A classic example of NIMBYism

I understand Theresa May has written to Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) Planning, objecting to a plan for the demolition of three houses and replaced with 57 retirement flats in Sonning, citing ‘overdevelopment and ‘significant increase in traffic on busy and congested roads’.

This, on a day when relaxation of planning rules was announced.

As an observation the seven WBC parishes within Theresa May’s constituency have had an increase of 207 dwellings (2.58%) between 2011- 2020 with Sonning having just 16 of the 207, hardly ‘overdevelopment’ but certainly a classic example of NIMBYism.

Shinfield, on the other hand, has had a disproportionate amount of WBC development, with an increase of 1,889 dwellings (41.7%) over the same period, courtesy mainly from University of Reading selling off agricultural land, and braced to have another 1,579 houses between now and 2026, increasing the size of Shinfield by 79% since 2011.

The arguments for significant traffic increase and congestion were totally disregarded in objections and residents of Shinfield have received no support or representations to this excessive development from our MP, Sir John Redwood, who seemingly prefers not to be involved.

Some other MPs appear to actively support their residents in planning objections or allegedly have tried to influence development procedure following a suitable donation.

The Houses for the Future initiative would appear to have be thrown out of the window along with any references to Neighbourhood Plans thus one can only imagine the development anarchy that will now prevail or speculate as to whether infrastructure will actually materialise as we are still waiting in Shinfield for promises that developers fail to deliver.

So perhaps Theresa May should think about what’s happening around the whole of WBC for a fair distribution of housing.

Brian Wood, Shinfield

Saggy old members

Small wonder that “developers’ friend” Robert Jenrick MP is feverishly attempting to tear up the planning rule-book and leave places like Wokingham to their mercy. 

Even smaller wonder that local toadies feign horror at their boss’s plans and either suggest a futile demo or excuse him by saying he is just testing the water, we can persuade him otherwise. 

This from an administration which has signally failed to lobby its own party in Government for a fair annual funding settlement for Wokingham for years on end.

Never mind, they just squeeze Council Tax payers until their pips squeak, in the hope that if they don’t rock the boat they might eventually be rewarded with a scrap from the top table like an MBE or OBE.

Separately, independent councillor Gary Cowan complains that John ‘is it cos I is rich?’ Halsall seeks to protect his ward’s wealthy voters in the north of the borough from housing development at all costs by sacrificing our southern countryside instead.

A little harsh, Gary; we cannot have John’s chums at the Leander Club choking on their Pimms at the sight of the great unwashed populating Ruscombe and Remenham, now can we? It would turn their pink socks positively white with fright.

And what we certainly do not need is a saggy old member of any description hanging out in Parliament Square in protest.

David Reynolds, Wokingham

Fool you more

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”. It is very apposite.

My huge worry about the new housing numbers (1,635 per annum) is predicated on the “new” standard method, which in turn is predicated by the non-linear delivery of houses in Wokingham borough, which is due to having the four large sites’ strategy in the ‘Core Strategy’ which was the brainchild of the then distinguished Conservative Executive Member for Local and Regional Planning – a certain longstanding Conservative Councillor Gary Cowan.

The reserve sites, which were released, were also consequent upon the non-linear delivery, again consequent upon decisions of the then illustrious Conservative Executive Member for Local and Regional Planning – a prominent longstanding Conservative Councillor Gary Cowan.

All the sites (excluding one site lost on appeal) in Wokingham including  Grazeley, Shinfield, Arborfield and Barkham where housing has been delivered and those where housing will be delivered, were and are those determined in the Core Strategy by a certain Gary Cowan when he was the noble long serving Conservative Executive Member for Local and Regional Planning.

The core strategy envisaged 662 homes per annum; the current standard method gives 789. It is foolish and disingenuous to say that “They have been secretly increasing our annual housing numbers year on year since 2013 until they were found out” because the housing numbers have been calculated by the current standard formula since 2018.

Previously; it was determined by the local authority and who was the man who determined it but the nirvanic veteran Conservative Executive Member for Planning – Gary Cowan.

I appreciate every man’s wish to reinvent himself but the independent member for Arborfield, Gary Cowan has been an esteemed Conservative Executive Member and a Conservative Councillor, for longer than I have been in the party.

How long can everybody be fooled? Most of our current difficulties with housing numbers and development originate with and from the Core Strategy whose authorship is in plain view, the very vocal Independent Member for Arborfield Gary Cowan – nobody else.

The hypocritical Independent Member for Arborfield  has been offered the opportunity to be part of the solution as a Member of my Executive – deputising for Planning, which he initially undertook but has chosen instead to take the easy option of opting out, avoiding responsibility and criticising the administration and Conservative Party as if he had always been a third party. Perhaps an apology would be more appropriate.

The Arborfield seat is up for election in May 2022; it would be good to have someone who represents the residents of Arborfield and does not use the seat as a platform to continuously exorcise old personal prejudices and feuds.

Maybe the Independent Member for Arborfield thinks he can fool all the people all the time.

Cllr John Halsall, leader of Wokingham Borough Council

Housing action in kit form

‘It appears that the Government is not taking seriously a threat by the leader of the council to protest naked unless housing numbers in Wokingham are reduced…’ (Wokingham.Today, August 13).

So come on John, time to get your kit off and show us what you’re made of.

While Wokingham’s housing development continues to expand its streets narrow.

We have been asked to suggest answers to the problems of Denmark Street.

Truth is, after decades of costly council incompetent stable door mismanagement, there is no one somple cure-all solution readily available.

Another £600,000 money down the drain farce resulting as the the inability of the Shute End Towers silly billies to think outside, or indeed inside (excuse the pub) black box, thanks to the introduction (or not) of water-proofed waste sacks.

Is there no end to its use of this year’s buzzword ‘unprecedented’ ineptitude?

 J W Blaney, Wokingham

Taxi for Bowring

Since December 2019 I have been asking WBC Taxi Licensing to reconsider the strange rules they have put in place regarding the age a vehicle can still be used as a Private Hire Taxi.

Ordinary Taxis can be 10 years old as can Uber and also novelty vehicles but PH Taxis can only be up to 8 years old. 

My vehicle is in extremely good condition both internally and engine wise and undergoes three full Mot/Taxi Tests every year. Council response is Computer Says No. But If your vehicle undergoes a further RAC Inspection costing £322 they MIGHT change their minds. Council charges aimed at us taxi drivers has already increased miles above inflation.

With covid destroying my earnings the extra unnecessary costs are not possible. I doubt my vehicle will take £322 in fares by Christmas.

I contacted Cllr Rachel Burgess for help on May 25. She contacted Cllr Chris Bowring seven weeks ago and he has not even bothered to respond.

Mr Bowring and the WBC Taxi Licensing are not only completely out of touch with my reality they don’t seem to care either.

I will be forced out of business by people who have proved to me, since 2007, how incompetent they really are.

Patrick, Wokingham taxi driver

On board

I read with much sympathy your article about the licensing of dog boarders in Wokingham Borough and how their businesses are suffering at the moment. 

They have been adversely affected by two factors. 

Firstly, the government has introduced a new animal licensing regime which has increased the work councils have to do in order to issue a licence. 

More work, of course, means more expense. 

Secondly, the pandemic has greatly decreased the demand for dog boarders.  Many people are now working from home and others are taking holidays in the United Kingdom where they are more likely to be able to take their pets with them.

I’d like to comment on some of the other points raised in the article.  There is no subsidising of one licensing fee against another. 

Where the Council has the discretion to set fees, that is done on a ‘cost recovery basis’, which means that the aim is neither to make a profit nor a loss on a particular fee. 

The standard rate of £57 per hour for officer time does not mean that all fees are equal: an individual fee is determined broadly by the number of officer hours required to process it.

The point was made that it might be cheaper to accept a fine for non-registration than to pay the required fee.  It should be noted, however, that the law says that ‘anyone who carries on any of the licensable activities without a licence is liable to imprisonment for a term of up to six months, a fine or both’.

Finally, and here I can also respond to Cllr Rachel Burgess’ letter on licensing in Wokingham borough, the whole regime of licensing fees will be discussed at the next meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee in September.

We will be discussing fees for 2021-22, but also be looking back at how fees are currently affecting dog boarders, taxi drivers and others.  We will see if there is any mitigation we can offer.

Cllr Christopher Bowring, Chair, Licensing and Appeals Committee, Wokingham Borough Council

Sad reaction to Black Lives Matter event

I am dismayed at the response I got for promoting an anti-racist peaceful protest on social media at the weekend. 

For sharing details of this optional event, I was called a Marxist, an anarchist, even a racist among other things.  The nature of the comments was a clear demonstration of how far we have to go to address the issue and why these protests are necessary. 

Let’s clear a few things up. 

Black Lives Matter is a grass roots anti-racism movement. It is not an organisation, but a decentralised movement.  BLM UK clearly states that they are not affiliated with the US arm or any political arm using the BLM banner. 

So no, I’m not anti-police, but what I would like to see is more funding being put into addressing the root causes of social problems. 

Now let’s deal with the misnomer that racism is a US issue and these protests are all about the murder of  one person. 

The movement was founded in 2013 and anti-racism protests whether under the BLM banner or not have been happening for a very very long time. 

The issues we face in the UK are more subtle than in the US, which in some respects makes it harder to tackle.

This isn’t about criticising white people for the colour of their skin.  This is about criticising and dealing with the system of oppression that benefits white people. 

The term white privilege seems to anger people, and this too needs some explanation.  White privilege is the unearned advantage white people have simply because of the colour of their skin.  I too benefit from white privilege and, being completely honest, didn’t quite see it at first, until I started educating myself on the subject.  I do not have to fear being pulled over in my car for no reason; I can be fairly sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race; I can go shopping fairly well assured that I will not be followed or harassed by security guards; I do not have to educate our children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection; I can even go into a hairdressers and know that someone can deal with my hair.  This is just a few examples of my privilege. 

I am not for one moment saying that all white people have an easy time.  Many don’t.  But these challenges are not because of our race. 

White privilege is the reward that white people receive in exchange for participating in the system whether that participation is voluntary or involuntary.

The sharing of the protest to deal with racism was met with something known as white fragility, a phrase defined by author Robin DiAngelo as “a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves.” 

White privilege protects white people from having to discuss the causes and implications of racism.

The lack of exposure to conversations about race have left people ill-equipped to handle the discomfort of racial conversations. 

I have learnt a lot as a response to the BLM movement and I hope others can too.  If you want to understand more, I can recommend an excellent book I’m reading Me and White Supremacy by Layla F Saad. 

Please remember in the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu that “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” 

Cllr Sarah Kerr

Liberal Democrat Councillor for Evendons Ward, Wokingham Borough Council

The peaceful, socially distanced protest is taking place at Elms Field in Wokingham from 3pm on Saturday, August 29. 

The mask slips

What an angry tirade you published (and placed first) in your letters column last week, attacking a bus driver for not enforcing mask-wearing, and an old lady passenger for letting her face covering slip.

The writer even gave the bus number and the date, helping to get into trouble someone whose job may be under threat, thanks to the current crisis.

Bus drivers are aware there are passengers who have an exemption, due to breathing difficulties brought on by mask-wearing. Perhaps that driver was just showing a little common sense and compassion.

An incident in a local convenience store I experienced might provide some balance. An older customer wearing a mask collapsed on the floor and fainted, injuring himself as he fell.

The NHS volunteer who fortunately was there and came to his assistance, told me that wearing a mask probably contributed to the man passing out.

The government has admitted it made no risk assessment on mask-wearing. So should we not take time to consider, before rushing to judgment over particular cases?

A concerned citizen, Wokingham

Still enough

After weeks of one mess after another and a series of U-turns at a national level, Wokingham residents find themselves under threat of another mess, the doubling (plus) of housing development under new planning proposals.

Only last year, after an expensive ‘consultation’, we saw the biggest response to any WBC consultation with just under 50,000 responses, resulting (hardly a surprise) with 94% saying Enough is Enough.   WBC

Leaders, current and past,  told us they had ‘lobbied hard’ on the housing numbers. We were even told that they had lobbied a Prime Minister, who happened to live locally.

It would seem that lobbying is not the answer, perhaps they should look to take the ministers to lunch and make a few donations to the party? That at least seems to work.

Last week an ex-Prime Minister objected about an application, near to their home (is that NIMBY?) for  57 retirement flats, on the grounds of over development, significant increase of traffic on already congested roads and out of keeping with the area.

A local WBC Cllr also suggested that ‘On match days at the local rugby club traffic will be even more chaotic’.  They should look at the chaotic traffic EVERY day in Shinfield, Earley, Winnersh, Wokingham town centre, to mention but a few.

Where were WBC and Senior politicians when we needed their support in these areas? Where have they been as communities have been subjected to development, of not tens, but thousands of houses? Where will they be when the next thousands come?  The answers will possibly only be found if we do lunch with senior politicians.

Cllr Jim Frewin, independent councillor for Shinfield South, Wokingham Borough Council

Park and no ride?

More greenwash from the Conservatives here – this scheme does not provide the environmental gains to justify the loss of natural green space, and the reduced quality of life for nearby residents.

The business plan states “It is not envisaged the scheme would significantly affect air quality and emission levels” and “The expected impact on air quality is considered to be neutral.” The linking of this park and ride to environmental benefits by Cllr Gregor Murray is simply false.

The Conservatives have ignored numerous resident objections about the park and ride.  No one’s sense of place includes the desire to be adjacent to a car park and a bus terminal.

 No other park and ride in the Borough has been built adjacent to housing. All the others are separated from residential areas either by a main road, a railway or some other barrier which reduces the impact of the park and ride on residents.

It is clear that the park and ride cannot integrate with the surroundings – the landscaping cannot hide the lights and the double decker buses that will intrude into the community, and residents will be dismayed at the recent talk of extending the opening hours for the site considerably.

The rationale of the park and ride does not stack up. Do the Conservatives really think that people will drive to the edge of Wokingham, park in the park and ride, wait 15 minutes for a three-minute bus journey to the centre of town and do the same on the way back? Their clear alternative is to continue past the park and ride and park in the recently acquired Denmark Street car park in the centre of town or, in the case of commuters, drive to Carnival Pool car park or the station car park. With the acquisition of the Denmark Street car park, there is now a guarantee of car parking space which did not exist previously and will provide over half of the capacity of the park and ride.

It is claimed that the park and ride will encourage trips between the housing development at Keephatch Beech and other residential areas within Wokingham and Bracknell town centre, as well as providing links to Reading town centre.  However, there are no guaranteed dedicated bus services as part of this park and ride.

There are significant cost implications to set up a dedicated service or to have the current service divert to the park and ride. Under current plans we could end up with a white elephant – a park, and no ride.

Once again, the Conservatives aren’t listening and, worse, they are misleading residents.

Cllr Rachel Burgess, Labour member for Norreys Ward

Thanks for your support

I wish to thank all those who supported my recent Devine Daily Dashes for Berkshire’s Alexander Devine Children’s Hospice Services charity.

Together we raised £390, an amazing amount in these troubled and cash strapped times.

The charity needs to raise £1.6 million each year to continue to provide its community, day and respite care services.

Sadly, due to the current Covid-19 pandemic, the charity’s fundraising events for 2020, and possibly beyond, have all been cancelled.

The charity relies alsmost exclusively on its fundraising along with donations. As a result, it has had to delay the opening of its 24/7 beds.

Finally, please keep calm, keep safe, keep optimistic and keep supporting this local and vital charity however and whenever you can.

Paul Farmer, Reading

What do you think? Send your letters to letters@wokinghampaper.co.uk

We love to hear from you! Send us your views on issues relating to the borough (in 250 words or less) to The Wokingham Paper, Crown House, 231 Kings Road, Reading RG1 4LS or email: letters@wokinghampaper.co.uk

We reserve the right to edit letters

Views expressed in this section are not necessarily those of the paper