A first reaction to the draft local plan

May I start positively by congratulating the Borough Council on the inclusion of policies to ensure that new development is zero carbon. This essential measure is long awaited and I hope will be copied across the UK.

However, I am disappointed at the remainder of the document given the strength of feeling expressed by residents last year regarding the pace of development locally and the “Enough is Enough” statements made by senior Members of the Council.

Section 7 of the draft document gives a reassessment of the standard forecasting methodology of housing need concluding that Wokingham merits a reduction of 35 dwellings per annum or around 4%.

Hardly worth the effort and the new target is given as a still eyewatering 769 pa or 13,901 dwellings between 2018 and 2036.

Tables 2 and 3 show how the Council proposes this target will be achieved and outlines where a bigger total of 16,802 dwellings over this period (21% more than the target) would be acceptable.

This “over supply” may well provide some leeway to demonstrate a satisfactory pipeline of development if individual sites slip and so a defence against predatory applications.

However, this approach must also present a distinct potential for gradual target creep upwards over the Plan period and will need careful ongoing monitoring.

The draft Plan states that at least 3750 dwellings would come from a new township at Grazeley, ultimately of at least 15,000 dwellings, but that 5,000 of these would lie within West Berkshire.

In any practical sense the precise location is a matter of political semantics as the  impact of this township (roughly twice the size of Lower Earley) would be felt throughout Wokingham Borough and beyond whether or not a third of it lies a few metres on the other side of an arbitrary, archaic and invisible local government boundary.

It is also not clear how many of the West Berkshire quota would be in place by 2036 as well as those expected on the Wokingham side.

Given the figures in Tables 2 and 3 it may also be debatable whether Grazeley is premature within the Plan period, at least in part, and whether the real reason for its promotion now is the real possibility of major government kickstart funding.

It is suggested that the Grazeley township would have a major start within the Plan period to 2036 with overall completion thereafter and an early start is likely to be a condition of any government funding. The scale of building within the Plan period may well be greater than estimated as a result of government pressure to deliver.

Quite apart from my concerns with the reality of the numbers there also appear to be many uncertainties regarding future infrastructure requirements.

The draft document contains rather a lot of transport related items in the form of wish lists with little in the way of justification, meaningful description, costs, funding sources and timescales. As a result, it is difficult for any reader to come to an informed view.

In particular, the description of the flagship Grazeley township is entirely Reading orientated in its justification although the transport elements remain very vague.

Little thought appears to have been given to the impact of the remaining heavy traffic generated from at least 15,000 dwellings (perhaps up to 40,000 residents) despite the laudable aims to provide fast attractive pubic transport services into Reading.

Experience suggests that many will wish to journey to a wide range of surrounding destinations other than Central Reading using private cars for convenience and to take advantage of free parking at their destination.

I recognise that these matters are complex and a mountain of documentation awaits the reader on the Council’s web site should they wish to make the time to wade through it. However, the proposals within the draft Plan at this stage are in themselves uncertain and require much further work.

Also predicting build out rates by house builders on any of the Council’s preferred sites whether large or small is problematical.

While, I appreciate that other potential developers are waiting in the wings I believe that the Plan is presently insufficiently worked up and costed for residents to comment in a meaningful way.

Certainly, in my view at least, the case and timescale for massive development at Grazeley has yet to be fully proven given the scale of the costs and upheaval involved.

I could elaborate further but hope that I have generated some interest so far in proposals that would affect us all for decades to come. The Council is currently consulting on its draft Plan and has leaflet dropped households recently.

May I encourage all to read the draft document and have their say.

As a final comment it is clear
to me that the pace of development across Central Berkshire warrants additional hospital investment and provision.

Is anyone actively seeking much needed expansion of the Royal Berks services?

Dave Green, Lower Earley

We need to reduce air pollution in borough

Following the recent articles in The Wokingham Paper regarding the poor air- quality in the area, I write to you concerning the air-quality along a section of Finchampstead Road, especially the stretch from the Ford garage to the roundabout at the junction at Molly Millars Lane

The traffic during the morning rush hour on Finchampstead Road exceeds one thousand vehicles per hour. The flow of traffic is frequently extremely slow – or sometimes the flow is non-existent as the traffic is stationary.

According to a recent survey carried out by King’s College, London, cutting air pollution by one-fifth for those exposed to significant air pollution created by heavy traffic flow, reduces the risk of lung cancer by between five and eight per cent. Reducing air-pollution also contributes to a significant reduction in childhood asthma.

According to a cardiac anaesthetist at Southampton General Hospital, even living near a busy road can increase the risk of coronary heart disease by five per cent.

And yet, Gladman Developments Ltd would like to build 216 dwellings on land adjacent to Finchampstead Road. If this plan were to be approved, it would result in contributing to a huge increase in the traffic travelling along this road. Furthermore, when the new relief road is completed, further traffic would also be likely to travel along Finchampstead Road.

Evendons Primary School is situated adjacent to Finchampstead Road. Parents walk along this road bringing their children to the school in the morning.  Should the proposed development be approved, the increase in traffic would result in gases such as nitrogen dioxide being released from an ever-increasing number of vehicles, thus subjecting children – and indeed their parents – to further unacceptable levels of poisonous and dangerous fumes released from an ever-increasing amount of vehicles travelling along this road.

We can only hope that the forthcoming enquiry will result in a very firm rejection of the proposed development.

Ian M Gillott, Finchampstead

Be accountable

17 years ago I studied journalism but I went on to choose a different path.

I could see that online was set to take hold and with that it’d be a race to the bottom. Click-bait and hearsay has increasingly replaced news, be it about the political landscape, the state of our planet or the world of celebrity.

Much of what is written is untrue, unnecessary and unkind. The past week and indeed year has been yet another reminder of this fact.

In our wider area we are lucky to have traditional newspapers, ranging from The Wokingham Paper to The Henley Standard, featuring genuine news.

As tabloids and so-called ‘journalists’ continue to plunge to new depths, isn’t enough enough? The founding principle of journalism is to hold others to account. Perhaps it’s time that the public held the profession, and those in it, to account?

Dave Lamont, via email

Tree protections?

The frustration of attending Wokingham Borough Councils Planning Committee knows no bounds. The Councils attitude to development seems to be that tree felling has priority over buildings and that includes trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s) on them.

A  lovely 17th Century Heritage building at Crosfields school (as if we have lots of them to preserve) can be just demolished, traffic issues tend to be vague and the attitude to Air quality monitoring (AQM) beggars belief. When questioned if AQM will be carried out in a new car park of 79 spaces the answer was  why bother as it will be too late by then.

In addition large sums of your council tax money is being spent on upgrading  a contractors site but no mention of how much it will cost but thats all for another day.

Trees are the subject of this letter so back to them. On an industrial site in Winnersh Triangle the cunning plan is to cut down 57 mature trees varying from 5 to 15 metres high (16 to 48 feet high) and replace them with 25 young trees. What a joke when as a rough guide the ratio to maintain a carbon onset should be at least 10 to one while  the damage to biodiversity and the wildlife habitat gets little consideration. Sadly the Council’s tree butchery does not end there. I wonder if these mature 57 trees will ever see leaves again? 

A plan to extend Crosfields School was also discussed and that included an additional 79 car parking spaces on the school site. It will be located in a woodland area designated as a green corridor. Questions on how many trees have to be felled to permit 79 cars to park under the woodland were never answered. In addition lots of hedging can be removed if needed. How green is that?

Not going into any more detail on other planning applications it is interesting to note that where trees are involved the number to be removed/ replaced never gets a mention. The same goes for the impact on biodiversity/ wildlife habitats.  This is all left to the Council to deal with away from the public scrutiny of a planning meeting. Why?

In general it would appear that trees whether they are protected or not will stand in the way of bricks and mortar. What hope our flora and fauna when we start to concrete over our green fields as the Council builds 800+ houses each year from now to 2036.

I feel ashamed to be party to be a party to all of this.

Cllr Gary Cowan, Independent Borough Councillor for Arborfield at Wokingham Borough Council   

Beneath contempt

Here we go again! The people hiding behind the titles Wokingham for Europe and Berkshire for Europe are beneath contempt.

They wrote in their letter last week that they “will continue to stand up for… freedom and democracy” yet they are also saying that they know better and those who disagree with them are wrong if they don’t just accept the ideas of these two groups. Do they not realise that the Referendum in 2016 was an act of democracy as was the General Election landslide result in 2019? They openly say that they campaigned for four years against that democratic decision of the population of the UK yet say that they stand up for the rule of law! By opposing the decision of the two votes they are acting against the people and for their own egotistical selves.

 I want to be able to hold to account those who make decisions about our country, and I try to do so at local and national elections. This can not happen with an unelected EU Commission who are responsible to no-one.

The Euro MPs are virtually powerless and have to follow the decisions of that Commission. I agree that we should have close trading ties with the EU, as that is sensible, but I will never agree that we subordinate ourselves to a bullying clique of autocrats. The latter do not support the “values of respect” that the two groups talk about in their letter. Human Rights and human dignity have been in British law for many decades and will still be enshrined in our laws when we finally leave the EU.

 Another article in the same paper talks about the problems European citizens are having applying to remain in the UK. My wife is German and applied at the end of last year to remain in the UK. We filled in the required documents and had a response within a week. If you look at the statistics you will find that millions have applied to remain and over 90% have been given that permission.

Those who haven’t been in the UK for five years can still stay and can reapply at the end of that period. It is not a “kick everyone out” scenario.

 Many of those who voted Remain have accepted that we will leave the EU and are supporting the UK in getting the best deal that can be achieved (look at the post-General Election analysis).

To the members of the two groups who wrote to this paper I say:  I accept that there are always contrary arguments in a debate (see previous letters of mine) but I will not agree with any group that says our ideas are the only correct ideas and you must accept them.

There is no freedom or democracy in that.

If I am wrong in voting Leave then I will pay the penalty in my lifestyle and pension, but I knew that when I voted for UK independence.

 I hope that, if the UK has a successful future outside of the EU, they will have the grace to acknowledge it.

 Derek Harding, Wokingham

The unity we must have!

A good selection of interesting letters last week, but a sad one from Wokingham for Europe, likely to represent the views of well over 40% of the population. I do wonder if it is appreciated by No: 10, that ‘representing and caring for all’, literally includes those that did not want us to leave Europe.

Europe remains one of the most interesting and diverse collection of nations – beautiful country, the finest Art, Music, Architecture, various languages, climates and so on.

Alas, our departure has been necessitated by politicians and grandiose plans for a single State – in line with ‘1984’. Undemocratic power which is a constant evil in the world, albeit from Communism, Nazism, Assad to Ayatollahs, is what ‘man’ desires. In our case, Brussels HQ supported by Macron among others!

I do hope Remainers understand the Leavers, just as Leavers including the new Government must understand the Remainers, which leads me to the vital job of Boris – to work for both.

As we are now witnessing the true colours, selfishness and incompetence of Brussels, let alone their treatment of us a non-entity in the world, Boris has a difficult job. Keeping in mind that Europeans – the people – and us are equals and great friends, we need to retain the freedoms of travel and residence that we currently enjoy. That continuity on top of free trade, is surely what ‘both sides’ of our nation wish for!

It is worth predicting that ‘at the end of the day’, we will have to allow for some fishing in our waters. Too many people – our friends – are affected and dependant on our vast waters. However,  conservation etc., will remain a need.

Reg Clifton, Wokingham

By jove, I do believe they’ve got it!

“Council buys empty town centre car park” – The Wokingham Paper, February 13.

Credit where credit is due. It appears Wokingham Borough Council has listened to the voice of local residents and traders, climbed down from their ‘we know best’ high horse and, by purchasing the Denmark Street Car Park, done the right thing.

It would, however, be interesting to know just how much they had, bearing in mind the previous owners must have known that they were over a proverbial barrel, WBC had to pay to acquire the site. Something, thanks to council secrecy and claimed commercial confidence we are never likely to know.

There is no doubt that this reinstatement of town centre car parking will come as a relief to traders and a blessing to shoppers particularly the elderly and mothers with young children.

It is to be hoped that the move
will be enough to entice those who have understandably chosen
to travel elsewhere to meet their needs back into Wokingham, breathing a long-overdue breath of new life into the heart of the town which has been allowed to become conspicuous but its drabness.

Time alone will tell.

J W Blaney,
Wokingham

Editor’s note: The council stated in a social media post last week that the site cost £7.95 million to buy and includes 14 to 28 Denmark Street.

Send your letters to [email protected]