What a great idea for the council to display these disgraceful plans during work hours. Who thought of that idea? The same people who got their crayons out and scrawled over a piece of paper and called it a development plan?

   Wokingham Comment.. As you seem to have knowledge which is not in the public realm, is there anything that can be done to prevent this madness.. How can I help? What can we do to make our voices heard? Any suggestions gratefully received.

   Unfortunately I don't think WBC actually listen or care about what the locals think and it's clear that people don't know about or don't know how to comment on developments in the area until it's too late.

And before someone from WBC jumps in, yes your follow the consulting procedure, but the comments and objections are overruled by committee.

WBC should be more transparent and let the people decide instead of making what they think is the best decision for us all.

If WBC are so confident they are right then maybe they should take the advice of this petition:

http://www.change.org/petitions/force-wokingham-borough-council-to-hold-a-public-referendum-on-the-core-strategy-and-housing-plans

   The agreement to build the scheme on Elms Field was signed today between WBC and Wilsdon Bowden. Amusingly on the day the consultation starts...

   Wokingham Comment, interesting to hear from you. Is there anything that can be done about it, though?

   A couple of comments. First the Council did set out that the cricket pitch should be developed in their 2004 plan - as long as offsetting green space was secured. Despite some 1000 objections when the final planning was submitted (which increased the number of units from the original 55 to some 120) I understand the council actually failed to respond appropriately leaving the development wide open.

With regard to Elms Field the whole thing is a sham. Originally six housing schemes were proposed for Elms Field, and rather amusingly we were asked to pick one (with "no build" not being an option), but these were withdrawn, the council claimed due to local outcry (but pictures of a supermarket on Elms field were found on the internet, around 2008 I think this was, which some thought was the real reason for the u-turn – in any case the pictures were quickly withdrawn and the Council denied any collusion to build a supermarket stating they simply now recognised the importance of getting the town centre right). Consultations from circa 2009 were framed around the council seeking "to improve the area" - and offer something different to attract people to the town rather than housing. All seemed good. Guess what we've got a supermarket on Elms Field. Not good. This was NEVER discussed in any of the forum workshops it just quietly materialised in the plans. The council chose to ignore close to 1000 objections to the proposed development of Elms Field and specifically the supermarket and pressed ahead on economic grounds that they refused to disclose. Like every other town resident I know, I think it is a terrible idea that will destroy the feel and attraction of the town (already wishing we could move). What’s more slicing up the open space to provide further housing, roads, shops and a hotel for what? To fund a low cost face lift for Peach Street and a make-over of the token park remaining. It is short-term commercially driven madness – one has to question the morality of the council being allowed to become a property developer and play with publically owned land with impunity.

   "The majority" either don't care, or won't give an opinion in any way forcefully because they either don't know how to, don't think they can, or simply don't know about this at all. Therefore "the majority" have not registered any objection to the plans at all. The assumption is that if you don't complain, you are happy with it. This makes it quite hard for those who really aren't happy about it to have a voice at all because of "the majority" being silent.

Most people didn't know the cricket club was being built on until the diggers started cutting up huge chunks of the field. Now, of course, people blame the council for loss of recreational green space that is now gone forever, even though the council denied permission, but few people knew of this development until it was too late. Same goes for Elms field. The council are trying to tell people what is going on, but it's too late for anyone to object to the big bits (supermarket, housing, road, all though a park). It's all or nothing as far as those parts are concerned. And due to the silent majority, it'll be all.

   How many people have to strongly object to it before the plans can be reversed? I mean, if there are 10,000 voters in Wokingham and every single one of them wrote to the council/signed a petition, would they listen? Would they be required to by law? I really don't understand how a body of people, many of which don't live here, can make a decision to permanently ruin a part of the town forever against the wishes of the majority of the residents/electorate and it seemingly cannot be challenged.

   I agree with pretty much all of these comments, but do remember that the cricket club was granted by the planning commissioner on appeal and that the building of houses there has very little to do with the council.

But I am totally against the desecration of Elms field, and do not recognise the need for another town centre supermarket, the presence of which has proven the undoing of many town centres all over the country. I am also abundantly aware that the bits that I wish to complain about in the plans are the ones that will never be changed, no matter how many people object. Looking at the definition of bigotted views on another article (a bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own ... political views and is intolerant of those who differ), this fits really quite nicely.

I'll go and see the plans, but I know nothing will change. Consultation? Pah. This is a presentation, not a consultation.

   Same with Buckhurst Grove. Supermarket and cricket club turned down as its green space but now WBC can see money form building housing it is fine.

   It seems that finally a Cllr (Hewetson) gets the Mary Portas concept. see article 'Indoor market plan for disused building'

   When will these arrogant Cllrs and Officers ever learn. There are so many opportunities to turn the buildings in Denmark Street, Peach Street, Broad Street and Rose Street into shops and restaurants, in a sympathetic way without destroying the High Street by building yet another supermarket next to Elms Field. Pls leave Elms Field alone and focus on the existing buildings.

   When a new road relieving conjestion in the Woodlands Avenue area of Woodley was suggested, the Council opposed the idea as silly since it would pass over 'Ancient Woodland', well acutually the fringe bit of scrubland abused by dog walkers. However when they have ideas or wish to support a proposal such as the resiting of the mobile phone mast at Sibly, then the use of ancient woodland is 'quite' in order. Somehow they find it easy to talk with very forked tongues in WBC. Such areas as Elms Field and Bulmershe 'common' are the bits that really need protecting but then they need them for their schemes.

   Looking at the rain outside at the moment - Why on earth do we need cafe's with outside seating? I'd much rather have a covered market providing better opportunites for the smaller businesses.

   I agree that instead of desecrating Elms Field the council should be looking at the rest of Peach Street which is crying out for some development at the All Saints end.

There is also a row of grotty garages between Argos and Broad Street that are ripe for development. I am sure that Harveys would welcome losiing their office block in favour of a major development in that area.