This was a cynical and vindictive act
As a resident of Shinfield who witnessed the wanton destruction of wildlife habitat on University of Reading (UoR) land off Cutbush Lane a few weeks ago, under the guise of ‘maintenance’.
It was not difficult to consider this as a cynical and vindictive act by Bellway to organise the felling of hundreds of trees and hedgerows as their plans for 249 houses were temporarily scuppered because of the rejection of the proposed SANG, in exchange for housing, which, because it is a flood plain and more often than not under water, is unfit for development and totally unsuitable for recreational use.
What particularly resonated with this malicious act are remarks made by Robert van der Noort (now Vice Chancellor of UoR), at a ‘UoR Community Relations Update’ meeting on January 29 when challenged about their green credentials and the systematic destruction and detrimental impact on rural life, particularly development in Shinfield, indicated the UoR was balancing assets and helping local authorities achieve their housing targets.
Further into that meeting he stated “Just imagine if you take green space away” to a Reading resident who asked why UoR was not building student accommodation on Campus.
Shinfield residents do not have to imagine the loss of green space as it is very much a reality as the UoR continues to sell off its agricultural land for development despite questions as to whether or not it has done so legally.
The 2010 to 2026 Development Strategy recommended 2,500 houses south of M4 SDL. Shinfield and Swallowfield at 2011 had 5,375 dwellings, currently 6,426 and the forecast to 2026 is 8,946, i.e. 20% above the Strategic plan. Shinfield alone will be seeing a massive 44% increase in houses between now and 2026. That will be an overall increase of 3,458 houses (76%) from 2011! So, we have a Strategic Plan and a neighbourhood plan which also seems to be disregarded hence my scepticism relating to the ‘Homes for the Future’ initiative.
Almost 80% of development between now and 2026 is across three Parishes: Wokingham Town, Shinfield and Arborfield (although Arborfield Garrison should be included in Barkham and Finchampstead). The remaining 14 Parishes account for just 20% of development, although Woodley and Early are pretty full.
Interestingly the six Parishes in our Prime Minister’s constituency have a combined increase of around 3.5% (223 dwellings) between 2011-2026.
Shinfield does not have a Councillor on the WBC planning committee to fight its corner and unfortunately with the ready supply of UoR land and an unsympathetic Planning Inspectorate, Shinfield has had a raw deal.
Around £41k for each new build goes into WBC infrastructure pot, not to the area directly impacted by the development, and despite having the lion’s share of development Shinfield has very little to show for infrastructure spend.
To further add to the woes Shinfield is a concentration point for traffic flows with not only local traffic but vehicles from adjacent Parishes trying to access the M4 J11 and J10, as those who wait during peak times at Three Mile Cross, Blackboy Roundabout, Lower Earley etc.etc. will testify.
Shinfield residents are not against development but have had more than enough and want it to be fairly distributed across the Borough with house design and densities that actually fit in with the community’s neighbourhood plan and look something like those in the glossy promotional planning submissions.
Brian K Wood, Shinfield
Change for good, not bad
I read Mr Neil Coupe’s article with interest and felt compelled to reply to his comments about the redevelopment of Wokingham. I agree, change should be embraced, but change for the good not bad. And there’s the rub.
As a resident of Wokingham I’ve seen lots of new buildings being constructed but I haven’t seen many improvements to the town’s infrastructure or services. There are a few more roundabouts and some nice new concrete paving to admire in the town centre. But where are the new schools, clinics and green spaces, all essential for the welling being of its residents?
With an influx of people to the town surly common sense tells us that the existing schools and medical facilities, which are already at capacity, simply won’t be able to cope. And with the town’s green spaces disappearing there will be fewer places for residents and visitors to enjoy. That is unless they enjoy gazing at grey concrete paving slabs. I’ve heard much talk of plans for new schools, clinics etc but seen precious little action.
We should look at Solihull. Another interesting comparison. According to Right Move the average house price in Solihull is £400,000 compared with the average price of a house in Wokingham being quoted as £513,000. Furthermore, a 2015 USwitch survey of the best places to live in the UK placed Solihull at number 2 and Berkshire at number 6.
For those looking for slightly more affordable housing, an improved quality of life and escape from years of redevelopment it would appear that Wokingham is fast becoming a place from which one may wish to escape, while Solihull may well be the place people would like to move to.
Edna Welthorpe, Wokingham
An alternative view
It was with interest I read Neil Coupe’s article in last week’s paper. An alternative viewpoint but perhaps not completely neutral given Neil’s occupation within the construction business.
I do however agree with some of his statements but perhaps he might consider the following alternative views:
“There is a recognised nationwide demand for more houses, particularly in the South East.” Alternative View – There are currently over 3,000 properties currently for sale within a three mile radius of Wokingham. Current sale rates less than one a week. Hardly a demand stampede.
“Wokingham Borough Council has been charged with building 850 houses a year for the foreseeable future. For context, approximately 600 houses per annum were built between 2012 and 2017, so it is an increase, but not of vast proportions”.
Alternative View. Only 600 built but how many approved? That could be seen as developer land banking. Not vast proportions? Shinfield 152% growth, Arborfield 355% growth. What would you call vast?
“The debate is not whether it’s going to happen (it is), but whether we should be embracing the change.”
Alternative View. Yet another member of the developer associated community telling residents it’s going to happen, so don’t bother challenging. The debate should be is it appropriate and sustainable and how is it impacting communities but that won’t happen as there is no profit in that for the developers. What happened to democracy and public service if we never get a choice?
“It is surely better to live in a place that people want to move to, rather than somewhere they cannot wait to escape from.”
Alternative View – Agreed why not try to get out from your office and actually talk to Wokingham residents who are quickly reaching the can’t wait to escape stage.
“This should be manageable in that the new houses are being built gradually over an extended period of time allowing incremental changes to occur at a sensible pace.”
Alternative View – Agreed but unfortunately this is not how growth is being managed. Shinfield 152%, Arborfield 355% in just a few years. Proposed plans for a further 20,000 houses in the next 10 to 15 years. Only those who directly benefit could possibly think that is a sensible pace.
The only people who are really benefitting from the mass development of Wokingham are the landowners and developers who award Senior Managers with multi-million £ bonuses and those who supply these developers with the equipment needed to create the concrete metropolis that was once Wokingham.
Jim Frewin, Shinfield
Climate change is real
I am compelled to respond to Rex Hora’s communication as at best there is much in error, and worst, it demonstrates an inexcusable complacency about the crucial importance of limiting climate change as much as possible.
We do not have “plenty of time” to prepare to stop burning fossil fuels, we have a critical shortage of time. If the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deals mainly with manmade climate change, surely that is exactly what it should do, as that is the part which we may have some control over. Further, such an organisation needs to be global in nature, and not just accountable for Reading, although Reading Borough Council is acting entirely responsibly by declaring the issue to be a Climate Emergency.
Mr Hora’s objections to attempting to deal with this problem seem to be only concerned with the size of his wallet! Of course there will be restrictions on fossil fuel use, that is the most essential part of any plan, and yes, taxation generally will increase, but the price of not taking these measures will be far worse.
I would like to point out that the suggestion that from 2025 no new homes should be connected to the gas distribution system is a sound one. Mr Hora mentions this, but does not also mention that in addition tighter building regulations will require the use of “heat pumps” which – using electricity which hopefully will be increasingly generated by renewables – as they move heat from one place to another, rather than generating it, will consume significantly less electricity that a conventional boiler, gas or electric.
Also, these same new build houses will have to incorporate a considerably higher standard of insulation as standard.
Another requirement, sadly still not compulsory, should be that all new build houses be orientated to have an exactly south facing roof, and have solar panels fitted as standard.
Finally, I believe that the younger people mentioned, rather than ignore climate issues and take the short view, will willingly embrace the challenge of climate change, but will at the same time berate my generation (which is the same as Mr Hora’s) for concerning ourselves with our own short term comforts, and utterly failing to take this matter seriously.
Tony Peters, Wokingham
The borough first
The following message is from a new Independent Group established in Windsor and Maidenhead Borough called THE BOROUGH FIRST. They intend to fight the ruling Conservative Administration this May. They say:
“We URGENTLY need YOUR help. Thank you for supporting the BOROUGH first (tBf) so far. We have a significant number of candidates but not yet enough to wrest control from the current Conservative administration.
“When we created tBf we all thought that now is the time because in the Royal Borough there is a growing groundswell against the way the Conservatives are riding roughshod over people, processes and democracy.
“However, the state of politics nationally is also changing.
“We have a unique opportunity RIGHT NOW, but, we need YOU, or your friends to STEP UP and join our Candidates. We only have a very short time left so please contact me on my details below URGENTLY! Without more Candidates we will not win, and we are so, so close…”
Does that ring a bell when one looks at Conservative-run Wokingham Borough? Ask the Lollypop ladies (no more). The Shinfield and Barkham Housing Petitioners (kicked into the long grass along with Clive Chafer’s Highways petition).
Wokingham’s Conservatives remind me of George Orwell’s Animal Farm where all residents are equal, but Conservative Borough Councillors are more equal than others. With all 18 Seats up for election are Conservative held there is an opportunity for residents to do something about this.
I would ask every residents action group to put independent candidates forward in as many of the 18 wards as possible and if that is not possible I would ask residents to please turn out and vote but make sure it goes to anyone but a Conservative.
It’s the only way real democracy can return to Wokingham.
Cllr Gary Cowan, Independent Borough Councillor for Arborfield
Hope
Church Notes from The Revd Nick Hudson last week, together with Julie Russell’s (Reading Street Pastor) letter of the previous week, prompt me to make observations about Christianity today. I feel it may have lost its way.
However, out of respect to those of a different faith, I suggest there is a common element today in many religions – that is concern for the future (such as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism). Thus the point of this letter applies to all of us in the UK.
May I start with some relevant lifetime personal history?
I was brought up in a Christian family and in the Baptist Church. I remember very clearly walking from Mitcham where we lived, to the real family ‘home’ in the Streatham Baptist Church on many Sundays during the War – sheltering from the shrapnel during raids!
After the War, life was tough for so many, but we were led by the Clergy to stay strong in faith.
In the 50s, after my parents moved to Southampton, I was very privileged to hear Leith Samuel at the Above Bar Church. He was a remarkable Teacher in the biblical sense, speaking Hebrew and thus able to explain the Bible in great depth. At about the same time, one of the great Evangelists of the last two millennia came to the UK – that was Billy Graham.
Mention of those days is to remind us that ‘The Church’ actively gave guidance and hope to all – in a sense they were our Leaders, taking their roles seriously and ever present to help and advise anyone who was distressed, worried etc.
My Mother told me some 20 years ago, that she was convinced we had entered the third millennium – the final thousand years of humanity as it is – full of troubles and trials, crime, punishment and horrors. In that biblical context, what has happened? Nationally I do not detect religious leadership any more.
Of particular current concern is the Church’s view of Brexit. I have given my views on the EU and its plans for the future as not suiting our people and especially the young.
Why can I not hear views from our religious leaders? More to the point for readers consideration, am I right in this awful world, to expect such views?
Reg Clifton, Wokingham
Demark Street plans
Reading The Wokingham Paper regarding our town: here we go again. A bright spark is thinking of building little box houses on Denmark Street car park and saying it was not over-used. What planet are they living on?
Looking at this car park, I assure you every day there are queues of cars waiting for a space. They can’t go to the Carnival Pool car park as that will be full.
The council appear to be hypocritical. They write in your paper about the need to support our shops and market yet now we have lost two car parks. This would be the third one if people cannot park they will not come to shop here.
And councillors, don’t you dare think of cutting down any more trees. Our car park has lovely trees surrounding it. Don’t take any more away, our nice community garden, which is used quite a lot, us used by children to learn about wildlife.
Last year, I wrote a letter about Wokingham becoming Bracknell The Second. How right I am, along with a lot of other people who now see the amount of grey concrete going up everywhere over our lovely town. It is spoilt by a disregard for Wokingham people’s way of life. This is a market town that people came here to enjoy.
The problem being half these councillors do not live here, a case of ‘not in my back yard’. The could not care less.
They are fully responsible for totally ruining our town by their actions. The loss of our beautiful heritage old trees is a great sin. Just look about you – there are beautiful handmade red brick on our town hall, full of history then all the white concrete buildings while the roads and paths are screaming at each other. The whole town is mismatched by councillors stupid ideas of regeneration.
No, not regeneration, but total ruination of our lovely town, ruined for everyone. Shame on you.
H Boyed, Wokingham
Editor’s note: The proposal to build up to 80 homes on the Denmark Street car park area is not a Wokingham Borough Council scheme.
Once a meadow ….
Re: The letter in the February 28 edition from ‘Juliet in Keep Hatch’ headed ‘We have to stop’.
Does Juliet live on the Keep Hatch estate? If so, the name of the rod should give a clue to the land that the estate was built on: Campion Way, Clover Way, Monkshood Close etc.
Yes, the land was full of beautiful meadows, full of wildflowers, hedgerows and butterflies. I used to walk over that land and my children played there and not a house was in site, except The Old Keephatch House.
I do agree that the building has to slow down to accommodate the infrastructure: schools, doctors, dentists and parking.
It’s no longer a small market town as it was when I first came to live here 48 years ago, but just remember how lucky you are to live in a meadow.
Di Searl, Wokingham
NHS mental health
The local media is yet again highlighting that our local NHS mental health providers are “missing opportunities” and that often “no real attempts are being made to get to the bottom of service users crises”. As a result, these providers too often deal with crisis/services users “in a short-term and reactive way”.
At the same time, these providers are yet again peddling the same promise “that lessons will be learnt”, as they have been for decades whenever these criticisms have been raised.
No wonder Reading’s Prospect Park, currently Berkshire’s sole NHS mental health hospital, has an overall staff shortfall of 22%. Who would want to work for a provider that has consistently failed to learn the lessons adequately and timely, and caused so many avoidable tragedies over so many decades?
Paul Farmer, Reading
The threat to our green and pleasant open spaces remains
The borough’s green and pleasant open spaces are again under threat.
This time by the proposed repeat planning application to allow the building of 216 new homes on Woodcray Meadows, east of Finchampstead Road (March 7).
The eloquence of the spokesperson for the Save Woodcray Countryside campaign group, whose environmental, public health, social and common-sense reasons for halting such would-be planning madness, the motivation for which can only be self-serving avarice, are indisputable.
Borough council leader Cllr Julian McGhee-Sumner (acting in his role as a ward councillor) gave welcome support for local residents. Encouraging as it is, it will be useless unless he and other councillors are prepared to back it with the courage of their convictions, “butter no parsnips”.
However well meaning or fine such assurances may be, the actions of those who give them, speak louder than words.
It has been said on numerous occasions (and ignored): Enough is enough!
J W Blaney, Wokingham
