THE CO-FOUNDER of a petition against developing Pinewood said the proposal is “scary” because it includes no housing numbers.
The site has been included in the Revised Growth Strategy, an update to the draft local plan that is currently out for consultation.
The aim is for residents to share their views on all sites suggested for future development, with a deadline of Monday, January 17.
Bex Brunel-Walker, who lives on Hatch Ride, said that she is concerned that Pinewood has been included in the document, but without clear information on housing numbers.
The strategy proposes “self-funded regeneration” and states: “Pinewood accommodates a number of valued community facilities, but the premises on site are of varied quality, and they would benefit from investment.
“Proposals would be drawn up in consultation with the existing occupiers. Some of the income from any housing achieved on the site would be invested back into community facilities on-site, or, if appropriate, their relocation to a new home.”
Ms Brunel-Walker said the proposal is like “deja vu”, and said that a similar suggestion was made around seven years ago for Oakham Park.
She said that the land was put up for speculative development, but without clear housing numbers — 113 homes were then built on site.
“It feels like it’s happening again,” she said. “The council put it at the end [of the site list] so nobody would notice. That’s why we’re bringing it to the front.”
But council leader John Halsall said that the wording for Pinewood in the Draft Local Plan was “pretty precise”.
“We have a huge area of very valued organisations, all of whom are crying out for some investment,” he said. “We’re saying if you want us to help, we could fund that investment by some housing. Just because you build one house on an estate of 10,000 acres it doesn’t mean you’re going to build 10,000 acres of housing.
“The plan wording is very, very clear. We’re inviting people to consult on that proposal, if they disagree with the wording, then they’re invited to disagree.”
Ms Brunel-Walker questioned what happened to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) from the Oakham Park development, and why it was not used to invest in the facilities at Pinewood.
“I would like to see some investment in the site,” she said. “We seem like the poor relation in Wokingham Without. We feel like we’re at the bottom of the garden. Put the [houses] there, and nobody will notice.”
She is also concerned that the relocation of some or all facilities to Gray’s Farm, as mentioned in the Revised Growth Strategy, could stop people from reaching their clubs.
“It’s not on a bus route, and a teenager couldn’t really cycle from Crowthorne to Gray’s Farm safely.”
Ms Brunel-Walker said the site includes two existing homes, and an application to expand one was recently denied because the land was considered to be in the countryside.
She questioned what had changed since the application was denied, and the site now being considered for development.
And with the number of houses unclear, Ms Brunel-Walker is worried that the infrastructure cannot cope with more homes.
“We’ve got to think about the sewage infrastructure, the impact of these cars on the road, and the pressures on GPs,” she said. “The council is not thinking about the bigger picture.”
