous residential properties scattered through the park providing accommodation 

for staff, including a purpose built staff hostel at Cricket Field Grove. 

The application site itself is not clearly related to existing physical features on the 

ground and includes the northern and eastern parts of the estate which it is planned will 

ultimately contain the land to be permanently retained by the Trust. This site excludes 

those parts of the estate which the Trust intend to dispose of, including the listed 

building and adjacent modern buildings south of Kentigern Drive and west of the new 

hospital, the terraces and kitchen garden, the farm (excluding the northern part which is 

required for the proposed access road) and those parts of the Estate to the south of 

Upper Broadmoor Road and west of School Hill. 

. 

Broadmoor Hospital is located on a south facing ridge approximately 1 km east of 

Crowthorne village within an extensive area of coniferous forest and heathland forming 

part of the Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heaths Site of Special Scientific Interest 

(SSSI) to the north and east and the Sandhurst to Owlsmoor Bogs & Heaths SSSI to 

the south west. These areas also form part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special 

Protection Area (SPA). 

The hospital’s southerly aspect is a very important feature of the site and was an 

important aspect in the original choice of this site as a lunatic asylum in the mid 19th 

Century. The site provides extensive views over an area of low lying grassland with 

stands of woodland forming shelter belts around the margins and two prominent knolls 

within the park below. East of Broadmoor Farm the ground rises in a series of 

undulations to a plateau occupied by Crowthorne Woods. 

The Estate is bounded to the north by the Devil's Highway. This boundary is defined by 

woodland which continues to follow the perimeter of the Estate to the northwest and to 

the west screens the hospital from Crowthorne village. Land to the south of the hospital 

is currently in agricultural use and forms part of the original hospital landscape included 

in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. 

Foresters Way forms the majority of the eastern and south-eastern boundary of the 

Estate and South Road forms part of the western boundary. The remainder of the 

western and part of the southern boundaries border residential areas within 

Crowthorne. 

PRINCIPAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 

(1) Principle of the development 

Existing policy 

The Council’s adopted Core Strategy and Proposals Map designates the whole of the 

application site as land outside a defined settlement (Policy CS9). This carries forward 

the previous designation under saved Policy EN8 of the Local Plan. These policies 

seek to protect land outside settlements for its own sake, and in particular to protect 

such land from development that would adversely affect its character, appearance or 

function. This general requirement is considered to be of even greater importance in 

the case of Broadmoor as the whole site also lies within the English Heritage Register 

of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest where development should not be 


permitted which would result in damage to, or the erosion of, parks and gardens of 

special historic interest and their settings. 

Notwithstanding its countryside designation the majority of the site is already 

developed with existing hospital buildings, the only significant greenfield development 

being the proposed access road. Previously developed land is defined as that which is 

or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed 

land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. As such this site is considered to 

conform to the Government’s definition of previously developed land. The 

Government’s priority is to locate new development on previously developed sites and 

a key objective of Government policy is that Local Planning Authorities should continue 

to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed. 

This principle is also recognised in the identification of the vast majority of the site as a 

major employment site outside defined settlements under Policy E12 of the Local Plan. 

This designation is also rolled forward in Core Strategy Policy CS19 and the Proposals 

Map. Within these areas development involving change of use, infilling and 

redevelopment are acceptable in principle where they: 

• Do not have a materially greater impact upon the existing character of the site 

• Would not exceed the height of the existing building 

• For infilling, would not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the 

site 

• For redevelopment, would not occupy a larger area of the site than that of the 

existing main built up area 

• Would not create visual or other environmental damage or result in 

inconvenience or danger to the public highway, or other harm 

The supporting text to this Policy states “Sites such as Broadmoor are large employers 

in the Borough and their specialist future development needs should be acknowledged, 

taking account of the quality of surrounding landscape and the national importance of 

these establishments”. 

In addition to the above site specific policies, also of relevance are more general 

national, regional and local policies which seek to encourage the delivery of healthcare 

facilities and sustainable economic development through providing or maintaining 

employment opportunities. Local Plan Policy SC3 seeks to prevent the loss of existing 

community facilities. Any reduction in the existing range of facilities would result in an 

inadequate provision of social infrastructure and place increased demands on 

remaining facilities. The supporting text at paragraph 8.27 clarifies that this policy 

allows for the replacement of existing facilities. 

South East Plan Policy S2 is also considered to be relevant. This states “Local 

Planning Authorities should work closely with the NHS across its delivery bodies to 

ensure the provision of additional and reconfigured health and social care facilities to 

meet the anticipated primary care and capacity needs of local communities. Where 

need is identified land should be made available for additional community, social and 

primary care facilities”. 

While these policies are primarily directed to local and regional provision, it is 

considered that they also lend support to the present proposal for social infrastructure 

intended to meet a national need. The applicant has stated that the Government’s 

health policy is to retain three high secure mental health hospitals, including the 

retention and redevelopment of Broadmoor. The proposed development will ensure a 

nationally significant health care facility is re-provided and made “fit for purpose” for the 


care of patients. It is therefore considered that these policies provide strong support for 

the proposed development. 

Broadmoor hospital is a major employer within the Borough and the retention of this 

employment is an important consideration. While the current plans would result in a 

small reduction in the number of staff employed at Broadmoor, this proposal would 

secure the retention of 1,100 jobs. Furthermore the disposal of substantial parts of the 

site, including the listed building to other employment generating uses in the longer 

term, is likely to result in an overall increase in employment provided on the wider 

Broadmoor site. 

Government policy set out in PPS4 requires Local Planning Authorities to adopt a 

positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic 

development. This proposal is considered to promote sustainable economic growth and 

is therefore supported in principle by PPS4. Similar objectives are set out in the 

Government’s Draft National Planning Policy Framework. 

In conclusion on this issue the proposed new hospital itself, while outside the 

settlement boundary of Crowthorne, would be located on a site that is already largely 

developed. The development proposed would extend the built envelope slightly 

contrary to Policy E12. However in view of the strong support for this type of 

development and the identified need for the development, it is considered that these 

considerations outweigh the small additional adverse effect on the character, 

appearance or function of the countryside at this location. 

The position with the proposed access road is less straightforward. This would result in 

a substantial engineering structure within what is presently undeveloped greenfield 

countryside. As described later, the proposed access road would also result in harm to 

the historic parkland through visual intrusion of the road and traffic, and would alter its 

historic design. It would lead to the urbanisation of the countryside; the loss of 

individual mature trees and large areas of woodland; would impact on ecology and 

have a detrimental impact on the attractiveness and public enjoyment of public footpath 

8 which forms part of the long distance footpath The Three Castles Path. These 

impacts are considered to result in very significant harm to the countryside and historic 

landscape and therefore the access road should only be permitted in exceptional 

circumstances. This harm will therefore need to be weighed against the benefits of the 

proposal which are considered later in this report. 

Emerging Local Policy 

The Council is preparing a Site Allocations DPD (SADPD) to achieve the vision and 

spatial objectives of the Core Strategy. One of the main functions of the document will 

be to deal with the Borough’s housing requirements and allocate specific sites. The 

SADPD was approved for submission to the Secretary of State (SoS) by full council in 

November 2011 and has recently been subject to a period of public consultation. The 

SADPD will now be submitted to the SoS and it is anticipated that a formal examination 

in public will take place in Autumn 2012. 

The wider Broadmoor site is included in the Draft Submission Document. Policy SA4 

identifies the site for a comprehensive well-designed mixed use development including: 

• A redeveloped hospital and ancillary buildings. 

• A maximum of 210 residential units (including affordable housing) within the 

walled garden area (the final number to be subject to further consideration of the 


impacts on the heritage assets of the site and the justification for the development 

including the needs of the Listed Building). 

• 60 retirement apartments outside the walled garden (the final number to be 

subject to further consideration of the impacts on the heritage assets of the site and the 

justification for the development including the needs of the Listed Building). 

• A small research park. 

• Re-use of the existing hospital buildings for an appropriate use. 

• Care home/nursing home. 

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

• New access road. 

Comprehensive development proposals have yet to be brought forward in respect of 

Policy SA4. The present application only seeks permission for the first and last items 

on the above list. The application site lies within the land identified within the Draft 

Submission Illustrative concept plan as ‘mixed use area’. 

It is not considered that the proposed hospital and access road would directly prejudice 

the delivery of the SADPD, however it is important to note that the SADPD seeks a 

comprehensive solution to the Broadmoor site, including a suitable re-use of the listed 

building, which would not be secured through the current application. It is considered 

that there is a significant risk, as outlined later in this report, that in order to secure a 

viable reuse for the listed building a larger land take may be required than anticipated 

in the SADPD. If this is the case, there is a possibility that by looking at this site on a 

piecemeal basis, the comprehensive strategy set out in Policy SA4 may not be 

deliverable in full. 

(2) Impact on heritage assets 

The whole site lies within the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of 

Special Historic Interest. Although the application site does not include the principal 

Grade II listed building it does include a number of curtilage listed buildings which 

would be demolished or partially demolished, and would impact on the setting of the 

listed building. Heritage issues are therefore of particular importance in the 

consideration of this application. The Government’s overarching aim as set out in PPS5 

is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and 

enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. Policy HE9 

states: "Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and 

convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or 

garden should be exceptional.... Where the application will lead to substantial harm to 

or total loss of significance local planning authorities should refuse consent unless it 

can be demonstrated that …the substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary 

in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss". 

Local Plan Policy EN12 states that development will not be permitted which would 

result in damage to, or the erosion of, parks and gardens of special historic interest and 

their settings. 

English Heritage and The Victorian Society have advised that the proposed hospital 

development will directly harm the cultural heritage significance of the site. The 

significance of Broadmoor to a great extent depends on the fact that it is a complete 

hospital complex. All the different elements form part of the original complex and are 

therefore of illustrative historic value in documenting how the hospital was conceived 

and organised. Direct harm will result to the site’s heritage significance from the 

demolition of the Female Block and Essex House and the partial loss of the circuit drive 

and reservoir drive entailed by the construction of the new access road. 


The proposed loss of Essex House is of greatest concern. This makes an important 

contribution to the architectural qualities of the hospital due to the way it steps forward 

from the complex, dominating the ridge on which it sits. It also forms an important part 

of the setting of the listed building. As noted by the Berkshire Gardens Trust views east 

along the lower terrace from the upper storey of the male block will be adversely 

affected by the loss of enclosure presently provided by Essex House. This building 

also acts as a screen between the listed building and the modern Paddock Centre 

which is to be retained under the current proposals. However the proposed wall that 

would extend south from the retained Berkshire House and the removal of lighting 

columns are in principle an improvement and provide limited mitigation for the loss of 

Essex House. 

The proposed access road would result in significant harm to the registered historic 

park and garden. The Heritage Strategy that forms part of the application identifies the 

access road as having the following adverse heritage impacts: "Visual intrusion of the 

road and traffic, including lighting and road signage, passing through northern edge of 

historic parkland. New approach route through the park alters the historic design." 

The proposed development would therefore entail substantial harm to the heritage 

significance of the Broadmoor Estate as a whole. This harm must be weighed against 

the national public benefits arising from the improved mental health hospital and the 

local importance of retaining a significant local employer offering a wide range of job 

opportunities within the Borough. 

There is a national need for high secure mental health services. Broadmoor is one of 

only three sites within the country providing these services. The Department of 

Health’s policy is to retain all three sites, and in the case of Broadmoor to provide a 

new, fit for purpose, high secure mental health hospital. 

The existing hospital buildings are no longer appropriate for a modern mental health 

hospital and present the Trust with serious difficulties in delivering effective clinical 

care. An external review by the Commission for Health Improvements in 2003 

concluded that “the overwhelming majority of ward areas at Broadmoor Hospital are 

totally unfit for purpose”. In 2009 the Care Quality Commission found that parts of the 

hospital “are neither safe nor conducive to high quality care” and that the 

redevelopment plans for Broadmoor must be progressed without further delay. 

This is therefore an important national public benefit that the development would 

provide. 

A second material consideration relates to the importance of retaining a significant local 

employer within the Borough. As reported above although the current plans would 

result in a small reduction in the number of staff employed at Broadmoor, this proposal 

would secure the retention of 1,100 jobs. Furthermore the disposal of substantial parts 

of the site, including the listed building to other employment generating uses in the 

longer term, is likely to result in an overall increase in employment provided on the 

wider Broadmoor site. 

Alternative options 

Although the proposed development would provide a significant national public benefit, 

in view of the harm it would cause to the heritage significance of the Broadmoor Estate 

it is also necessary to consider whether there are any other options which could also 


provide this public benefit, including the consideration of alternative suitable sites other 

than Broadmoor. 

The reasons for the redevelopment of Broadmoor have been carefully considered by 

the Trust and once it was declared that the current Broadmoor facility was unfit for 

purpose, the Trust considered the option for relocating patients from Broadmoor to the 

other two high secure hospitals at Ashworth and Rampton. The National Oversight 

Group (NOG) for high secure services reviewed the need for three high secure 

services in the United Kingdom and concluded after having considered evidence and 

options that retaining only two secure hospitals in the country was unacceptable and 

that the current Broadmoor facility therefore had to be re-provided. 

The Trust also considered the potential for the transfer of patients from Broadmoor to 

other existing mental health units. This review lead to the relocation of female patients 

as it was recognised that most female patients did not present the same level of 

security risk as male patients. A National Capacity Review concluded that a maximum 

of 50 high secure beds were required nationally for female patients and Rampton was 

selected as the location to provide these beds. Most female patients, who did not 

require secure care, were relocated to a newly constructed Enhanced Medium Secure 

facility for women at St Bernard’s Hospital in Ealing, West London. 

It was therefore concluded that a new hospital was required for male patients only. A 

capacity review in 2006 on the amount of accommodation required for the male 

patients concluded that there was a need for 266 beds. Following this review, the Trust 

carried out a search for suitable alternative sites. Chapter 4 of the Environmental 

Statement (ES) sets out the main alternative sites considered in 2006. The original 

search parameters in 2006 were as follows: 

1. 12-15 ha in the south of England; 

2. Level site (for the provision of associated buildings to serve the hospital); 

3. Minimal overlooking; 

4. The location must be isolated with some access to public transport and a population 

base; 

5. A countryside aspect. 

The focus of the original search was to look at alternative sites in the south of England. 

The reason for this is that the current facility and proposed new facility will have to 

serve the south of England as the rest of the country is covered by the two other high 

secure mental health hospitals in Merseyside and Nottinghamshire. 

Over 150 potential sites were identified, based on a review of the relevant planning 

authorities’ major development site allocations; a review of (former) English 

Partnerships sites and a review of the Defence Estates listing of surplus land. From this 

initial long-list, the site selection was refined, based on the requirements on the search 

parameters which resulted in a short-list of 18 potential sites across southern England. 

Appendix 4.5 of the ES sets out that the majority of these have planning permission, 

some with development partly complete, therefore, these are no longer appropriate 

options to consider, leaving the only real option to consider development within the 

Broadmoor Estate. 

Having decided that no alternative off-site option was suitable the Trust carried out a 

further review of the need for high secure facilities. This review showed a reduction in 

the number of beds required and recommended that just 210 beds be provided at 

Broadmoor. The Trust has added a further 24 units for flexibility in terms of future 


capacity, so revised options were considered for a 234 bed facility (compared to the 

original 266 bed facility). 

In light of this review and the passage of time since the original site search in 2006, the 

Trust has reviewed its site selection criteria and considered a number of additional 

sites, including local sites such as TRL. These, together with further justification as to 

why Broadmoor is the only suitable site have been included within an addendum to the 

ES submitted in February 2012. One of the reasons why it was considered necessary 

to carry out a further site search was because in June 2011 the Government 

announced plans to release public sector land. As a major public sector owner of land, 

the NHS was expected to contribute to this initiative. There was therefore a call on all 

NHS Trusts to identify land and buildings which were no longer required or likely in the 

future to be needed for health service purposes. The Trust appraised the list of surplus 

sites using its established search criteria to ensure that no more suitable alternative 

sites existed. However none of the current identified surplus land was considered 

appropriate for the relocation of Broadmoor secure mental health hospital. 

Ultimately therefore all the off-site options looked at were excluded as they did not 

meet the appraisal criteria and they would not have been best value for money as the 

Trust would have had to purchase the land required and would have had to re-provide 

additional facilities such as the newly built Paddock Centre (72 beds). Furthermore the 

off-site options would have had additional risks in introducing a new high secure mental 

health hospital into an area where there were not already high secure services. 

Retaining the facility at Broadmoor on the other hand has a number of major 

advantages. It is a well located facility in the M3 and M4 corridor close to London 

providing important transport links for both staff and visitors. In addition it has specialist 

highly trained staff. If the Trust were to consider moving a long way from Broadmoor it 

is concerned that it may lose its highly trained staff if they are not prepared to move. 

The Trust could therefore be faced with additional recruitment and training costs 

impacting on the viability of the proposed new build solution. 

Location is also important for patients’ visitors. Typically patients who are placed in the 

Broadmoor facility tend to have links to the south (including London), either because 

they live in the south of England/London or have family and friends from the south. 

The isolated location with minimal overlooking and countryside views are some of the 

main underlying principals as to why Sir Joshua Jebb chose the current location for the 

original hospital. It is in an area of coniferous forest and heathland that has a diverse 

and undulating landscape and has extensive views over natural green space and 

farmland and provided an effective therapeutic setting which the Victorians believed 

was beneficial to the recovery of patients with mental health problems. The Trust has 

advised that the same principle continues to be widely regarded by mental health 

professionals today. The therapeutic estate is considered to be a very important 

element of the environment in which to treat patients, many of whom require specialist 

care in a high secure environment over several years. Whilst the fabric of the current 

buildings can no longer provide the modern facilities needed to provide such care, the 

opportunity exists at Broadmoor to design a new hospital that can maximise the 

opportunity to use outside space and views of the surrounding countryside which are 

important components of the clinical model to maximise recovery and enable reduced 

lengths of stay. 

In light of the above, it is accepted that Broadmoor is the most suitable location for 

providing a high secure mental health hospital in the south of England. 


Therefore it is concluded that the test set out in Policy HE9 of PPS5 has been met so 

far as the new hospital is concerned because, although the application will lead to 

substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset the applicant has demonstrated 

that this is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that 

harm. 

As stated above, the case for the proposed access road is less straightforward and as 

it impacts on a number of separate issues it will be considered in detail later in this 

report. 

The future re-use of the listed building 

Should Members decide to grant planning permission for the new hospital it is 

important to ensure that the direct and indirect harm to heritage assets identified above 

is minimised and that steps are taken to mitigate the harm to the listed Victorian 

hospital complex as far as possible. The most important areas where mitigation can be 

provided is in securing a viable future reuse for the listed building, together with various 

enhancement measures to restore some of its original features and setting. 

Although the listed building does not form part of the application site, the impact of the 

current application for its future use is a material planning consideration. The 

immediate implication of granting planning permission for a new hospital would be that 

the current use of the listed building would cease as patients were transferred into the 

new accommodation. The existing listed building would then become redundant, and 

unless a new use could be found the building could be left without a viable future use. 

It is therefore important that the grant of permission for the replacement hospital does 

not prejudice the satisfactory retention and viable re-use of the listed building. The 

applicant has considered possible alternative uses for the listed building, but 

acknowledges that there is very limited scope for viable alternative uses, not least 

because of the building’s location within the 400 metre buffer of the Thames Basin 

Heaths SPA which rules out a residential conversion. The applicant in its submission 

considers that the most viable uses would be for a hotel or offices. However English 

Heritage has commented that the long narrow linear plan form does not make it ideal 

for offices, even if there was a demand for this use. Notwithstanding this the building 

could attractive as a Headquarters building for a major company. 

The applicant considers that a hotel reuse would represent the best use for the site, as 

in principle the listed buildings could lend themselves to a satisfactory high end hotel 

conversion so long as sufficient land was included within the curtilage to ensure that an 

attractive and viable hotel could be developed here. Nevertheless a hotel conversion is 

considered to remain a high risk strategy in terms of providing a viable reuse of the 

listed building. No developer partner has been identified or marketing undertaken. The 

true costs of restoration and conversion are unknown, and given the security measures 

in place in the building at present which make access to the building difficult, are likely 

to remain unknown for some time. The listed building site would not come forward for 

development until works to the new hospital are complete which is unlikely to be before 

2017. The state of the hotel market is impossible to predict so far ahead. 

Furthermore serious concerns remain about the viability of a four or five star hotel 

located directly adjacent to an operational high secure mental health hospital and 

sharing the same access past the hospital. The applicant contends that this will not 

affect the viability of a hotel use based on successful conversions of prisons and 

mental health institutions elsewhere, and the fact that residential developers have 

previously shown interest in buying land within the Broadmoor estate and next to 


secure institutions elsewhere in the Country. However the examples of conversions 

mentioned all involve fully redundant sites, where the associations are historic rather 

than ongoing and are therefore not directly comparable. There are also doubts that 

just because a residential developer would be prepared to purchase land close to an 

operational secure facility the same would apply to a commercial hotel operator. 

It is therefore possible that when the listed building comes on the market the costs of 

restoration and conversion could exceed its value making it unattractive to potential 

operators with the consequent risk that it could have a negative value (a “conservation 

deficit”). It is also possible that some of the elements suggested for inclusion as part of 

a comprehensive mixed use development at Broadmoor in Policy SA4 of the Draft 

Submission Site Allocations DPD would be seen by potential developers as 

compromising the setting and approach to the listed building to such an extent that it 

would not be attractive to the sort of high end operator it is hoped to attract. In 

particular there are concerns that the proposed care home/nursing home and small 

research park to the north of the listed building and the proposed residential 

development to the south in the walled garden could significantly detract from the 

attractiveness of the site for a high end operator. 

These are serious concerns that if realised could make it very difficult to find a viable 

reuse for the listed building if the new hospital is built. One way to reduce this risk 

would be to ensure that when the listed building is sold, the sale includes sufficient land 

to provide appropriate attractive grounds and facilities to make the site attractive and 

viable for a hotel operator, or to provide land for enabling development to fund any 

conservation deficit that may arise. In order to deliver sufficient land take it is 

considered that, other than that part which is to be retained in hospital use i.e. the 

current application site, the whole of the housing and mixed use area shown in the 

illustrative concept plan for Broadmoor in the Site Allocations DPD should be packaged 

with the listed building and not developed until a long term viable use has been 

secured for the listed building. A more robust viability assessment carried out by 

independent experts may demonstrate that a smaller area of land would suffice, 

however in the absence of this it is considered that a precautionary approach is 

necessary to minimise the possibility of a conservation deficit occurring. This can be 

secured through s106 obligations. 

The Heritage Strategy submitted with the planning application contains a number of 

positive recommendations which if implemented would provide substantial 

enhancements to mitigate the adverse impacts on heritage assets. In particular the 

intention to restore the terraces and the original approach to the listed building, remove 

incongruous buildings from both the terraces and the core area around the listed 

building, the removal of security fencing and floodlighting and the general 

repair/restoration/maintenance and management of the listed building and its setting 

would all positively enhance the listed building and its setting. However all these 

proposals relate to land outside the current application site. S106 obligations are 

therefore required to secure these enhancements as part of the current application. 

Such enhancements would also assist in improving the presentation of the listed 

building site to prospective purchasers when this is marketed, thereby assisting in 

finding a viable reuse for the building. 

In conclusion on this issue the proposed development would result in substantial harm 

to the cultural heritage and significance of the Broadmoor Estate. Government 

guidance is that in such situations planning permission should not be granted unless 

the public benefit arising from the development outweighs this harm. The applicant has 

provided a robust and detailed case as to why the development should go ahead in the 

national interest. It is on balance concluded that the national need for a modern high 


secure mental health hospital at Broadmoor outweighs the harm that has been 

identified to heritage assets. 

However the Council still needs to be satisfied that the listed building would not be left 

empty, but returned to a positive use and that all the positive recommendations in the 

Heritage Strategy to mitigate harm and repair and enhance the heritage assets are 

capable of being delivered once the new hospital is built and occupied. It is considered 

that the s106 obligations set out in the recommendations section of this report would 

provide a suitable mechanism to deliver this mitigation. 

(3) Transport considerations 

Access 

The proposed development would result in significant alterations to the current access 

arrangements to the site. It is proposed that a new access off the A3095 Foresters Way 

is provided as part of the development of the new hospital. The junction of the new 

access road with Foresters Way would comprise a new 3 arm roundabout. The 

proposed access road would have a carriageway width of 6.5m and be flanked by a 3m 

footpath and 2m wide verge along its western length or a 0.5m hard strip on both sides 

further east. Due to the levels across this part of the site sections of the road are either 

in cutting or are on an embankment. In one place a retaining wall is required due to the 

steepness of the topography. The applicant has also utilised the levels to provide 

drainage at the side of the road at appropriate places. Two mini roundabouts would 

control junctions within the site separating hospital traffic from future traffic flows that 

would ultimately serve the new users of the redundant hospital buildings. The access 

road would link up to the existing private roads within the estate. In order to ensure 

that the new route is not used as a through route from Foresters Way to the existing 

road network into Crowthorne village a bus gate is proposed at the junction of 

Kentigern Drive and Upper Broadmoor Road. A condition is suggested preventing 

occupation of the new hospital until a suitable bus gate or similar restriction to restrict 

the road becoming a through route to general traffic is in place. 

In respect of the proposed access road there are various sections that have of gradient 

of 1 in10, in particular the approaches to the mini roundabouts. The footways adjacent 

to the road will also have a similar gradient which is not ideal for safe pedestrian 

access, especially anyone disabled. However the topography of the site represents a 

significant challenge to achieve an acceptable design. The existing hospital has been 

built on a plateau that is some 15m above the lower areas immediately to the south 

and east. The existing road network around the hospital includes significant lengths of 

roads that are at or steeper than a 1 in 10 gradient. The road designers have tried to 

balance a range of issues including impact on the historic landscape. The original 

proposals for access considered gradients around the eastern side of the site that were 

limited to 1 in 15, but with the significant level difference this resulted in an elevated 

road at the SE corner of the site, which would have had greater visual impact from the 

parkland area adjacent to Foresters Way and also a wider swathe of impact through 

the trees forming the eastern boundary to the site. In view of the existing constraints 

within and around the site, it is considered that a limiting gradient of 1 in 10 represents 

an appropriate compromise which would enable an appropriate balance of the issues 

to be made. However it may be possible to make adjustments in the detailed design, 

particularly on the road leading to the main entrance. This could be secured with a 

suitably worded condition requiring the submission and approval of details of the 

internal road layout. 


A public right of way would cross the proposed access road and thus the safe design of 

this crossing is important. The concept of this is acceptable subject to adequate 

sightlines. These can be provided in accordance with the intended speed of the road, 

and can be secured under the condition suggested above. 

In respect of the proposed roundabout junction at Foresters Way, revised details have 

been submitted that alter the levels across the roundabout and have led to the road 

entering the roundabout from the south being lowered by about 0.5m from the original 

submitted levels. The deflection and entry widths when entering the roundabout from 

all directions appear to be adequate, however in order to provide forward visibility there 

is likely to be a considerable loss of the existing vegetation adjacent to the highway 

verge. The new roundabout, if designed to acceptable standards, will need to be 

adequately lit on all approaches to ensure safety. The applicant has included provision 

for this in the design of the scheme. The extent and location of the street lighting are 

considered to be appropriate, but full details of this will need to be approved under a 

s278 Highway agreement with the Highway Authority. 

Highway design guidance expects a certain level of sight stopping distance to be 

provided to cater for the speeds of the road. Due to the location of the proposal in a dip 

the roundabout needs to be raised above current levels to provide the required sight 

stopping distance. There is an additional visibility requirement for approaching vehicles 

so that vehicles approaching from the south can see any stationary vehicles waiting on 

approach to the new roundabout. 

Foresters Way is a major route across the borough linking Bracknell and neighbouring 

towns. The high speed of vehicles using the route also makes it important that the 

design conforms to standards to ensure safety is not compromised. This route has an 

accident history and any location where new junctions are introduced has the ability to 

increase the chance of conflict. Following concerns raised by the Highway Authority 

the applicant has looked at further alterations to the existing carriageway to the south 

of the proposed roundabout which are required to ensure that the new junction can 

comply with standards. It is considered that a scheme that meets forward visibility 

standards can be achieved within the highway boundary and land under the applicant’s 

control. It is therefore concluded that a safe access is possible and a condition is 

suggested that the details of this, including any consequent alterations to the existing 

highway be agreed with the Highway Authority and implemented prior to any other part 

of the development being commenced. 

In respect of pedestrian and cycle access the relocation of the hospital further from 

Crowthorne village could act as a disincentive to pedestrian, cycle and public transport 

use. The applicant has addressed this by proposong a direct footpath/cycleway to the 

new hospital from the existing staff car park on Kentigern Drive to help provide 

connectivity from the centre of Crowthorne. 

Parking 

The applicant has identified the existing level of parking available on the site and 

provided an indication of the peak activity levels across the day. The proposed 

development will lead to a reduction in total parking capacity on the site from 692 

spaces to 547 spaces. The current peak daily use based on surveys indicates a 

demand of around 567 spaces. The proposed reduction in parking is accompanied with 

a travel plan for the site which will support measures to help reduce travel by car, 

including car sharing to help reduce single occupancy car trips. It is considered that the 

proposed travel plan for the site will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed 

reduction in on-site parking without leading to overspill parking on local roads. The 


travel plan contains a contingency plan showing how the reduction in travel by car will 

be phased over a number of years to avoid the situation occurring in which the 

reduction in parking provision takes place at a faster rate than the reduction in demand. 

It should be noted that the car parking that forms part of this application is solely for the 

hospital use and is not intended to provide for the needs of future occupiers of the 

redundant buildings and land which will need to be addressed at the time an 

application is made for the development of these areas. 

Vehicle Movements 

The new facility would provide for a smaller number of patients than existing and thus 

patient and staff numbers are expected to decrease over time. However the impact of 

the reduction is unlikely to make significant reductions in daily traffic flow and the level 

of trips on the network during peak hours and through the day is unlikely to alter much. 

The main difference is that the traffic would access directly onto Foresters Way rather 

than using minor roads in Crowthorne village. This would affect the traffic on Foresters 

Way and the existing junctions on this road. 

In order to ensure that the local road network can cater for the traffic from the new 

hospital and any potential reuse of the listed building which would also share the new 

access, the applicant has provided likely traffic levels for either a hotel or an office. The 

traffic has been distributed onto the network by reference to existing movements on the 

local road network. Limited capacity testing of the surrounding area has been 

undertaken, including the closest junctions to the north and south of the new site 

access and the site access itself. Further capacity/sensitivity testing of junctions along 

the A3095 may be required at the time any application is made for the reuse of the 

redundant buildings and land to ensure that the operation of the road network is not 

affected. This could affect the viability of any potential future uses if substantial 

junction improvements are shown to be required. This provides further justification for 

the precautionary approach to the disposal of the redundant land including the listed 

building discussed earlier. However it is not considered that any further work is 

required on this matter in order to determine the current application. 

Construction traffic for the new hospital is proposed to utilise the new access road, 

routing agreements may need to be in place and control of deliveries to certain periods 

may need to be considered. These can be controlled by an appropriate condition. 

Travel Plan 

The Trust presently has a voluntary travel plan which demonstrates its positive 

approach to travel planning and the implementation of many measures to change 

habits prior to the new development is welcomed. The Travel Plan is seeking a 15% 

modal shift away from single occupancy car use, which evidence suggests is towards 

the upper end of what can realistically be achieved, but the combination of encouraging 

measures and the car park management proposed give confidence that this target may 

be achieved. 

Car share provides the biggest opportunity for modal shift and the Trust state they are 

implementing a car share database, together with dedicated car share parking and a 

guaranteed ride home scheme. It is welcome to see that staff that could use the bus or 

train to travel to Crowthorne are encouraged to register on the database, as they could 

be picked up by passing colleagues. This measure will need to be well marketed, 

especially when the car park permit scheme is introduced. 


A staff shuttle bus scheme is also being considered. Patients’ visitors benefit from a 

shuttle bus pick up from local rail stations at present, so there would appear to be 

scope to extend this service to include staff commuting trips. The shuttle bus would 

make the golden 'last mile' commute of public transport users a more attractive 

proposition. 

Both walking and cycling are targeted for increased take-up in the Travel Plan, but 

when the site is relocated this will increase the journey time for both of these modes. 

To benefit these modes, the Trust is proposing to improve walking and cycling links 

within the site as discussed above. 

The introduction of a car park management scheme with allocated permits is crucial to 

achieving the Travel Plan targets. There is concern from local residents that if this 

process is not properly managed and communicated there will be an increase in 

parking on the surrounding highway. The Trust intends to carry out 'before' and 'after' 

surveys of on street parking in the surrounding roads to monitor this situation. 

Continual monitoring and review of the Travel Plan will be required to measure 

progress towards meeting its targets. The travel plan can be secured through S106 

obligations. 

The proposed development is therefore considered to be capable of providing a safe 

means of access to the development, provide adequate internal pedestrian and cycle 

links, and, subject to the successful implementation of a travel plan to make adequate 

provision for parking. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with 

Local Plan Policies M4, M6, M8 and M9. 

(4) Implications for Historic Landscape, Woodland and Public Rights of Way 

The whole site is a registered park and garden. It is therefore very sensitive in terms of 

its historic landscape. Local Plan Policy EN12 states that development will not be 

permitted which would result in damage to, or the erosion of, parks and gardens of 

special historic interest and their settings. More generally Core Strategy Policy CS1 

expects development to protect and enhance the character and quality of local 

landscapes, the wider countryside and the historic and cultural features of 

acknowledged importance. Policy CS7 expects development to respect the historic 

environment and enhance the landscape. Local Plan Policy EN1 states that planning 

permission will not be granted for development which would result in the destruction of 

trees and hedgerows which are important to the retention of a clear distinction between 

built up areas and the countryside; the character and appearance of the landscape; 

green links between open spaces and wildlife heritage sites and habitats for local 

wildlife. 

The registered park and garden is a very good example of surviving Victorian asylum 

design and therefore is of particular significance. With a length of 1.2 km and a width of 

6.5m together with its extensive ground excavations in the form of cuttings and 

embankments, retaining walls, footpaths, verges, fences and drainage features, the 

proposed access road would be a significant engineering structure through this 

currently undeveloped area of parkland and forest. It would be visually intrusive 

causing significant harm to the design, character and setting of the park, and its 

enjoyment by the public. It would result in the urbanisation of the countryside, loss of 

trees, ecology impacts and would have a detrimental impact on a public right of way. 

This will result in any harm to the park being readily perceived from public viewpoints. 

In view of the topography of the site the development requires a total remodelling of the 

existing landscape with level changes of up to 7-8 m. The construction of the access 


oad would require the felling of extensive areas of woodland and individual trees, 

including the loss of several category A and B trees. The proposed development would 

result in narrow woodland areas to the north with woodland removed along the north 

eastern boundary. This would leave a gap in the screening as the space is too limited 

to screen the road adequately in this area. Additionally the road level is elevated along 

this section making it appear more dominant. Any screening relies on existing 

woodland outside the application site along the north eastern boundary. Clear felling on 

this land could open views of the access road and the hospital development, but would 

be outside the control of the applicant. 

The retained woodland areas to the north of the proposed hospital are important in 

screening the site but would be vulnerable to wind damage as the existing edge of the 

wood would be lost. Although woodland edge planting is proposed for this area, the 

planting would not protect the remaining woodland in the short term. In order to 

minimise any long-term harm details for the proposed management of the retained 

woodland and detailed planting plans are required and these can be secured through 

condition. 

The access road would also have a detrimental impact on the attractiveness and public 

enjoyment of public footpath 8 which forms part of the long distance footpath, The 

Three Castles Path, as well as the local footpath network of Ramblers routes. This 

would be contrary to Local Plan Policy R8 which seeks to protect, extend or enhance 

Public Rights of Way. 

In conclusion the proposed access road would result in permanent long-term harm to 

the historic parkland through visual intrusion of the road and traffic, including lighting 

and road signage; through significant tree and woodland loss which can only be 

partially mitigated; through major changes in levels and the alteration of the historic 

design of the park. It would also detract from the attractiveness of a public footpath. 

These impacts could only be defended if it can be demonstrated that the benefits from 

the new road outweigh the harm caused. These are considered in the following section. 

If the road is considered to be justified, the proposed route has been located so as to 

minimise the impact on the wider landscape as far as possible. It would be located 

away from the main area of parkland and although there would be the loss of visually 

important category A trees by cutting through the woodland W12, on balance this is 

accepted to be the best option as the alternative routing further south to avoid the 

category A trees would require a steeper gradient and would result in greater overall 

loss of woodland and the visual impact would be more severe. 

(5) Conclusions on the Consideration of the Proposed Access Road 

It will be evident from this report that some of the most harmful impacts of the proposed 

development arise from the proposed access road. Furthermore the proposed new 

hospital itself would result in less traffic than the existing hospital and therefore solely in 

terms of the current application there is no highway justification for the proposed 

access road. It is therefore important that the benefits provided by the road are fully 

understood so they can be weighed against the harm that has been identified in 

previous sections. 

In support of the access road the Trust has advanced the following arguments: 

i) To attract an appropriate purchaser for the listed building it is essential to provide an 

access that a potential future user of the listed building will find acceptable so that a 

commercially viable re-use can be secured. Discussions between the Trust and a hotel 


operator and real estate agents and developers have highlighted that any commercial 

reuse of the listed building will require an improvement in profile and access from the 

national and regional road network in order to attract interest from the development 

market. The existing access through Crowthorne village is on minor residential roads 

and this is seen as not being attractive to owners and end users of the building as 

either a hotel or as office premises. Therefore the Trust considers that without the 

provision of the access road a hotel or office development is unlikely to present an 

attractive business proposal and the future of the listed building would be at increased 

risk. In addition without the access road the opportunities to consider and secure 

alternative uses for the building would be potentially limited. 

It should be noted that this is the opinion of consultants acting for the applicant, real 

estate agents and one potential hotel operator and has not been subject to expert 

independent assessment. In your officers’ opinion there remain serious questions as to 

whether the new access road would provide sufficient incentive for a hotel operator in 

particular to invest in a site adjacent to an operational high secure mental hospital and 

sharing the same approach past the new hospital and parts of the retained ancillary 

hospital buildings. In the absence of an independent review it is not considered that 

conclusive evidence has been provided on this point and this is therefore considered to 

reduce the weight that can be attached to this argument. 

However if the Trust’s consultants are correct the opportunity for securing a potentially 

viable re-use of the listed building should not be prejudiced by preventing the 

construction of the access road. In itself it is not considered that the new road would 

prevent a viable re-use so long as there remained sufficient flexibility so that at the time 

an application came forward for the conversion of the listed building the option of 

accessing this through the existing village road network remained. No evidence has 

been submitted from potential hoteliers to demonstrate that they have also considered 

that merits of the present attractive and historic approach to the site along Lower 

Broadmoor Road, an approach which the Heritage Strategy submitted as part of this 

application recommends be enhanced. This access would also benefit from delivering 

guests to the door of the hotel without having to pass or even see the hospital. At this 

stage it is not considered that the present plans would prevent this flexibility, however if 

the traffic from the converted listed building was to use the existing road network this 

could have significant implications for other elements of the mixed used development 

contained in the SADPD, particularly the residential component which it is envisaged 

would continue to use the existing road network for access. 

ii) Although the new hospital itself is not considered likely to result in any additional 

vehicular trips on the local road network, if the trips associated with the reuse of the 

listed building were added there would be a permanent net increase in trips in the long 

term. Although a hotel reuse would result in a much lower trip generation rate, in order 

not to prejudice any potential future use from coming forward the traffic implications of 

the “worst case” office reuse have been assessed. 

If the listed building was redeveloped as office accommodation it could attract in the 

order of 2,121 daily vehicle movements. Should a new access road to Foresters Way 

not be delivered then the future re-use of the listed building for office use could result in 

a significant volume of vehicle trips utilising the local streets in Crowthorne village, 

resulting in a number of junctions operating over capacity. It is considered unlikely that 

suitable mitigation works could be delivered on the local highway network, within the 

extent of the adopted highway, which would suitably accommodate the traffic 

associated with an office re-use of the listed building. This additional operational traffic 

would also give rise to significant and unacceptable adverse impacts on the local 

highway network, on public safety and residential amenity. As such retaining access 


through Crowthorne would seriously limit the potential to agree future uses for the listed 

building based on traffic impacts, putting its long term protection at risk. 

iii) If the access road was not in place all construction traffic associated with the 

hospital and listed building redevelopment would use the existing residential roads 

approaching from the west. The total construction period is estimated at eight years 

(including that related to the reuse of the listed building) and could result in over 800 

vehicle movements a week in addition to existing hospital traffic. Construction traffic 

would have adverse impacts on residential streets in the vicinity of the site including 

substantial impacts on pedestrian amenity, and give rise to increases in noise and air 

quality impacts within a predominantly residential neighbourhood. Any deterioration in 

air quality would be contrary to the objectives of the Crowthorne Air Quality 

Management Area (AQMA) recently declared by the Council. 

iv) There is a security requirement for the hospital to provide a 4m wide access road 

around the outside of the entire secure perimeter. On the north and east sides of the 

new hospital this requirement would be met by the new access road (approximately 

45% of its total length). This would be required regardless of how the site was 

accessed. 

It is considered that this argument can only be given limited weight as the greatest 

harm caused by the proposed access road would occur to the east of the secure 

perimeter where the road will run through open countryside. This part of the road 

would not be affected by the need to provide a 4m road around the secure perimeter. 

In conclusion the Trust considers that access from the west using the existing road 

network would give rise to significant and unacceptable impacts which would be difficult 

to mitigate or resolve in the absence of the proposed access road. Limiting access in 

this way would also constrain the ability of the Trust to secure a long-term and viable 

use for the listed building. As well as providing permanent long-term benefits for the 

completed development the new access road will provide benefits during the 

construction phase as it will remove large vehicles from the village roads. 

The arguments for and against the proposed new access road are very finely balanced, 

and are not helped by the lack of an independent assessment of the viability issues 

surrounding the reuse of the listed building, or a comprehensive proposal for the whole 

site. However, when it published the SADPD for submission to the SoS the Council 

considered the merits of allocating Broadmoor as a site for major mixed use 

development including a new access road. The earlier Preferred Options Document 

did not refer to the access road in Policy SA4. However the Draft Submission 

Document explicitly includes this in the Policy. This is a significant amendment from 

the Preferred Options Document. Although the Draft Submission Document does not 

presently have the weight of an adopted plan and will be subject to public examination 

later this year, it is now formal Council policy and the arguments surrounding the 

justification for the access road have already been carefully weighed by Members. 

It is therefore concluded that in order that the whole development can proceed and the 

most flexible options are kept available for the reuse of the listed building, the proposed 

access road is justified, notwithstanding the significant harm to the historic park and 

other material considerations that would result. 

(6) Effect on the amenity of neighbouring property 

Policy EN20 proviso (vii) seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect 

the amenity of surrounding properties. The proposed development would not directly 


affect any residential properties outside the Broadmoor Estate. The new hospital 

would be to the east of the existing hospital and therefore further from the residential 

areas of Crowthorne. The proposed access road would significantly reduce the 

amount of traffic using the existing road network through Crowthorne village (although 

this would increase again if the housing proposed in the SADPD is developed) and 

would also provide an alternative route for construction traffic meaning that it would not 

have to use these residential roads. It is therefore considered that this proposal would 

result in a positive effect on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, at 

least in the short term. 

The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with proviso (vii) of BFBLP 

Policy EN20. 

(7) Access Implications 

The hospital design includes allocated parking spaces for disabled persons which are 

conveniently located at the south-west of the hospital entrance. The site layout has 

been designed to enable convenient movement for all with the provision of dropped 

kerbs and tactile paving at crossing points over the new access road and Kentigern 

Drive where necessary. Ramped accesses are provided alongside stepped accesses 

where necessary. Level entry is provided to all buildings and all buildings will be fully 

DDA compliant and fully compliant with Part M of the Building Regulations. A detailed 

plan of the main public entrance to the new hospital has been submitted showing the 

design of the ramp, gradients and steps. This has demonstrated that acceptable 

pedestrian access for all can be provided to the new hospital from the car parks. 

In order to construct the new access road it is necessary to make some changes to 

levels of the existing public footpath. This would result in a steeper gradient and 

includes steps. Therefore a slightly longer alternative route without steps and a gentler 

gradient has been proposed from Eastern Lane to the east side of woodland W12 and 

back along the south side of the access road to meet with the existing footpath route. 

The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with Local Plan 

Policies EN22 and M7. 

(8) Impact on Ecology, including the Thames Basin Heaths SPA 

The majority of the site lies within 400m of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA with the 

northern and eastern edges abutting the SPA. The following could lead to a potential 

significant effect on the integrity of the SPA during the constructional and/or operational 

phases of the development: 

- change in hydrology; 

- impacts on supporting habitats (i.e. potential foraging ground for SPA birds); 

- light pollution; 

- air quality and noise; 

- additional recreational pressure resulting from the inclusion of a footway along the 

northern side of the access road. 

The Environmental Statement addresses each of these issues and where necessary 

suggests appropriate avoidance or mitigation. The original plans have been amended 

to remove the footway on the northern side of the access road. Subject to agreement 

with the Council, and the subsequent implementation of the following measures which 

will prevent an adverse affect on the integrity of the SPA: 


a) a Site Waste Management Plan; 

b) an Ecological Management Plan; 

c) a monitoring regime to ensure the hydrology mitigation is working as required; 

d) the mitigation strategies and recommendations within the ES 

it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, pursuant to 

Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and Regulation 

61(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) planning 

permission may be granted. 

In addition to the above the new access road will result in an impact on protected 

species (bats, badgers, reptiles). Although appropriate mitigation for ecological 

impacts is achievable, an alternative access via Crowthorne village would be preferable 

from an ecological perspective. 

(9) Sustainability Issues 

Policy CS10 requires the submission of a Sustainability Statement demonstrating how 

the proposals meet current best practice standards, i.e. BREEAM standard Very Good 

or Excellent. Full accreditation from a registered assessor is required to demonstrate 

that the development has been constructed to these standards. 

A comprehensive Sustainability Statement has been submitted and is considered 

acceptable. The applicant has also provided a supporting certified Pre-assessment 

Estimator demonstrating that the new hospital building is likely to achieve BREEAM 

‘Excellent’ standard. Therefore the applicant has met with the requirements of policy 

CS10. 

If planning permission is to be granted then conditions should be applied requiring that 

the development be implemented in accordance with the submitted Sustainability 

Statement and a Post Construction Review Report be submitted following the first 

occupation of the development. 

Policy CS12 requires the submission of an Energy Demand Assessment demonstrating 

how the development’s potential carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by at least 

10% and how 20% of the development’s energy requirements will be met from on-site 

renewable energy generation. 

An Energy Assessment has been provided demonstrating that as a result of passive 

design the development’s Carbon Dioxide emissions would be reduced by 14.3% 

overall that of Part L limits. The statement also demonstrates that via the 

implementation of a new biomass plant 21% of the development’s energy demand can 

be offset. Therefore the applicant has met with the requirements of policy CS12. 

If planning permission is to be granted then a condition should be applied requiring that 

the development be implemented in accordance with the submitted Energy 

Assessment. 

(10) Hydrology 

The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The Environment 

Agency has sought clarification on elements of this and has not yet confirmed that it is 

satisfied. The wording of the Recommendation reflects this. 


(11) Section106 Matters 

The present application would not result in any increased levels of activity or traffic and 

as such does not give rise to the need for standard impact mitigation contributions as 

set out in the Limiting the Impact of Development SPD. However it does give rise to a 

number of unique issues that make it unacceptable in planning terms unless there was 

a mechanism to address these. A S106 Agreement will need to be completed that 

includes obligations that seek: 

1. to ensure the on-going management/maintenance and keeping in good repair of the 

vacated accommodation in the listed building, until a new use/occupier is established; 

2. to secure heritage enhancements identified in the Heritage Strategy including the 

removal of obsolete hospital buildings; 

3. to ensure that the risk associated with achieving a viable new use for the grade II 

listed building is minimised by restricting development on the surplus hospital land until 

the future of the listed building has been secured; 

4. to reduce reliance on the car through the implementation of a Travel Plan. 

5. to control interim uses of any existing hospital buildings outside the application site 

prior to an application being submitted for their development in order to ensure that the 

impacts of the interim uses on provision for non-car modes of travel, traffic generation 

and parking are assessed and mitigation measures provided for any identified impacts 

(including the payment of any financial contributions). 

CONCLUSION 

Broadmoor Hospital provides mental health services in a high secure environment for 

288 male patients from London and the South of England. The existing hospital 

buildings are no longer appropriate for a modern mental health hospital and present the 

applicant, the West London Mental Health Trust with serious difficulties in delivering 

effective clinical care. This application seeks permission to erect a new secure mental 

health hospital following demolition of many of the existing hospital buildings, and a 

new access road and junction onto the A3095 Foresters Way. 

The proposal has been advertised as a departure from the development plan as it 

would involve building on land outside the settlement of Crowthorne as shown on the 

BFBLP proposals map. 

The proposed new hospital, while outside the settlement boundary of Crowthorne, 

would be located on a site that is already largely developed. In view of the identified 

need for the development, it is considered that on balance the public benefits would 

outweigh conflict with policies seeking to protect the countryside. 

The wider Broadmoor site is included in the Draft Submission SADPD. Policy SA4 

identifies the site for a comprehensive well-designed mixed use development including 

a redeveloped hospital and new access road. Although not an adopted plan, the 

proposed development would be in accordance with this allocation. 

The application site lies within an historic park and garden and forms part of the setting 

of a listed building. It includes a number of curtilage listed buildings which would be 

demolished (a separate application for listed building consent is considered elsewhere 

on this agenda). Heritage and landscape issues are therefore of particular importance 

in the consideration of this application. The proposed development would result in 

substantial harm to the cultural heritage and significance of the Broadmoor Estate. 

Government guidance is that in such situations planning permission should not be 

granted unless the public benefit arising from the development outweighs this harm. 


The applicant has provided a robust and detailed case as to why the development 

should go ahead in the national interest. It is on balance concluded that the national 

need for a modern high secure mental health hospital at Broadmoor outweighs the 

harm that has been identified to heritage assets. 

However the Council still needs to be satisfied that the listed building would not be left 

empty, but returned to a viable use and that all the positive recommendations in the 

Heritage Strategy to mitigate harm and repair and enhance the heritage assets are 

capable of being delivered once the new hospital is built and occupied. It is considered 

that the s106 obligations set out in the recommendations section of this report would 

provide a suitable mechanism to deliver this mitigation. 

The applicant has demonstrated that a safe access can be provided to the public 

highway at Foresters Way; although the detailed design of the off-site highway works 

will need to be agreed with the Highway Authority before development can be 

commenced. The proposal involves the reduction of parking provision at the hospital. 

This is partly in response to the smaller size of the new hospital and also reflects the 

expected reduction in car use resulting from the operation of a travel plan. The 

proposal would not result in any additional traffic on the public highway and therefore 

no highway contribution is required. 

The proposed development includes adequate mitigation to address its ecological 

impacts and will not directly affect any residential properties outside the Broadmoor 

estate. 

One of the most difficult matters to assess is the proposed access road which will have 

a harmful impact on the historic landscape of the wider Broadmoor Estate. The 

applicant has made a cogent argument that access from the west using the existing 

road network would give rise to significant and unacceptable impacts which would be 

difficult to mitigate or resolve in the absence of the proposed access road. Limiting 

access in this way could also constrain the ability of the Trust to secure a long-term 

and viable use for the listed building. As well as providing permanent long-term 

benefits for the completed development the new access road will provide benefits 

during the construction phase as it will remove large vehicles from the village roads. 

Your officers consider that the arguments for and against the proposed new access 

road are very finely balanced. It is concluded that in order that the whole development 

can proceed and the most flexible options are kept available for the reuse of the listed 

building, the proposed access road is justified, notwithstanding the significant harm to 

the historic park and other planning considerations outlined in the report that would 

result. 

With appropriate conditions, and obligations to secure and enhance the listed building, 

and to reduce car reliance through a Travel Plan, and subject to the Environment 

Agency raising no objection, the application is considered to be acceptable and is 

recommended for approval. 


6 RECOMMENDATION 

Following the completion of planning obligation(s) under Section 106 of the Town 

and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to:- 

a. the on-going management/maintenance of the listed building, until a new 

use/occupier is established; 

b. securing heritage enhancements identified in the Heritage Strategy including 

the removal of obsolete hospital buildings; 

c. minimising the risk associated with achieving a viable new use for the listed 

building by restricting development on the surplus hospital land until the future 

of the listed building has been secured; 

d. reducing reliance on the car through a Travel Plan; 

e. control over interim uses of any existing buildings prior to an application being 

submitted for their development to ensure that the impacts of the interim uses 

on provision for non car modes of travel, traffic generation and parking are 

assessed and mitigation measures provided for any identified impacts (including 

the payment of any financial contributions), 

and subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency that its concerns have been 

addressed, 

that the Head of Development Management be authorised to APPROVE the 

application subject to the following conditions:- 

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five 

years from the date of this permission. 

REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 

1990. 

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with 

the following approved plans and other submitted details received by the Local 

Planning Authority on 28 th October 2011: 

100-A-XX-002,004, 008, 013; 150-A-SP-001, EL-001, SEC-004, SEC-005, 

160-A-XX-007; 401-A-FP-001, EL-003; 402-A-FP-001, 402-A-EL-003; 403-A-FP- 

001, EL-010, SEC-010; 404-A-FP-001, EL-010, SEC-010; 405-A-FP-001, EL- 

010, SEC-010; 406-A-GF-001, EL-001; 407-A-XX-001; 104-A-XX-002; 160-A-XX- 

001; 601-A-EL-001; GF-002; 506-A-FP-002, EL-001, EL-002; 501-A-FP-002 

(received 26.01.2012) , EL-002 (received 26.01.2012) 

2891LO/008J (received 06.02.2012) , 009C, 201B, 202,203A (received 

06.02.2012), 204, 205A (received 06.02.2012), 320 

Arboricultural Impact Assessment, 

REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the 

local Planning Authority. 

03. No development shall take place until samples of the materials tto be used in the 

construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have 

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 

development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 

[Relevant Policies: SEP CC6, BFBLP EN20, Core Strategy DPD CS7] 


04. The means of vehicular access and egress to the permitted buildings (other than 

emergency vehicles and public transport)shall be from Foresters Way only. 

REASON: In the interests of highway safety. 

[Relevant Policies: Core Strategy DPD CS23] 

05. There shall be no vehicular access or egress from the site onto Upper 

Broadmoor Road, School Hill, Chaplins Hill or Lower Broadmoor Road (other 

than by emergency vehicles or public transport). 


[Relevant Policies: Core Strategy DPD CS23] 

06. The development hereby permitted shall not be begun until details of: 

(i) the junction of the proposed access road and Foresters Way; 

(ii) any consequent alterations (on and off-site)that may be required to the 

existing highway; and 

(iii) the internal site road layout; 

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

No other part of the development hereby permitted shall be begun until these 

works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. 


[Relevant Policies: Core Strategy DPD CS23; BFBLP M4] 

07. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the footpaths and 

cycleways shown as “proposed” on drawing 2891/ES/2.1B have been 

constructed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

REASON: In the interests of accessibility and to facilitate access by cyclists and 

pedestrians. 

[Relevant Policies: BEBLP M6, Core Strategy DPD CS23] 

08. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the associated 

vehicle parking and turning space has been surfaced and marked out in 

accordance with the approved drawing. The spaces shall thereafter be kept 

available for parking at all times. 

REASON: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate car parking 

to prevent the likelihood of on-street car parking which would be a danger to 

other road users. 

[Relevant Policies: BFBLP M9, Core Strategy DPD CS23] 

09. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a scheme has 

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for 

covered and secure cycle parking facilities (including shower facilities and lockers 

for employees). The building shall not be occupied until the approved scheme 

has been implemented. The facilities shall thereafter be retained as approved. 

REASON: In the interests of accessibility of the development to cyclists. 

[Relevant Policies: BFBLP M9, Core Strategy DPD CS23] 

10. The car parking indicated on the approved plans as car parking for people with 

disabilities shall be marked out, signed and provided prior to the first occupation 

of the building that the parking relates to and shall thereafter be retained, unless 

otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 


REASON: To ensure that people with disabilities have adequate access to the 

development. 

[Relevant Policy BFBLP M7] 

11. The development hereby permitted shall not be begun until details of the bus 

gate to be installed on Kentigern Drive in the position shown on drawing 80219- 

SK14 Rev B have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied 

until the bus gate has been installed in accordance with the approved details. 


[Relevant Policies: Core Strategy DPD CS23; BFBLP M4] 

12. The development hereby permitted shall not be begun until a scheme has been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to show 

lorry routes to and within the site; and how the following facilities/operations will 

be accommodated: 

(a) Parking of vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors 

(b) Loading and unloading of plant and vehicles 

(c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development 

(d) Wheel cleaning facilities 

(e) Temporary portacabins and welfare for site operatives 

Each facility shall be retained throughout the course of construction of the 

development, free from any impediment to its designated use. No other areas on 

the site, other than those in the approved scheme shall be used for the purposes 

listed (a) to (d) above without the prior written permission of the Local Planning 

Authority. 

REASON: In the interests of amenity and road safety. 

13. The development hereby permitted (including any demolition) shall not be begun 

until details of a scheme (Working Method Statement) to control the 

environmental effects of the demolition and construction work has been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 

scheme shall include: 

(i) control of noise 

(ii) control of dust, smell and other effluvia 

(iii) control of surface water run off 

(iv) site security arrangements including hoardings 

(v) proposed method of piling for foundations 

(vi) construction and demolition working hours 

(vii) hours during the construction and demolition phase, when delivery vehicles 

or vehicles taking materials are allowed to enter or leave the site 

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme or 

as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area. 

[Relevant Policies: BFBLP EN25] 

14. The development hereby permitted shall not be begun until details in respect of 

measures to: 

(a) Minimise, re-use and re-cycle waste, including materials and waste arising 

from demolition; 

(b) Minimise the pollution potential of unavoidable waste; 


(c) 

Dispose of unavoidable waste in an environmentally acceptable manner; 

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The approved details shall be implemented during the course of building 

operations and the subsequent use of the building(s). 

REASON: To protect the amenities of the area. 

[Relevant Policies: SEP W2 

15. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the 

tree protection measures set out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and 

drawing 2891LO/009C received 28th October 2011 unless otherwise agreed in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

REASON: In the interests of tree protection 

[Relevant Plans and Policies: SEP NRM5, Core Strategy CS1; BFBLP EN1] 

16. No tree or vegetation specified as to be retained on drawing 2891LO/0081 

received 28th October 2011 shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed without the 

prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

If any trees or hedgerows shown to be retained on the approved plans, are 

removed, uprooted, destroyed, die or become diseased during the course of the 

development or within a period of 5 years of the completion of the development, it 

shall be replaced with another tree or hedgerow of the same species and size 

unless the Local Planning Authority gives it written consent for any variation. 

REASON: In the interests safeguarding visual amenity. 

[Relevant Policies: BFBLP EN1 and EN12, CSDPD CS7] 

17. The development hereby permitted shall not be begun until comprehensive 

details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include: - 

a) Comprehensive planting plans of an appropriate scale and level of detail 

that provides adequate clarity including details of ground preparation and all 

other operations associated with plant and grass establishment, full schedules of 

plants, noting species, and detailed plant sizes/root stock specifications, planting 

layout, proposed numbers/densities locations. 

b) Details of semi mature tree planting. 

c) Comprehensive 5 year post planting maintenance schedule. 

d) Underground service and external lighting layout (drainage, power, 

communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes etc.), both 

existing reused and proposed new routes. 

e) Means of enclosure (walls and fences etc) 

f) Paving including pedestrian open spaces, paths, patios, proposed materials 

and construction methods, cycle routes, parking courts etc. 

g) Recycling/refuse or other storage units, 

h) Other landscape features (water features, seating, trellis and pergolas etc). 

All planting comprised in the soft landscaping works shall be carried out and 

completed in full accordance with the approved scheme, in the nearest planting 

season (1st October to 31st March inclusive) to the completion of the 

development or prior to the occupation of any part of the approved development, 

whichever is sooner, or as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. All hard landscaping works shall be carried and completed 

prior to the occupation of any part of the approved development. As a minimum, 

the quality of all hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance 


with British Standard 4428:1989 ‘Code Of practice For General Landscape 

Operations’ or any subsequent revision. All trees and other plants included within 

the approved details shall be healthy, well formed specimens of a minimum 

quality that is compatible with British Standard 3936:1992 (Part 1) ‘Specifications 

For Trees & Shrubs’ and British Standard 4043 (where applicable) or any 

subsequent revision. Any trees or other plants which within a period of 5 years 

from the completion of the development, die, are removed, uprooted, are 

significantly damaged, become diseased or deformed, shall be replaced during 

the nearest planting season (1st October to 31st March inclusive) with others of 

the same size, species and quality as approved, unless the Local Planning 

Authority gives written consent to any variation. 

REASON: - In the interests of good landscape design and the visual amenity of 

the area. 

[Relevant Policies: BFBLP EN2 and EN20, CSDPD CS7] 

18. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a scheme has 

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the 

management of the retained woodland on the site. The retained woodland shall 

thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved scheme. 

REASON: To ensure that adequate arrangements are in place for the ongoing 

management of the areas of woodland on the site in the interests of amenity. 

[Relevant Plans and Policies: BFBLP EN12; Core strategy DPD CS7] 

19. Neither buildings provided by the carrying out of the development, nor any part 

thereof shall be occupied until a Ecological Management Plan has been 

submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall 

include: 

i) description and evaluation of the features to be managed 

ii) description of target habitats and species 

iii) ecological potential and constraints on the site 

iv) aims and objectives of management 

v) appropriate management options including location and method statements 

vi) prescriptions for management actions 

vii) preparation of a work schedule indicating the timing of works 

viii) personnel responsible for implementation of the plan 

ix) monitoring and remedial measures triggered by monitoring (to include a 

programme of work to secure the mitigation, compensation and enhancement 

proposals set out in appendix 7.8 of the Environmental Statement) 

The approved plans shall be observed, performed and complied with. 

REASON: In the interests of nature conservation 

[Relevant Plans and Policies: SEP NRM5, Core Strategy CS1, CS7, BFBLP EN3] 

20. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the 

mitigation and compensation strategies and recommendations as set out in the 

Environmental Statement submitted with the application (including the Addendum 

submitted 15th February 2012) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. 

REASON: To ensure that the environmental impacts of the development are 

adequately mitigated or compensated. 

[Relevant Plans and Policies: SEP NRM5, Core Strategy CS1, CS7] 


21. 

No materials, machinery or work should encroach onto the SPA/SSSI either 

before during or after demolition, construction or ongoing use. All those involved 

with the works shall be informed of the status and legal obligations attached to 

these designations and where the boundary of the protected areas are. 

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation 


22. A monitoring regime for the hydrology mitigation shall be submitted to and 

approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Thereafter the monitoring 

regime shall be carried out in accordance with the approved regime. 

Reason: to ensure that the hydrology mitigation is working as envisaged in the 

Environmental Statement. 


23. No development shall take place within the site, including any works of demolition 

or ground preparation, until: 

(a) the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a scheme (including a 

timetable) for a phased programme of archaeological investigation work; and 

(b) the approved scheme has been performed and complied with. 

REASON: In the interests of the archaeological and historical heritage of the 

Borough. 

[Relevant Policies: SEP BE6, BFBLP EN7] 

24. The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the 

submitted Sustainability Statement and shall be retained in accordance therewith 

unless the Local Planning Authority gives prior written consent to any variation. 

REASON: In the interests of sustainability and the efficient use of resources. 

[Relevant Policy: Core Strategy DPD CS10] 

25. Within one month of the first occupation of the development hereby permitted (or, 

where the development is phased, within one month of the first occupation of the 

final phase of that development), a Post Construction Review Report shall be 

carried out by an independent assessor licensed by the Building Research 

Establishment and a Final Code Certificate shall be submitted to the Local 

Planning Authority which demonstrates that the development has been 

constructed to meet a minimum standard of a "Very Good" or "Excellent" 

BREEAM rating. 



26. The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the 

submitted Energy Assessment and thereafter the buildings constructed by the 

carrying out of the development shall be operated in accordance with the 

submitted Energy Demand Assessment unless the Local Planning Authority gives 

prior written consent to any variation. 



Summary Of Reason(s) For Decision: 

The proposal accords with the following Policy of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the 


South East of England: 

CC6 – which seeks development that will respect and enhance the character and 

distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes, and use innovative design to create a 

high quality built environment which promotes a sense of place. 

CC7 – which requires sufficient capacity to be available in existing infrastructure to 

meet the needs of new development, and where this cannot be demonstrated, that 

additional capacity be released through demand management measures, better 

management of existing or provision of new infrastructure. 

S2 which seeks to promote sustainable health services 

T4 – which seeks an appropriate level of parking. 

T5 – which seeks travel plans for appropriate types of development. 

NRM5 – which seeks to conserve and improve biodiversity. 

NRM6 – which requires new development which is likely to have a significant effect on 

the ecological integrity of Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) to 

demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential 

adverse effects 

BE6 – which seeks to which protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the 

historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness 

and sense of place. 

The proposal accords with the following Core Strategy Development Plan Document 

Policies: 

CS1 – which seeks to ensure that development makes efficient use of land and 

buildings, reduces the need for travel, promotes a mix of uses, conserves water and 

energy use, supports the economic wellbeing of the population, protects and enhances 

safety, natural resources, character of local landscape and historic and cultural 

features. 

CS6 – which seeks to ensure that development will mitigate adverse impacts upon 

communities, transport and the environment. 

CS7 – which seeks to ensure that developments are of high quality design. 

CS9 – which seeks to protect land outside of settlement for its own sake, particularly 

from development that would adversely affect the character, appearance or function of 

the land. 

CS10 – which requires development proposals to be accompanied by a Sustainability 

Statement. 

CS12 – which requires development proposals to be accompanied by an Energy 

Demand Assessment. 

CS14 – which seeks to avoid an adverse impact upon the integrity of the Thames 

Basins Heaths Special Protection Area. 


CS19 – which permits employment generating development within Bracknell Town 

Centre and defined employment areas. 

CS24 – which seeks to ensure that development will mitigate any transport impacts 

which may arise from the development or cumulatively with other proposals. 

The proposal accords with the following saved policies of the Bracknell Forest Borough 

Local Plan: 

EN1 – which seeks to protect tree and hedgerow cover. 

EN3 – which seeks to ensure that the special value and character of SPAs, SACs and 

SSSIs are protected. 

EN7 – which seeks to preserve important archaeological remains. 

EN8 – which only permits development on land outside settlements where it would not 

adversely affect the character, appearance or function of the land, and would not 

damage its landscape quality, or where conspicuous from the Green Belt, would not 

injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt. 

EN12 – which seeks to ensure development will not damage and erode Historic Parks 

and Gardens and their settings. 

EN20 – as it would be acceptable in terms of its impact upon the character of the area, 

and amenity of surrounding properties and adjoining area. 

EN22 – which seeks to ensure there will be convenient access, parking space and 

facilities for people with disabilities. 

E12 – which permits change of use, infilling or redevelopment on identified major 

employment sites outside of the defined settlements and Green Belt, where it would not 

have a materially greater impact upon the character of the area and public highway. 

M4 – which seeks to ensure that development which would result in a material increase 

in the use of the existing highway will provide appropriate pedestrian, cycling and 

public transport routes. 

M6 – which seeks to ensure that development will provide for safe, direct and well 

signed cycle and pedestrian routes. 

M7 – which seeks to ensure that new development will access for all, and the use of 

highway and footpath networks, parking and public transport. 

M8 – which seeks to ensure new development facilitates and promotes the use of 

public transport. 

M9 – which seeks satisfactory parking provision for vehicles and cycles. 

R8 – which seeks to protect, extend or enhance Public Rights of Way. 

SC3 – which seeks to ensure there would be no net reduction of existing community 

facilities. 

(Please note that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list). 

The following material considerations have been taken into account: 

The proposed new hospital, while outside the settlement boundary of Crowthorne, 

would be located on a site that is already largely developed. In view of the identified 

need for the development, it is considered that on balance the public benefits would 

outweigh conflict with policies seeking to protect the countryside. 

The wider Broadmoor site is included in the Draft Submission SADPD. Policy SA4 

identifies the site for a comprehensive well-designed mixed use development including 

a redeveloped hospital and new access road. Although not an adopted plan, the 

proposed development would be in accordance with this allocation. 

The proposed development would result in substantial harm to the cultural heritage and 


significance of the Broadmoor Estate. The applicant has provided a robust and 

detailed case as to why the development should go ahead in the national interest. It is 

on balance concluded that the national need for a modern high secure mental health 

hospital at Broadmoor outweighs the harm that has been identified to heritage assets. 

The applicant has entered into s106 obligations which seek to minimise the risk that the 

listed building would not be left empty without a viable use after the new hospital is 

built, but returned to a positive use. Obligations also secure the positive 

recommendations in the Heritage Strategy to mitigate harm and repair and enhance 

the heritage assets of the site. 

The applicant has demonstrated that a safe access can be provided to the public 

highway at Foresters Way. The proposal would not result in any additional traffic on 

the public highway. 

The proposed development includes adequate mitigation to address its ecological 

impacts and will not directly affect any residential properties outside the Broadmoor 

estate. 

The applicant has made a cogent argument that access from the west using the 

existing road network would give rise to significant and unacceptable impacts which 

would be difficult to mitigate or resolve in the absence of the proposed access road. 

Limiting access in this way could also constrain the ability of the Trust to secure a long 

term and viable use for the listed building. As well as providing permanent long term 

benefits for the completed development the new access road will provide benefits 

during the construction phase as it will remove large vehicles from local roads. 

In order that the whole development can proceed and the most flexible options are kept 

available for the reuse of the listed building, the proposed access road is considered to 

be justified, notwithstanding the significant harm to the historic park and other planning 

considerations that would result. 

The planning application is therefore approved. 

In the event of the S106 planning obligation(s) not being completed by 

16th June 2012, the Head of Development Management be authorised to REFUSE the 

application on the grounds of:- 

01. The proposed development would directly result in the creation of a redundant 

grade II listed building whose realistic likelihood of viable future use had not 

adequately been demonstrated or provided for. This would result in a high risk 

that the listed building could become disused for an indefinite period of time, to 

the detriment of its physical condition and the detraction from the special 

character of the building and the contribution it makes to the heritage of the 

area, and especially the registered historic park and garden within which it sits. 

The proposal is therefore contrary to PPS5, Policy BE6 of the South East Plan, 

Policy EN12 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Policy CS7 of the 

Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 

02. The proposal would not secure the implementation of a travel plan and as such it 

would be in conflict with sustainability objectives which seek to reduce car trips 

through encouraging alternative methods to car use and opportunities for car 

sharing. Furthermore the absence of a travel plan would result in inadequate 


parking provision on site leading to overspill parking on local roads. The 

proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policies T4 and T5 of the 

South East Plan, Policy M9 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, and 

Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document. 

03. The interim use of any existing buildings prior to an application being submitted 

for their development could unacceptably increase the pressure on highways 

and transportation infrastructure, including parking and provision for non car 

modes of travel. In the absence of a further transport assessment in respect of 

any interim uses, and the provision of appropriate mitigation measures provided 

for any identified impacts (including the payment of any financial contributions) 

the proposal could result in unacceptable transport impacts that have not 

currently been identified. As such the applicant has not demonstrated that the 

proposed development is not contrary to Policy CC7 of the South East Plan, 

Policy M4 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and CS6 and CS24 of the 

Core Strategy Development Plan Document and to Supplementary Planning 

Document Limiting the Impact of Development (adopted July 2007). 

Doc. Ref: Uniform 7/DC/Agenda 

The application file to which this report relates can be viewed at the Council's Time Square office during office hours 

or online at www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk

11/00743/FUL - Broadmoor Hospital, Lower Broadmoor Road ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?