News

What the new homes would look like at Buckhurst Park
advertisement

Traffic fears spark rebellion against plans for 2,500 homes

October 12, 2010

Fears one of the main roads into Wokingham will become clogged with traffic if a mini-town is built have led town councillors to reject blueprints for the new homes.

The final decision on the first phase of plans to build 2,500 homes on land south of Wokingham town centre off London Road rests with Wokingham Borough Council.

However, Wokingham Town Council has delivered its verdict on the proposal, known as Buckhurst Park, raising a formal objection over concerns of the impact on London Road.

Town councillors also called on the developer, David Wilson Homes, to complete new roads to alleviate pressure on the town’s traffic before house building begins.

Members of the town council’s planning committee also commented on the fact the borough’s housing plan, known as the Core Strategy, was up in the air while the borough council decided whether to review the housing target for the next 15 years.

The council could opt to review the 12,500 homes target it was given by the Labour Government under new powers announced by the new coalition Government. However, Councillor David Lee, leader of the council, has warned the borough could end up with more housing if it launches a formal review.

This week, the developer behind the planning application for the first 650 homes, was quick to point out the council is due to make a decision on its housing targets by October 21. This is before the deadline for a decision on Buckhurst Park by the borough council.

A spokesman for David Wilson Homes said: “David Wilson Homes has worked closely with Wokingham Council on these plans for Buckhurst Park and the decision about the future of the town’s housing numbers and locations will be taken in October – before the application is considered.

“Whilst the Core Strategy process has been delayed slightly, we, along with Wokingham Council, recognise that new housing is needed and that’s why so much time and effort has been put into choosing the right locations for this growth.

“Buckhurst Park is the first stage of the approved South Wokingham development area and we are committed to delivering the necessary infrastructure for which we have submitted a detailed delivery plan to the council.”

Councillor Chris Singleton, chairman of the town council’s planning committee, said when roads reach 90 per cent capacity it causes an “unacceptable delay”, however London Road is expected to reach 100 per cent capacity with the south Wokingham development.

The plans for south Wokingham include a southern relief road to link London Road with Finchampstead Road.

They also include a country park, however Priest Avenue Residents’ Association (PARA) has said it asked the borough council to move the country park from the south east to the north west of the estate.

Paul Major, chairman of PARA, said moving the country park to land adjacent to Clay Lane and London Road would be a “win-win situation for old and potential new residents”.

He said although initially there had been support from the council for PARA’s proposal, the group was later told this was not possible.

Mr Major added: “Another example of Wokingham Borough Council ignoring the wishes of the people is that 2,600 letters were sent to the council by Wokingham residents in September 2008 saying the residents opposed the Core Strategy that would surround Wokingham with houses.

“The last government imposed housing targets on the council, so the council had to comply. However, the new government has advised that core strategies should reflect local people’s aspirations and decisions.

“Perhaps the council should ask for residents’ views so they can comply with the new government’s advice.”

The council’s executive committee will meet on Thursday, October 21, to make a final decision on the housing targets.

| View Comments (8)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 8 of 8

Breaking news - old housing target figures reinstated. Government plans to scrap the South East Plan ruled illegal - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11725812

LarryS
10/11/2010 at 11:39

Larry S. We are on the same side! The difference between us seems to be that I believe the Government is genuinely giving decision making back not just to Local Authorities but to communites as well. I of course agree all the factors you mention need to be considered in determining a revised housing number and any revision needs to be soundly based. I may be naive but take some comfort from John Redwood's recommendations about how to proceed as follows: "My suggestion is that the Council set out a new planning policy based on the views of our community. I think we want proper green gaps between settlements, the defence of Green Belt, the protection of high grade agricultural land and important natural sites, lower densities of development than in the last decade, an end to town cramming and back garden development in many places, and an end to building on flood plain. Once planners have shown on a map all the land that needs to be protected from development to meet these objectives, then they can see what is left and how many homes it would be sensible to accommodate." Source: http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?s=planning

Augustyn
14/10/2010 at 11:17

Augustyn - if only life were as simple as you suggest. The Government has passed on, i.e. passed the buck, for setting housing targets from the Regional Assemblies to individual planning authorities. This has been represented in the media as devolving responsibilities to local communities. It is no such thing. Rather it is the most poisoned of poisoned chalices. No longer will the Government get the blame for unpopular housing figures. That dubious honour will now rest on the shoulders of our Borough Councillors. Lucky them! Any revised figures will still need to be robust and defendable and based on the same accepted indicators (census based population projections, household formation projections, life expectency figures) that the previous housing targets were worked out using. Sadly, local opinion will count for very little if it is not backed up with evidence that can contradict those indicators. Sentiment counts for nothing in planning. Let's face it, if we had a vote, chances are we'd vote for absolutely no new housing locally. The problem is we live in growing communities, growing from within, living longer and increasingly living on our own.

If the council is brave enough to change the existing housing targets, then those new figures would have to be tested and defended at a public inquiry presided over by a Government appointed independent inspector at which developers would be free to have their say. In so doing, we could run the risk of having even higher targets imposed on us. As much as I hate to admit it, the sensible thing would be to accept the figures as set and concentrate our efforts on getting as much planning gain as possible from developers.

LarryS
13/10/2010 at 15:03

David Lee is mentioned in this article. So whatever you wanted imagine the extreme opposite and that'll be your answer...

SCAR
12/10/2010 at 14:49

Thanks Jon, no doubt you have no chance of houses being built near where you life and don't use a car to drive along roads that are already full to bursting at peak times.

I have houses being built near me now, and I think the developers are doing a good job of keeping the area clean and tidy and restricting the hours in which they make noise. I am not against the development per se, although I am against the lies the developers told to secure it.

I think the site mentioned is a good potential site for a housing development, but I do think we need to review the numbers of houses we are building in the borough. 12,500 houses is a vast number, and with the economy collapsed around us, we *do* have to ask if the numbers of houses previously forced upon us without option was actually the right number in the first place based on actual demand - note that house prices are currently falling because the supply seriously outweighs demand. I don't believe we need this number of houses, but we can't make a really valid decision until there is evidence both ways. So let's take this opportunity to ask whether the old government was right or not *before* we tear up our countryside and create huge traffic jams down our old and tiny streets.

Just calling us nimbys doesn't help answer the question at all.

mavdo, Wokingham
12/10/2010 at 13:10

nimby's

Jon Pepper
12/10/2010 at 12:14

I do wish David Lee would stop scare mongering about the possibilitiy of more than 12,500 homes should WBC decide to rewrite the core strategy. Surely he knows that Government is not only driving decision making down to Local Authorities but is also driving decisions down to Communities.

WBC knows residents strong negative opinions on the core strategy and Wokingham Town Council are to be congratulated for taking a stand on behalf of the electorate.

It's high time the Borough realised residents view the core strategy as vandalism on a grand and irreversible scale.

Augustyn
12/10/2010 at 10:58

"Town councillors also called on the developer, David Wilson Homes, to complete new roads to alleviate pressure on the town’s traffic before house building begins."

Good news! Well Done WBC! - Now if you can just reduce the numbers of houses too, that would be fantastic!

“Perhaps the council should ask for residents’ views so they can comply with the new government’s advice.”

I'd love to see an open forum on what the locals actually want, do we need more houses? there are developments all over Berkshire which have been completed and are still not fully sold.