Our M.P. for Wokingham has deigned to speak at long last after many years of silence on the matter of building houses at Hall Farm, and as expected (because every LibDem in Wokingham has been told to toe the party line) he is now in favour of building 3,930 houses at Hall Farm. Of course he has not explicitly said so, that would be too much to expect. No, his weasel words, as published in Wokingham Toady, are more circumspect. Given his previous position of support for SOLVE Hall Farm (See our Website banner, above) it would be difficult to come out fully, perform a complete reverse ferret, and advocate building on green fields between Arborfield, Winnersh, Lower Earley and Shinfield. Given that the voters of Winnersh are about to have a by-election for a new borough councillor that might be a bit risky? It might draw attention, for example, to the fact that the local plan requires a new road to be driven through what is very clearly a Sustainable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) alongside Hatch Farm Way in Winnersh.
In the article Clive appears to be defending our countryside, but as usual with the smoke and mirrors of politics, all is not quite what it seems. His assertion that "the Government’s announcement of a new planning framework, which will allow developers to bypass elected local councillors and requires councils to review green-belt land" is only a concern if you are wanting to protect Green Belt. Green fields at Hall Farm are NOT Green Belt, which is a very specific classification used to protect rural areas, such as Wokingham, from the urban sprawl of places like London. People like Cllr Stephen Conway are very keen to protect the green belt, and are getting very concerned by some of the changes to planning law being sounded out by the Labour Party.
Taking Cllr Conway's concerns first: "Councillor for Twyford, Ruscombe and Hurst, Stephen Conway said at the discussions over the development that it would effectively create a new settlement that would be cut off from Twyford making daily travel difficult". Is he concerned for the residents of Arborfield, Winnersh, Lower Earley and Shinfield? No, sadly not. He is quite happy to throw them under the car. His concern is for his voter support in Twyford.
Under the current rules, it is very hard to build on the green belt. Applicants need to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify planning permission. But what if those rules were changed, as Labour seem to be suggesting? Twyford, as has been pointed out many times by SOLVE Hall Farm is next to a Railway Station on the Elizabeth Line. It provides fast commuter transport to London and to Reading. It was included in the Local Plan but was rejected under what many of us consider to be a very biased point system that set out to prove that Hall Farm was the best option for Wokingham.
But Hall Farm, as we in SOLVE Hall Farm have repeatedly pointed out, is going to require millions of pounds spent on roads and a new bridge over the M4 to become viable. Even then it will not get commuters out of their cars, it will simply add to the congestion on Mill Lane, Mole Road, Reading Road and Lower Earley Way because there is no public transport infrastructure at Hall Farm. In their support for the Revised Local Plan for Wokingham this fact is conveniently ignored by those who voted for it.
Back to the comments of our Lib Dem M.P. Clive Jones: "The government’s belief that the planning system needs to bypass elected local councillors in Wokingham is wrong. Wokingham neither needs nor wants a universal solution which removes democratic control.
He said the lack of affordable housing in Wokingham will not be solved simply by targets.
He said: “Wokingham needs more genuinely affordable development, which is only achievable if it is community led and not dictated from Whitehall."
The fact that SOLVE Hall Farm was denied a debate on the houses at Hall Farm is ignored, even though it was under the leadership of Clive Jones that our debate was denied. Are we not part of the community? Is collecting signatures on a petition calling for a debate not democratic? Or is Clive just a bit forgetful? (See helpful reminder below).
As for "genuinely affordable development" to claim that asking people to pay 80% of market value in an area like Wokingham, where house prices are some of the highest in the country, is affordable, is actually laughable. The houses proposed for the Loddon Garden Village will be not be aimed at those most in need. For those most in need what is needed is SOCIAL HOUSING.
Is the real concern here that the new Labour Government may take away some of the power that Wokingham currently enjoys as a unitary authority? Is Clive more worried he will have to deal with a locally elected Mayor than he is worried about protecting the green belt from development? The deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, told the BBC recently that giving regional mayors more powers over housing, transport, education and employment would help drive economic growth. Under the proposals, the government also wants to merge areas where there are currently two tiers of local authority - smaller district and larger county councils - in a bid to streamline services. Having only just managed to grab control of Wokingham borough, are the concerns now that those powers will be taken away?
Back to the WT article: "Wokingham has exceeded targets for new development over the past years, with the previous Conservative administration delivering 2,000 more houses than required, and the borough’s new local plan will deliver more new housing in a sustainable way"
Sustainable? Really? What of this report on increased flood risk due to Climate Change?
new assessment from the Environmental Agency (EA)? Shockingly the EA has revealed 1 in 4 homes across England could be at risk of flooding by 2050. The latest data shows that a total of 6.3 million properties are based in areas at risk of flooding from one – or a combination of – rivers, the sea and surface water. Are we prepared to build next to the river Loddon and Barkham Brook, both known to regularly flood, and below a dam holding back millions of litres of water at Bearwood Lake? 2050 may seem like a long time away, but the prediction of climate change, leading to global warming and the impact that will have on flood risk, may reach an irreversible tipping point much sooner than we expect.
Cars are one of the biggest contributors to climate change and Hall Farm will be a car dependent development. The construction will drag on for 30 years and will generate many tonnes of carbon as it progresses. Carbon emissions are leading to global warming and warmer air holds more moisture, leading to increased risk of flooding. As ice caps melt in the warmer air they reflect less sunlight, increasing global warming further.
There is no way this can be described as sustainable.
While I agree with much of what you say here, I'm not sure Clive Jones needs to be concerned about the current proposals for local government reorganisation. They affect two-tier LA areas, and Berkshire has not had a two-tier LA structure for a long time. I don't see how WBC could be absorbed into the administrative domain of an urban mayor, as with London or Manchester, short of treating the whole Thames Valley area running from Reading to Windsor as one large conurbation. Despite the developers' efforts in that direction, we're not there yet!