The Local Plan Update (LPU) passed at the last full council meeting of Wokingham Borough is on its way to the next stage, the Regulation 19 Public Inspection. An indicative timetable for the passage of the plan through to 2026 is shown below.
Of course it may not get to the adoption stage, because that depends upon the independent Inspector making a judgement that the plan has met the four criteria of "Soundness".
The four tests of soundness are:
a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
The Inspector will consider the evidence provided by the LPA to support the plan and any representations which have been put forward by local people and other interested parties.
A key part of my "representations" against the soundness of the Local Plan will be that it contradicts and breaks the Arborfield and Barkham Neighbourhood Plan we voted for nearly 5 years ago. The Neighbourhood Plan referendum was held on 6th February 2020. Residents voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Plan. The result was as follows:
YES votes 1164 (94%) NO votes 72 (6%) Total votes cast 1,236 (24%)
Our Neighbourhood Plan was voted for by residents. No such vote has been offered on the Local Plan. Worse, when we raised a petition calling for a simple debate to be held the Council denied us that debate on the spurious grounds of “Predetermination”. Had we been allowed to have a debate the current parlous state we find ourselves in may well have been avoided.
As it stands, this Plan may even be so bad it fails the 4 tests of soundness. By their undemocratic and autocratic behaviour, the Liberal Democrats in Wokingham have potentially shot themselves in the foot! So, here are some key policies included in the Arborfield and Barkham Neighbourhood Plan YOU may wish to consider as part of YOUR representations to the Inspector.
• Protect and enhance the countryside – new development should blend into the landscape, not dominate landscape views. Yet under the LPU important and locally valued views across fields from Church Lane and Mole Road will be lost, forever to be buried under acres of housing development.
• Retain separation of settlements to preserve their individual identities. Under the LPU separation of settlements such as Shinfield and Arborfield Cross will be eroded to the point where all that is left is the River Loddon flood plain. One suspects the only reason this is not included in the housing is the difficulty it poses for building on. Further, many suspect that should this LPU be given the go ahead, it will only be a question of time before further expansion of the development will erode yet more green fields around the site. (As has happened at Arborfield Green).
• Protect and enhance heritage and natural environment and extend conservation designations where possible. Under the LPU valued Heritage assets such as the Avenue of Trees (running between the Old Rectory and the Old Church Yard) will be destroyed. The new Spine Road coming off the Observer way roundabout on Reading Road will bisect the avenue of trees in the middle. The projected width of this road is up to 30 M, it will probably be a dual carriageway for much of its’ length. This would inevitably involve cutting some down a few mature trees. What damage will be done to nearby tree roots by first excavation, then by traffic? What of the long term effects of particulates and noise from cars, lorries, buses using the road. The nearby Old Churchyard will no longer be in splendid isolation but will be surrounded by houses. What of the impact on the Arborfield Cross conservation area?
• Enhance the natural and historic setting of Arborfield Cross village centre and Barkham Street. Arborfield Cross will be dwarfed and community assets such as the village hall will potentially be made redundant by newer facilities. Newer is not always better. This hall was built on land donated by the Simmonds family using money collected by the parishioners of Arborfield. It has been there, serving the local community for over 90 years. Do we want a new community centre? Has anyone even bothered to ask? Looking at the row that ensued over the Arborfield Green community centre it will be imposed on the community by Councillors and Planners who think they know best, but actually could not organise the proverbial good night out in a brewery.
• Provide a full range of facilities – schools, leisure amenities, retail, medical. We still have inadequate medical provision in the area, and it is beyond the remit of the developers to do anything about the problem, as was (again) witnessed at Arborfield Green, which 10 years after building started has STILL not got any new medical provision. What of wastewater disposal? We know Thames water are in financial difficulties, and we know the Arborfield Wastewater treatment plant pumps untreated sewage into Barkham Brook whenever there is heavy rain. We also know that the pumping station by the Magpie and Parrot must have tankers in regular attendance to take waste away to be treated elsewhere. Then there is the issue of how long before the new schools are delivered. Dangled like carrots to tempt us into thinking we will be gaining from this, will any of us even be alive to see these new schools?
• Promote a strong rural economy. SOLVE Hall Farm has engaged with UoR about the possibility of sustainable food production and community farming. There may still be an opportunity for this but the walled garden they propose is too small. It needs at least 10 acres to be truly viable. This also has the potential to help manage ASB (an ever increasing problem in the area) and work with local schools. We have also suggested green burial and sustainably managed recreational facilities. Despite saying many fine words about wanting to engage with the community neither WBC or UoR have constructively engaged with us and our ideas. So much for the fine principles of Localism!
• Match housing to local needs including affordable homes for key workers. No indication that key workers and locals be given any priority, so what is being proposed is just a way to maximise developer profits. Key workers such as teachers, nurses and emergency services will be left to fend for themselves while the wealthy fleeing London will be fed stories of an idyllic life in the countryside. Garden Village? Dormitory Town more like!
• Require high quality design incorporating efficient use of resources. This Local Plan has NO alternative energy proposals at a wider community level. E.G. No Energy Hubs or heat storage as at Ashridge. A detailed study was submitted by Berkley Homes in partnership with Seimens for a Net Zero Carbon Emissions development at Ashridge. No such proposals for Loddon Valley, despite the much-vaunted environmental credentials of the University of Reading. This is the strategic business partner brought in to help WBC because of their alleged expertise in such matters as “climate resilience”.
• Address local flood risks. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are proposed for the LVGV but increased run off from lots of roofs and roads will be inevitable. Has Climate Change been adequately factored in? What of the effects on Bearwood’s category A Dam of “extreme” weather events as these become more intense and more common. Will the owners of these proposed new homes even be able to insure them by the time they get built? Who here can predict when the global climate reaches another tipping point, as it has done so many times in the past? When will melting polar ice caps that no longer reflect but absorb heat create another hot house earth, as has happened several times before in our history? Not even the University of Reading can confidently answer that one, because nobody knows. We are simply going to have to find out the hard way, and encouraging thousands more people into their cars is only going to speed that process up.
• Minimise traffic on unsuitable roads. Traffic assessment data used to justify building thousands MORE houses in the South of the borough while protecting the Northern Parishes is out of date. Very poor traffic modelling hides the true impact of all the additional traffic on existing rural road networks that are already over capacity at peak times. Highly damaging to local heritage and the environment around Hall Farm are the proposed new entry and exit points to and from the site. What is needed is state of the art dedicated public transport links as happens in many modern European cities, and as requested by Reading Borough Council in their comments on the previous Plan. There is a promise of a bus route and a cycle lane, but that’s it. The traffic viability analysis is based on a comparison of 1000 houses at Hall Farm, with no schools, versus 2000+ houses at Ashridge. The Loddon Garden Village has two primary schools and a secondary, plus both “village centres”, all in the western build area. In phase 1 and phase 2, until the spine road is completed, all the traffic generated will be forced onto Mole Road. The bridge over the Loddon is phase 2 and the bridge over the M4 is not until phase 4. 3,930 houses at current car ownership levels for Wokingham will generate in the region of 6,000 additional cars. How many journeys per day, per household? How many people will be trying to access the motorway network to commute beyond this “garden village”.
• Expand opportunities for sustainable transport. Reading Borough Council are highly critical of the proposed bus routes through the SDL. No access to trains without traveling several miles. When you get to the “local” train stations at Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle or Earley there is either no disabled access or no parking.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at Paragraph 29: “Neighbourhood planning gives communities the power to develop a shared vision for their area. Neighbourhood plans can shape, direct and help to deliver sustainable development, by influencing local planning decisions as part of the statutory development plan”.
All the other Parishes in the borough either have a Neighbourhood Plan, are engaged in creating one, or want to create one. Having promised they would produce a revised Local Plan, WBC waited two years then claimed that they couldn’t make changes after all, despite officers confirming that they could. They then claimed that sites couldn’t be changed without permission of the landowner, only to be again found to be incorrect.
Grey belt and Brownfield alternatives are not being given due consideration under this LPU. There exists a real possibility of re allocating green belt to the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Exclusion Zone. If Green Belt and AWE Exclusion Zone were consolidated into a single area more of the borough could be freed up for possible development, on better sites where true sustainability is easier to achieve. As it is all the development in the Borough is forced into one area.
Further development at Hall Farm would then create a situation that will act as a magnet for yet more development going forward. If you already have a major SDL at Hall Farm, why not keep adding to it? Brownfield sites first should be a priority, which should be taken together with the duty to cooperate between Planning Authorities. This borough should be providing the Sustainable Alternative Natural Greenspaces for our more urban neighbours, not concreting them over.
Paul Stevens
Comments