News

People in Wokingham are fighting the plans for Buckhurst Farm
advertisement

Petition into "fundamentally flawed" 650 home plan gathering speed

By Laura Herbert
September 25, 2012

Almost 200 people have signed a petition calling for councillors to review the Buckhurst Farm planning decision after spotting ‘fundamental flaws’ in the plans.

Members of Priest Avenue Residents’ Association (PARA) have so far gathered 186 signatures calling for Wokingham Borough Council to look at four key areas of the outline planning permission granted to David Wilson Homes in April.

The approved 650 homes will be the first phase in a 2,500 home development, which was given the go-ahead by the council’s planning committee despite concerns raised about a main road through the site.

Bob Gunn, PARA chair, said: “Ever since the development has been on the horizon we have been actively involved with it. The question is not one of nimbyism, it is the way the development has been planned. We are not petitioning against the planning application as that has already been granted, we are flagging up issues for when it comes to the final planning application.”

The petition focuses on four key areas – the design of the distribution road, the preservation of protected trees, the position of flood relief balancing ponds and the gap between the new development and properties in Clay Lane.

Campaigner lodges complaint against 650 home plan

Mr Gunn continued: “The road will start at London Road, through the estate, meandering past the school and narrow down in parts to 6m wide.

“This road will become the southern distribution road and will eventually come out by Tesco and then link up with the new Station Link Road, so HGVs coming from the M4 and A329M will use the road rather than going through Wokingham town. This road hasn’t been designed as a bypass.”

He added: “We believe the road is potentially unsafe and it needs to be a road that bypasses the development with roads off it.

“If this is a negligent design and someone is hurt we think Wokingham Borough Council and the planners could be responsible because if the issues are foreseeable and they proceeded with it they are negligent.”

Buckhurst Farm Plans approved despite parking concerns

Benefits of 650 home plan put forward

The group is petitioning the council about trees and a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on the site, claiming the road will cause ‘significant felling’, and that balancing ponds to protect homes from rainwater run-off will become blocked and would like to see them moved further away from the Clay Lane boundary.

The association also proposes the gap between the new development and homes in Clay Lane should be 50m, rather than 35m stated in the outline application, to reduce damage to trees, drainage and address the balancing ponds issue.

PARA will present the petition to the full council when it meets tomorrow at the Civic Offices in Shute End from 7.30pm.

n What do you think about the plans? Do you agree with the residents’ association? Email your thoughts to wokinghamtimeseditorial@trinity south.co.uk.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (10)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 10 of 10

650 here, 3500 in Arborfield and a total of more than 13000 built between now and 2026. So what will happen in 14 years time? What open spaces will be next in line? And then the 14 years after that?? The Telegraph reported yesterday that the UK population is rising by 1000 people A DAY according to ONS reports. Where will everyone live?

I am under no illusions that adding these massive developments will somehow make buying a home more affordable than it is now. If I cannot afford a £225k 2 bed semi now what will it matter if there are several hundred more on the market? Aside from the massive environmental destruction it will do nothing to help first time buyers try to buy a home (and I am one of those). It will simply allow people from further afield like parts of London to buy one (or several) where prices are even more incredible.

Dan B
27/09/2012 at 12:10

@SouthWok . - Well said - more people need to be more vocal.

@mavdo - total agree - I'm still laughing (or crying) over the fact that one of the council committee who voted approval of this development had to ask (in the approval meeting) what that "blob was" on the map.. the blob was Tescos!!! - is there any hope?

Local Woky, Wokingham
25/09/2012 at 22:51

It is not only the distribution road but also that the proposed country park that are in the wrong place. We need parks to be within easy walking distance of the main population, This means that it would be much more sensible to put the country park alongside Clay Lane and move the new housing to the other side of the distribution road. Why are the council so adverse to any green space near the centre of Wokingham? This is another example of the Elms Field debacle. We need parks that can be reached by the population on foot.

PoneRana, Wokingham
25/09/2012 at 14:01

It wasn't many years ago that the council turned down Tesco's request to build its new store on this land DUE TO THE NEED TO MAINTAIN A GREEN BELT BETWEEN WOKINGHAM AND BRACKNELL

PoneRana, Wokingham
25/09/2012 at 13:55

@SouthWok - the blame lies firmly with the government, of both colours. If the council turned this down, or didn't have a development plan that allowed for the development of a stupidly large number of houses, the government employed "independent" inspector would overrule it, and it would be built anyway, and this time without council input and control, and without any S106 payments either, plus the council would have to pay for the appeal. When Eric Pickles, the MP who said that locals should have much more input into planning and building, intervenes in planning cases locally, he just approves them too.

The residents care about themselves, as all residents will always do, so why do many agree that it will be built anyway? I'm betting you are a homeowner already and are quite happy with the value of your home ever increasing, without caring about those who now can't afford a home at all.

This building will happen, and there is absolutely ZERO we can do about it. Voting in a completely different council will not make a jot of difference. I would like much more say in how it is built, providing quality housing of the right size (not chocolate boxes), and with a distribution road to take pressure off our clogged up streets, but even that is seemingly not possible.

mavdo, Wokingham
25/09/2012 at 12:49

The residents association only care about themselves and their cosy little environment.

The crying shame is that this development is allowed to go ahead at all. The last remaining beautiful green part of Wokingham destroyed for ever. Completely unforgivable. Honestly, I'd lie in front of the diggers if I thought I wouldn't be the only one there, but people have rolled over and/or are too lazy to bother and here we are facing the destruction of the last beautiful open space around Wokingham. Well done everyone.

SouthWok .
25/09/2012 at 12:37

wokinghamtimeseditorial@trinity south.co.uk. I SUPPORT BOB GUNN'S (PARA) PETITION.

Stig2, Wokingham
25/09/2012 at 11:48

I fully support Bob Gunn (PARA) and hope that he has more success than the rest of the get wokingham readers have had in the past. Not only do WBC totally ignore every comment through bogus 'consulations' when the design is already in place but the so called officers seem to work in isolation. The officers dealing with the buckhurst farm development and those dealing with the SDR don't appear to talk to one another otherwise this dangerous road scheme would not be in the proposal. The SDR should not end up in a very narrow road and then meander dangerously through the centre of the estate. For heavens sake will the Cllrs and officers kindly get some common sense or resign and let others do the job properly. Enough is enough. It should not come down to WBC being sued for negligence because a child has been killed. It should be sorted out now as Bob Gunn says...

Stig2, Wokingham
25/09/2012 at 11:21

The council won't listen. As I've said many times in the past, they don't listen. They just dismiss it all. They dismissed my comments on the station, even though I was supportive of nearly everything, and they will dismiss all comments on this.

This road matches the previously planned Southern Distribution Road, yet the road comes out by Tesco in between two low bridges. so HGVs cannot use this as a bypass, and it brings out cars into a very congested and very narrow section of road, right on a junction. On top of that they add in width restrictions, speed bumps, put it going past a school (with 20mph limits I hope), and have it going through the middle of an estate. How is this a Distribution Road? It's just a road through an estate.

But despite this making complete sense, the council simply will not listen to anything we say, and will just build it anyway. Where is our traffic relief from our proposed Southern and Northern distribution roads? Are you going to do the same with the Northern one? Perhaps bring it out on the old forest road which has a traffic light controlled narrow bridge on it? Genius.

Why do we vote? WHY!?!

mavdo, Wokingham
25/09/2012 at 10:59

I couldn't agree more with the comments about the Southern Distribution Road. For it to work effectively and safely as a bypass then it needs to be as straight as possible and it needs to run next to, rather than through the middle of the development. It’s a no-brainer that the residential streets should be designed as dead end roads which run off the SDR. With the way it’s designed at the moment, lots of traffic and especially HGVs will still take the route through the town centre as it will be shorter and easier than the bendy road going through the housing development.