A victory for common sense
When a Wokingham Borough Planning meeting (Wednesday, February 13) rejected a SANG application the developer withdrew a ‘linked’ application for
249 additional houses in Shinfield.
So, what is a SANG – Suitable Area of Natural Greenspace?
The idea of a SANG is to provide easily accessible green space for every-day activities such as dog walking, early morning runs, children playing on the way home from school and an evening stroll.
It could be seen as ‘compensation’ to communities to enable development on existing green space plus it can be used to accommodate some of the water displaced by development.
The issue with the proposed Shinfield site was that everyone agreed it spent parts of the year under water and was therefore not accessible for any of the SANG objectives unless, of course, your dogs and children can swim and you have a set of waders.
You would have thought that as it was knowingly unusable for at least parts of the year that it would never be accepted.
Not the case as planners, developer agents and some councillors pushed hard to get it approved.
They argued that when it was dry it could be used (this did not surprise residents) and, as mitigation for when it was flooded, they would provide raised wooden walkways to keep residents’ heads above the water.
One resident suggested providing ‘Boris Canoes’.
Luckily there were some Councillors who had a much greater level of common sense. One asked if this was a SANG or a water park.
Another even suggested that even if some Councillors thought they could walk on water that they should not expect residents to be able to! After much to and through debating the SANG was refused – a victory for common sense.
This resulted in the linked, not linked, possibly linked, partially linked (another strange debating point) application for the 249 houses being withdrawn by the developers.
The vast majority of the audience were then quite rudely dismissed by the Chairman with a ‘you lot can go now’.
Hmmm let’s think, who does he work for?
Viewing residents as the customer is obviously still a difficult concept to some Wokingham Councillors. Still look on the bright side this is one small victory for common sense – there may be hope for Wokingham after all!
Jim Frewin, Shinfield
Listening?
Wokingham Borough Council asserted at recent roadshows promoting the Local Plan Update they are listening to residents and will consider their views when preparing for future housing needs in the borough.
There was no evidence of this happening last week when an application by the University of Reading for a suitable alternative natural green space (SANG) of 21.87 hectares in Shinfield was being considered at a planning meeting. In considering the proposal it was acknowledged that 8.79 hectares affords green space mitigation for 1,000 dwellings meaning it would potentially allow the green field development for around 2,500 dwellings in the future, on top of the 3,500 already included in the Shinfield SDL.
Some independent thinking councillors ensured important questions were raised and their concerns that the proposal was flawed, particularly relating to flooding meant it was refused by a small majority.
A proposal brought forward to the current planning period by the University of Reading for 249 dwellings on lands south of Cutbush Lane was then withdrawn. The chair was visibly frustrated with the refusal of the SANG and was rude towards members of the public from Shinfield telling them there was no reason now to stay.
In defence of the council it is under pressure from Government to deliver ever increasing number of houses, but it must do better at allocating housing development more fairly across the whole borough.
Roderic Vaughan, address supplied
Horrified by TV comment
I would like to state how horrified I was by the Town councillor who spoke on behalf of the council during the BBC South TV report.
Sarah Kerr, the new Liberal Democrat councillor, has been trying to raise awareness of the dangerous failings of the town centre, especially those for people with visual impairments.
The council still deny that there is a problem and that it needs to be rectified.
The Town Councillor was on TV saying that as the majority of the feedback regarding the town centre was positive that the minority of negative comments was not a problem.
Surely, he could not be saying on that as the majority of people who could see were happy that the minority who could not see were not happy was irrelevant?
He should be forced to resign immediately for this act of arrogance towards the disabled community.
The Town Council has decided that making the Town centre fully accessible was not important because the accessibility guidelines that they have chosen to ignore are for guidance only not law.
Also some of the feedback from the disabled groups that they, supposedly consulted with, was also ignored.
I sincerely hope that none of the people responsible for cutting corners in disability access ever have the misfortune to experience at first hand the problems of the Town Centre.
Catherine Smith, Winnersh
Fighting for Market Place
It was disappointing to hear the response Wokingham Town Council gave on BBC South about the safety issues in the new marketplace.
Along with a number of frustrated residents and the Liberal Democrat team, I have been campaigning for months now to have several elements of the marketplace rectified to ensure it is a safe space for ALL of Wokingham’s residents and visitors.
Yes, it is the minority that these issues affect, but to state that the flagship scheme is still a success and effectively ignore the voices of the minority (such as the visually impaired, elderly, disabled, parents with young children etc), is completely unacceptable.
Every resident and visitor to our town has the right to be able to safely use and explore what we have to offer.
Yes, the regeneration project has made huge improvements, but it’s not gone far enough regarding equality, and the minority must be catered for.
Cllr Sarah Kerr, Liberal Democrat, Evendons Ward, Wokingham Borough Council
Post Office consultations
I refer to your lead article last week (WHSmith advertising for staff for the new Post Office kiosk). My comment on the attitude of the Post Office is as follows:
There is a body who treats consultations worse than Wokingham Borough Council and that is the Post Office.
To start advertising job vacancies in WHSmith before the consultation has even finished shows utter contempt for the consultation process and the views of the local residents who have taken the time to complete the survey, including myself.
Cllr Lindsay Ferris, Leader of the Liberal Democrats & Leader of the Opposition on Wokingham Borough Council
Reviewing the rules
I always look forward to the weekly contribution from Cllr Cowan especially when they are always full of misinformation.
His topic this week is how petitions are handled at the Council. For the first time in more than 20 years, of which Cllr Cowan was a member of the Conservative Group for most of that time and never complained before, there was a problem about the final motion, so it was decided to do something about this legitimate complaint.
A working group was tasked to review the rules on this matter with cross party support and Cllr Cowan, as an Independent, was invited to be part of it.
He declined, I guess if he had he would not have been able to write his letter! It is interesting that he appears to be more interested in making headlines than actually solving the problem.
He complains about the petitioner not being able to form a motion after listening to the debate as they have to lodge the motion in advance.
I do not know of any petitioner who does not know what they want and so should be able to do this quite reasonably.
The change (which he forgets to tell readers) also includes a requirement to discuss with a councillor the wording of the motion to make sure it is legal and is achievable.
This is precisely what Cllr Cowan did in the recent housing petition when he lodged his motion on behalf of the petitioner with the interim Chief Executive well in advance of the meeting (he didn’t tell readers that either).
If he had bothered to participate in that working group, the changes, which were agreed by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on it, he would have seen that these new proposals would have allowed him to do the very things he complained that he could not do at the time.
He would present his motion first, which he had worked on with the petitioner and lodged in advance of the meeting, with the full debate around his motion.
But his misleading statements do not confine themselves to Petitions. Another is a complaint about an amendment I proposed on the Wokingham town expenditure Motion.
He forgets to tell readers (again) that my amendment was accepted by the Liberal Democrats which they went on and voted for.
Cllr Cowan has been invited to many working groups in the past to discuss the many issues he raises but he always declines which is sad.
He is almost unique amongst all councillors in having this attitude about standing on the “side-lines” instead of actively participating in finding a solution.
Every other councillor is willing to work together for the good of our residents. Cllr Cowan prefers to write weekly letters to The Wokingham Paper instead.
Cllr Keith Baker, Conservative councillor for Coronation Ward, Woodley on Wokingham Borough Council
A long letter
I have seen in The Wokingham Paper dated Thursday, February 14, a long diatribe/rant/moan – whatever, written by Councillor Gary Cowan, Independent Borough Councillor for Arborfield. It looks like it took a long time to write.
As usual, Cllr Cowan is complaining about somebody else not doing something in the name of democracy and a political party loving “secrecy”.
Readers may remember the questions that I put to Cllr Cowan reference an expired Blue Badge and a parking ticket recently, in The Wokingham Paper.
I am STILL waiting for answers from Cllr Cowan.
This is rapidly turning into “Cowangate”.
A Borough councillor unable, or unwilling, to answer, in a democratic way, pertinent questions from a Wokingham resident, in a public forum.
Some people may even think that Cllr Cowan is being secretive about this matter.
So, once more, in the interests of impartiality, the truth, and, for the THIRD time of asking, will Cllr Cowan please give honest answers to my questions?
Cllr Cowan previously stated “Unfortunately the Blue Badge had just expired”.
- On what date did the Blue Badge in question expire?
- What was the date when the parking ticket was issued?
- How many days had the Blue Badge been expired when the parking ticket was issued?
Why do I believe this issue is important?
Because Cllr Cowan used disability as a means to score political points and as an excuse to belittle and denigrate others who were bending over backwards to get a good outcome for an Arborfield resident.
I have submitted my first-ever Freedom of Information request to Wokingham Borough Council about this matter.
I will have to wait to find out how far I get with it.
Meanwhile, who’d have thought it? An “Independent” Cllr not being able to answer a few simple questions about a Blue Badge in a local newspaper.
Anybody might think that there are some elections coming up in May, that somebody has something to hide, and that somebody does not wish to be held to account!
Paul Clarke (with an “e”), Wokingham
One in a million
What a unique person Wokingham Crisis House’s Pam Jenkinson must be to be able to ban all mental health professional volunteers, self-regulate both herself and all of the Crisis House’s volunteers, implement appropriate safeguarding procedures for all the Crisis House’s vulnerable users, and then provide support, help and advice to the mentally ill – with no professional help or guidance (Letters, The Wokingham Paper, February 14).
Most of us, whether formerly having gone through a major mental health crisis or not, find it difficult enough to deal with our own inner demons. How many of us can truthfully say we have none?
Then there’s life’s problems and anxieties and worries that we would worry we would pass on our own idiosyncrasies et al to those we advise, even if we felt confident, competent enough to do so, which I certainly would/do not.
So well done Pam, you must be one in a million at the very least.
Paul Farmer, Reading
The angry young men
Many readers may recall the angry young men of the 1950/60s – well, sixty years later, I am still one of them. Slightly older, but the fires still burn within me!
What was it all about? Local and national politics, surprised?
I do not wish to go into detail, or our Editor would be right to say “we don’t publish books”, so a quick tour of three centres of anger and distress today.
Certain politicians would welcome a devaluation of our currency – how many times has that been our route out of trouble? Any well-run country resists all it can to take such action. The solution is to stop taking money out of businesses – viz the fat cat syndrome – and get costs down to reduce export prices. Sounds easy, but we all know that does not fit the Conservative ethos.
Leases – the absolute disgrace that is another money grabbing process, is to sell Leaseholds. I am and always will be against the leasehold principles. You buy a pile of bricks, so the land underneath should be part of the deal. For historical reasons there may be good arguments for some use of leases.
For example Grosvenor Estates in London have strict rules on maintenance and appearance – no washing hanging out of the window!
It goes without saying, that if you can afford such a “pile” then you are wealthy enough to not worry about increases in ground rent.
However, spare a thought for those who will suffer in the future, from the latest racket where ‘the money’ buys leases from builders who should never be allowed to sell leases – threatened by ruthless increases in ground rent, with NO government protection and possibly eviction for not being able to pay, OR sell.
Lastly, just to stir the pot as they say, I do believe that any subjects of the Realm who desert this country and Queen, to serve with the animals of another religion or country – quite happy to kill without conscience and against the Geneva Convention – must lose their Passports on exit and any right to return to this country.
We must ensure all children and young persons are ‘indoctrinated’ in OUR culture.
Reg Clifton, Wokingham
