Campaign group urges objections to River Thames bus lane bridge plan

A CAMPAIGN group is urging residents to submit objections to plans to concrete over an area by the River Thames to create a bus lane bridge.

SOAR (Save Our Ancient Riverside) say that the cross-council £24 million scheme, known as the East Reading MRT (Mass Rapid Transport) is opposed by a number of groups including the Environment Agency and the Wildlife Trust.

Last year, the Berkshire Local Transport Board approved the plans which will include a new bridge to be built over the River Thames at Thames Valley Park. The single lane bus bridge will be wide enough to include access for pedestrians and a cycle route that will link a 270 space park and ride car park with the new entrance to Reading Station on Vastern Road.

Now, revised plans have been submitted by Reading Borough Council to its planning department and is open for comments until Friday, May 19.

Although the backers of the scheme say it will increase bus use, campaigner argue that it will remove just six minutes’ worth of traffic from London Road and alternatives should be looked at before ruining the green space by the River Thames.

The council said in a statement that the revised plans “now results in a net increase in biodiversity, continues to provide a net increase in flood storage capacity, and achieves the greater retention of trees”.

What does Wokingham’s MP really think about banning kids from social media?

Wokingham Youth Theatre members go home with horrifying wounds

Reading Borough Council said that the main amendments to the planning application are:

Viaduct to narrow by one metre in a localised area to the East of the Kennetmouth (i.e. at the narrowest point on the riverbank) to reduce the visual impact of the scheme.
Minor realignment of the route to the South of the Tesco superstore car park west of the Kennetmouth, reducing land-take on the car park and The Coal woodland.
Removal of some originally-proposed replacement car parking within the Tesco superstore car park, significantly reducing the impact on The Coal woodland. An additional 17 trees and 8 tree groups will be retained. The amended scheme includes the planting of 77 new trees, plus 4 further trees off-site.
Two-column supporting design of the viaduct now altered to single ‘flared’ column to further reduce the visual impact of the scheme.
Lighting columns along the viaduct in original proposal to be replaced with low-level parapet lighting.
Provision of three new short-stay visitor mooring platforms on the River Thames (North Bank, east of the Kennetmouth), with associated riverbank planting, resulting in a net increase in biodiversity as a result of the scheme.
Landscaping amendments to include provision of wetland/marsh area under the viaduct, retention of the large Willow tree to the East of Kennetmouth, and other off-side mitigating environmental improvements resulting in new habitats and a biodiversity net gain.
Amended locations for compensatory flood storage (ground lowering), resulting in a net increase in flood storage capacity as a result of the scheme.

River Thames — Kennetmouth is home to two historic bridges built by Brunel, one of them a horseshoe bridge

READ MORE: SOAR Warn 1,000 trees are at risk

In the statement released by Reading Borough Council, Cllr Tony Page, Reading Borough Council’s Lead Member for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport, said: “The planning application for a dedicated new bus, pedestrian and cycle only route has been updated following feedback received during the statutory consultation period. As a result, the proposed scheme now sees a greater retention of trees, a net increase in biodiversity and continues to provide a net an increase in flood storage capacity.

“I would stress once again that the proposed new bridge over Kennetmouth, which is part of the East Reading MRT, is intended for public transport, cyclist and pedestrian use only. Private vehicles would not be permitted to use the route.

“During peak hours this proposed bus-only link from Thames Valley Park along Napier Road will save buses up to 15 minutes by bypassing the often congested and slow-moving London Road/Cemetery Junction/Forbury Road route.

“Once this new and faster route has become established, it will significantly increase the attractiveness of public transport services.

“With the creation of new park and ride sites, and the possible expansion of existing ones, it is forecast that many thousands of car commuter journeys will switch to public transport, thereby reducing forecast congestion and improving forecast air quality in east Reading.”

However, Cllr Page’s comments over improving air quality and congestion in the London Road area were disputed by the local Green Party councillor Rob White: the area of Reading that is affected by the plans is Park Ward, where all three councillors are Green Party members.

Cllr White – who stood as the party’s candidate for Reading East in last year’s General Election – said: “Reading Borough Council have made some minor cosmetic changes to this plan to put a road by the River Thames. Unfortunately the scheme still will not improve congestion and air pollution at Cemetery Junction.

“The council should instead be prioritising initiatives like a Low Emissions Zone – where highly polluting vehicles are charged money to enter the town. Green councillors will continue to stand up for residents and our green spaces.”

And the campaign group Save Our Ancient Riverside , known as Don’t Trash The Thames on Facebook, is calling on its supporters to file objections before Friday’s deadline, arguing that the plans for the MRT would have negligible impact on congestion in Earley and there would not be any significant improvements to air quality.

In a Facebook post they say: “The introduction of an alternative scheme such as a low emission zone would pay for itself within a year (only £400k compared to the MRT + car park’s £31.5 million) and would reduce traffic by 30%.

“Likewise a second storey on the Winnersh Triangle park and ride/rail car park would achieve the MRT’s same goal and would cost peanuts by comparison to the MRT’s price tag whilst having zero environmental impact.”