A contentious plan for more than 350 homes and care home will go ahead after developers won an appeal with the government inspectorate.
Berkley Strategic Land Ltd will build the homes and 68-bed care home on land opposite Blagrove Lane in Barkham.
Wokingham Borough Council’s planning committee refused the proposal in September after it received more than 1,000 objections from locals.
Along with this will be a 26-football pitch sized park and affordable homes provision.
This will be built following the demolition of agricultural buildings and outbuildings on the land.
Access will be built on Barkham Road and Blagrove Lane, plans for which will be submitted at a later stage.
While planning officers recommended approval, committee members unanimously voted against the plans over concerns the area was lacked in sustainable transport options would negatively impact on the countryside.
Other issues were over the use of the land – between Wokingham town and Barkham – which acts as a buffer between the two settlements.
Planning officers argued it was likely the proposal would be allowed at appeal.
Now, developers have won approval from inspector Andrew McGlone following an inquiry on March 18.
In his decision report, Inspector McGlone concluded the number of homes, particularly affordable homes, would ‘help boost the council’s supply of market homes in an accessible location’.
The developer has agreed to upgrade nearby bus stops and contribute £319,000 to deliver the Arborfield bus strategy, as well as £302,400 towards the NHS Integrated Care Board.
While the development’s scale would ‘inevitably increase vehicular movements in the area’, they wouldn’t ‘necessarily make the proposal unacceptable’, Mr McGlone said.
The developer will contribute £6,500 towards the costs of a Traffic Regulation order to close Blagrove Lane south of Roberts Grove.
But Mr McGlone admitted the nearest shops and services are ‘at the upper end or beyond the distance that most people are prepared to walk or cycle to’.
The number 3 bus service will be diverted to serve the new homes, which will mitigate this, the inspector argued.
Other concerns about local schools not having enough places to accomodate new residents had ‘no substantive evidence’, he added.
Wokingham Borough Council can currently demonstrate a housing supply for 1.7 years, which the inspector noted was ‘substantially below’ the required five years.
Inspector McGlone concluded: “The proposal would provide different types and sizes of housing, and it would mitigate its effects on infrastructure and services, while it could be a well-designed, attractive and healthy place that would be safe, accessible, functional and include effective landscaping.
“The area’s character would not be maintained, but the proposal seeks to strike a balance between retaining that character and making efficient use of land.”
Cllr Stephen Conway, leader of Wokingham borough council and the executive responsible for the local plan, told Wokingham Today: ” I am disappointed and dismayed by the appeal decision.
“The council’s planning committee refused permission on what I saw as defensible grounds, but clearly the council’s lack of a five-year land supply, which can only be remedied once our new local plan is adopted, was a major factor.
“In those circumstances, the so-called tilted balance operates in favour of development. It becomes necessary to demonstrate that the harms significantly outweigh the benefits, in planning terms.
“As the government’s planning policies prioritize delivery of housing, this is regarded by appeal inspectors as the benefit that needs to be outweighed if a refusal is to be sustained.
“The new local plan is now with the planning inspectors for examination. As it progresses through the process of examination, it will gain more weight in decision making, both of applications and appeals, but until it is formally adopted, which will take many months, I’m afraid the council remains vulnerable.
“This unfortunate outcome underlines the importance of proceeding with the new plan at examination, and not, as some are arguing, starting afresh.
“If we started again, we would have to accommodate much higher housing numbers and the whole process would take at least another three years, prolonging the period of vulnerability to speculative development.”
