top of page


Vistry logo.jpeg

GoFund BRAG!

We are now asking BRAG members to donate funds to the BRAG gofundme account. Click the link above to help.

We want the objections we submit to be professionally backed so they hold more weight and credibility when presented to the planning committee for a decision about what the development will look like.


If you can donate some money to BRAG funds we hope to be able to commission a number of experts to produce professional reports. We will be able to submit these as further objections.  We plan for the funds received to also assist in the general running BRAG such as the internet site and our next delivery of leaflets.

The Latest

The Vistry Group have bought the option on the land from Richborough. The site owners are still the original Mandry family and Vistry are acting as their agents and will presumably finally buy the land once planning permission is secured. The more objection letters, the bigger our voice. It really does make a difference so don't give up!

Please go to the planning portal. The planning number is RU.22/0454 or click below

BRAG have produced a list of points which you can use in your letters of objection for the Vistry application.  You will be able to cut and paste points to make up your own letter which is best. You can of course just copy and send the standard BRAG letter but an individualised one is noticed more.

Send your letters/emails to

Please try and individualise your letters and emails rather than just cutting and pasting from the objection list. Quality is better than quantity so even if it is just a few lines, it will help

Screenshot 2021-03-21 at 22.36.11.png

The Local Plan designated around 200 houses for the whole SL12 site. This was informed by the Final Capacity Analysis. Since the smaller nursery did not come forward the available plot size is reduced and so would suggest only around 170 houses. Vistry application is for 186 dwellings including flats.

  1. Poor contextual relationships (terraced housing blocks backing onto detached housing)

  2. Does not align with the village character and more in line with urban edge.

  3. Multiple examples where parking courts back onto the rear of existing dwellings contrary to policy requiring back-to-back arrangements

  4. Minimum garden distances leading to tight build tolerances so the actual finished gardens risk being undersized because there is no margin for error

  5. No soft green edge around the north and south-western borders

  6. No integrated green social space within the centre of the development. No placemaking.

  7. Bulky high-volume housing very close to existing dwellings leading to intrusion due to bulk and mass, overlooking, overshadowing

  8. Insufficient visitor parking.

  9. Density at 36.5dph compared to 11-26dph in the surrounding area therefore out of immediate local context

  10. And many more problems as highlighted in the multiple letters of representation from residents,

Screenshot 2022-06-18 at 17.25.57.png

Did You Know That



The recent development by A2 Dominion on Brox End Nursery was given planning permission at a density of 32 dph (dwellings per hectare). Vistry scheme works out at 36.5dph

Which would be out of character even for a new development based on the recent permission for BEN



Only Independent and Liberal Democrat councillors voted against the Local Plan 2030 which set the site and density of the Ottershaw East development.

The two main parties either voted for or abstained.

You may wish to choose to support different councillors for borough elections than you would choose in a general election.

Check out their views on the Ottershaw East development



Ottershaw has a mixed housing style from listed buildings, arts and crafts, 19th century and contemporary but Vistry have cherry picked local housing that fits in with its national standard housing model. A  search of the applicants many sites around the country will show the same generic homes again and again. No attempt has been made to align the new housing with the local character. The Runnymede design policy emphasises throughout that good design should reflect local vernacular and include variety including landmark buildings, points of interest and variations of style. The applicant fails miserably providing the same content available at all its sites across the country.

"Height should not be driven by a need to accommodate housing numbers but should respond to context appraisal."

(pp37 Runnymede Design SPD 2020)

Runnymede’s Design Aspirations recognise the:

“Importance of gaining and building support amongst our local communities for new developments” (pp10 Runnymede Design SPD 2020)

As Runnymede prepares for its 2040 Local plan, support for this will depend to a large extent on how it handles the implementation of the 2030 Local Plan and its compliance and sympathetic application of the design principles to the current allocations

bottom of page