News

Councillor Rob Stanton chaired an introductory meeting at Wokingham Town Hall on Monday night about the South Wokingham strategic development location
advertisement

Still time to speak out over 2,500 homes

By Julie Spencer
July 20, 2012

People in Wokingham can play a role in shaping a 2,500-home development south of the town centre.

Although the expansion is a “done deal” as part of the borough’s core strategy, townspeople have been assured they can have an input on what is built on their doorstep.

Councillor Rob Stanton chaired an introductory meeting at Wokingham Town Hall on Monday night about the South Wokingham strategic development location (SDL).

He said: “We had quite a good turnout and the tone of the audience was very supportive, they are very keen to work with us and to have an input.

“Quite a lot of things are a done deal, planning permission has been granted, but there are things they can influence in the way of local facilities, where shops might go or community centres. It is about building a community. One of the challenges is making sure it fits in with the old community.” The 2,500 homes will be built on the South Wokingham SDL, one of four zones identified in the Wokingham Core Strategy.

The South Wokingham location is intended as an urban extension to the South of Wokingham, on land south of the A329 London Road, north of the London to Wokingham railway line and on land between the borough boundary with Bracknell Forest in the east and the A329 Finchampstead Road to the west.

A total of 13,300 homes will be built on the four zones by 2026.

Similar meetings have been held with people in Arborfield and a meeting will be organised in the North Wokingham SDL in the autumn. Cllr Stanton, ward member for Finchampstead North, added: “We are going to have to take these houses – the Government are very anxious to get house building moving for many reasons, including the economy.

“It is important that we press on and that we stop trying to object, but accept and make it best for those who live here. The meetings are about doing things with people, rather than doing things to people.”

Peter Must, chairman of the Wokingham Society, said he attended the meeting “with a degree of trepidation”.

He added: “The delineation of the art of the possible and the art of the done deal is essential.

“We identified areas where there could be useful dialogue about new settlements.

“It is not decision making, but there will be dialogue to sort out roads and transport and to investigate how people can get in and out of new developments and how it will impact on residents there.”

Mr Must said he hoped there would be regular meetings between residents’ associations and the council.

He said: “We hope to meet at least quarterly and will always be sensitive to when developers are bringing forward their ideas.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (18)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 18 of 18

It wasn't long ago that the area now being used for the South Wokingham development area had planning applications rejected due to the need to retain a green belt between Wokingham and Bracknell. I can remember two applications for different areas to be used as a new ground for Wokingham Football Club. The original plan was for Tesco to use the area next to the London Road and provide a new park and sports fields but that was rejected to preserve the green belt.

The current plan provides for a park area and dog walking area. However this is so far from current residential areas that it will only be reachable by car for most people.

PoneRana, Wokingham
23/07/2012 at 13:23

Stig,

I totally agree, if they are going to go ahead with the new housing regardless then the new road should run parallel to the railway line where possible and not right through the middle of the housing estate where children will be playing. They could get the same number of houses by having cul-de-sacs running off the southern end of this new road.

The current plan risks undermining the main reason for the SDR which is to entice through traffic away from the town centre.

Mark Savill, Wokingham
23/07/2012 at 09:00

Cllr Baker you say my 'comments on consultation and predetermination do not hold up to scrutiny.' Gary Cowan disagrees see below. EXTRACT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE 31 MAY 2012 Present:-David Lee (Chairman), Keith Baker etc

Question "There is a letter in the Wkm Times where S Weeks says that the Buckhurst Planning application had 95 pages of objections. It went on to say that WBC took no notice of the wishes of Wkm Town Council and its residents. When one considers that Buckhurst Farm has been through the Core Strategy, a master planning process etc; it has been through all sorts of consultation process and you end up getting this it makes me think that there is something wrong. Current practice is that Officers meet and negotiate with developers and logically speaking they get into a position where there is an agreement on things. It is at this late stage that the local community can get involved by which time the deal is probably done. So Buckhurst Farm will be seen by the public as denying residents’ and other groups’ involvement in the consultation process until it is too late for meaningful involvement So will the Executive amend Section 3A Design Principles otherwise the 95 pages of objections to Buckhurst Farm will be the future norm and this will only undermine the excellent principles the Borough Design Guide was meant to address? Answer Leader of Council: Section 3a says “the design process contributes to the quality of the development proposals but also to how effectively they are communicated to Planning Officers, Council Members and the wider community and the degree of support or opposition that may be generated.” So what you are saying is that that is a particularly important section and we must be mindful of that? Cllr Cowan confirmed that he believed that the process must allow all residents to get involved earlier rather than later by which time developers and the Council have more or less an agreed position.

Stig2, Wokingham
21/07/2012 at 23:59

You can always rely on "Cllr Keith Baker" to defend whatever criticism WBC get over these plans, but once again instead of listening, more time is spent defending clls decisions made on behalf of the voters. If more listening was done there would be less need to have justification and defence. Now wouldn't that be a good idea.

As for your comment @Cllr Baker, the address of all the Cllrs is on the WBC web site and it's been transposed onto the google earth map in my previous post. It shows where you all live (postcode only) and the Blue Areas where you have proposed for further development under the SDL (13000 new homes). Take a good look and see for yourself. You can zoom in too... don't think any of those blue blobs are going to affect your quality of life.

It also made me laugh that one of the council committee member who approved the last set of plans in Buckhurst Park actually had to ask for clarification on the plans before the vote. Quote "What is that where the road ends?" oh sir "That's Tescos" incredible!!

Local Woky, Wokingham
21/07/2012 at 13:50

Instead of Wokingham building houses to take up Reading overspill, why doesn't Reading use some of its own green space for new housing. There is a huge area called Prospect Park that could be at least half taken over by new houses and a supermarket. There is also a green strip all the way along the banks of the Thames that could be used for a new road to relieve the traffic problems of central Reading, together with some new houses and supermarkets to help finance the road.

Why not? It is what our council are doing with Elms Field and the fields surrounding Wokingham.

PoneRana, Wokingham
21/07/2012 at 11:25

MAVDO - I think you have hit the nail on the head about these numbers being forced on this and many other councils by successive governments. This started with Labour through the South East Regional Plan and was continued by the Liberal Democrat / Conservative coalition. At all stages this council has vigourously fought governments against these numbers.

So all councils (not just Wokingham) were then faced with a dilemna - stop fighting the numbers and try and make sure we have some degree of control on where these are built or do nothing and allow the unaccountable planning inspectors to simply approve every single appeal as we do not have an approved plan in place.

Stig2 - your comments on consultation and predetermination do not hold up to scrutiny. In my area we refused (along with many others) Sandford Farm but the planning inspector ruled against us. On the SDL for Kentwood Farm we refused but the planning inspector and the Secretary of state ruled against us. The university development has just had a large development at The Manor, Shinfield refused but we expect them to go to appeal. in These are just 3 of many examples where we have been against the development only to have them overturned at appeal.

PoonRana - the toewn centre developemnt has not yet gone through the planning process so you will have every opportunity to comment in the normal way.

Local Woky - I wonder where you think councillors live based on your comment about not being close to the major developments. I live in Woodley and we are having nearly 1,300 new houses being built within approximately 1 mile and half from where I and other councillors live. Similar comments can be made of the vast majority of councillors. Yes there are some who live in outlying villages like Finchampstead but even those areas will be impacted by areas like the Arborfield Garrison site or large sites in neighbouring councils.

Cllr Keith Baker
21/07/2012 at 10:22

'A total of 13,300 homes will be built on the four zones by 2026.'

It's interesting to see where they locations are in comparison to where the Councillors live, this show that Cllr Stanton is quite away from the major development sites like most of the others!!

http://www.warag.org/google-earth-map

You have to also ask why so much green field is being used when there are so many brown field sites and even 500+ empty homes which could be re-developed. Let alone what this will do to the traffic.

For what it's worth there is a petition, but I think the only way the councillors will listen to Wokingham people is when they are voted out.

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

Local Woky, Wokingham
21/07/2012 at 08:07

'A total of 13,300 homes will be built on the four zones by 2026.'

That is a town in itself, and larger than a place like Bangor.

2500 here, 3500 in Arborfield, and this is just in the Wokingham area. Further afield (but only 15 mins drive), there is a 4000 home 'new-town' proposed in Winchfield, 3500 homes definitely going ahead in Aldershot, 1000 in Church Crookham, 1500 in Deepcut near Camberley, more in Bracknell, the list goes on and on.

A matter of a few weeks ago we had Thames Water telling us to cut back on water use. What on earth will they do when there are, in effect, several new towns they have to serve with the same amount of droplets coming out of the sky? Not to mention the traffic, noise, congestion, pressures on schools, hospitals, surgeries.

This is utter madness. Take photos of the woods and fields around you NOW. Your children and grandchildren will never believe they existed.

Dan B
20/07/2012 at 15:08

' I do not understand why we need 13500 houses when WKM's population is slow growing '

Make no mistake, Stig2, the houses WILL NOT be for the benefit of the local community. They will be bought by those who cannot afford to live in areas like London.

Dan B
20/07/2012 at 15:08

@PoneRana - unfortunately developers have been given the "assumed green light" to build almost anywhere they like under this and the previous government in order to address the supposed housing crisis that we are nationally facing. The SDP was designed so that the council had a legal basis for rejecting at least some of the developers' plans, and could control the rest into a co-ordinated longer term strategy. It was also a strategy that matched the government's requirements on councils to build homes and therefore had a strong legal standing against the developers' fights to concrete over our green spaces.

Although I don't see the need for all these houses, I do understand why the council has done this. If they didn't, they'd try and reject many developers' schemes (as many of the electorate would vote for), most would just end up being approved by the Secretary of State and his inspectors who are not answerable to the local electorate at all, nor do they live here or even know anything about the area. The land north of Wokingham is the prime example of this where houses have been approved because the SDP has been delayed too long. The net result would be hundreds of smaller developments with houses crammed in like sardines, and roads packed with cars, so that developers could maximise their profits, and the council could do nothing about it at all except waste our money fighting it in vain.

As this is a government enforced policy, the person responsible for this in our area is John Redwood. He's been strangely quiet on the whole matter because he just pushes the blame off onto local councillors who are being really limited by the policy of HIS government, but then no houses are being built near his mansion, so he's ok. The public have absolutely no say in it whatsoever, and any promise of consultations or public meetings about it is just a farce.

There's nothing I can do about it. The people who are responsible for this are untouchable.

mavdo, Wokingham
20/07/2012 at 14:53

@Stig2 - cynical indeed, but a good point!

Additionally, I had a read of the SDL supplementary planning documents and the foreward includes the following:

'I appreciate that many people did not want further development at all, but I have been encouraged that residents now recognise that if we show we need further development then it must be of the very highest standard. We do live in what is still a high growth area for our nation’s economy and this brings with it inevitable housing needs.'

On the first sentence - I don't think a consultation is required to understand that if houses are forced on us, we would hope they look half-decent! On the second sentence - perhaps it is not as high growth an area as previously thought...

alex_f, Wokingham
20/07/2012 at 14:48

Were the people close to the development aware of the meeting on which you are reporting? I live within a few hundred metres of the proposed development and was not aware of any meeting, that I would certainly attended, taking place.

PoneRana, Wokingham
20/07/2012 at 14:34

Wokingham's population increased by 2.5 percent in the ten years between the 2001 and 2011 censuses. We have had a hosepipe ban due to a water shortage for the last few months. We have a town centre that cannot handle any more traffic. We have a local council that is bent on building on every patch of greenspace within two mile of the centre of the town.

Why can't someone get the message that we don't want or need any more houses built in Wokingham. Those already approved will easily deal with the 2.5 percent requirement for the next ten years.

Objections to the town centre plan are met with the response that it is part of the agreed strategy. Agreed by whom? If I remember correctly residents were invited to comment on the strategy but it never went through a planning process where formal objections could be raised. The other developments around the town are now based on a similar strategy. When will we be able to formally object to these developments without the objections being rejected because its part of an agreed strategy. A strategy that the general public have not had a chance to formally reject.

PoneRana, Wokingham
20/07/2012 at 14:30

I do not understand why we need 13500 houses when WKM's population is slow growing as previously reported by GW. Perhaps, cynically, it is because Governments control council tax in my case I pay £2300 per year and the Govt gives back £130 per person to WBC. A neat tax revenue of £2000 per year from me alone.. so build more houses in WKM and make a huge tax gain.

Stig2, Wokingham
20/07/2012 at 12:48

Cllr Stanton............I take exception to "It is important we press on and that we stop trying to object". We object because of the farcical 'consultations' whereby developments have already been decided by the 'officers' and Cllrs. The big issues have already been decided and you are asking us what colour roads, houses etc do we want.

We want a say in the design.. Why on earth would you build the SDR so that it (a major road) ends up in a housing estate where there are schools and therefore a 30 mph (or 20) limit. You need to find a route which clears the estate. We have no confidence in you or WBC. We need a proper say not a tinkering one.

Stig2, Wokingham
20/07/2012 at 12:39

Still time to waste your breath and be ignored!!!

I have absolutely NO faith in WBC ...

That is all ......

Peter Turner
20/07/2012 at 11:24

Agree with SouthWok, an abolutely terrible idea that will only spoil our green surroundings and increase traffic. They don't have a clue.

Rusty Shackleford
20/07/2012 at 10:37

"It is important we press on and that we stop trying to object"

Really? The most beautiful countryside around Wokingham to be destroyed and gone forever and it is important we press on?

I feel sick to my stomach and it is this single development that wiis the worst one of all.

Destroying Wokingham for us and future generations by turning it into an overpopulated urban sprawl that none of the current residents want and we are supposed to stay quiet.

Disgusted and will be selling up and leaving the area when this all starts.