News

Shinfield Parish Councillor Marjory Bisset, left, and campaigner Nora Muir, right, show Green Party leader Natalie Bennett the land owned by Reading University which has been earmarked for a two hundred housing development
advertisement

Green leader urges Shinfield residents to speak out

By Jon Nurse
December 19, 2012

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett fears Shinfield could lose its community spirit after plans were approved for hundreds of homes on greenfield land.

The politician believes the plans for 1,350 homes will erode the green lung between Shinfield, neighbouring villages and Reading.

Ms Bennett, who toured the earmarked land with Green parish councillor Marjory Bisset and campaigner Nora Muir on Thursday, learned the proposals were controversially given the go-ahead by Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles in November.

Ms Bennett, who was appointed party leader in September, said: “Development on greenfield land is a big issue.

“This is part of my national campaign. It’s an issue I’ve been finding up and down the country – I’ve seen it in Southampton and Chester.

“We need this greenfield land. It’s the lung between towns and cities.

“If the existing community is absorbed into the development you risk losing the community spirit.

“We need to be developing brownfield areas in places that are appropriate, where people can rely on public transport – not cars.”

The development, granted following appeals by the University of Reading, will include a primary school, supermarket, a community building, sports pavilion and open space, a relief road to Shinfield and an M4 bridge.

Cllr Bisset, of Shinfield Parish Council, said: “It’s going to be a massive new housing estate – it’s too much.

“We are particularly concerned that because of the size there won’t be a meaningful gap between Shinfield and Spencers Wood.

“It’s a considerably larger area than would have been developed if the ruling was in favour of the borough council.

“I want to highlight the conflict between the coalition’s stated support for localism and yet they are ruling in favour of massive development.

“I think it’s in contravention of Wokingham Borough Council’s core strategy which says development must take place around the periphery of villages.”

Ms Bisset pleaded with the university to reduce the number of houses in the plans and urged residents to join neighbourhood planning to shape the development.

“All we can do is work on the neighbourhood plan,” she said. “Shinfield Parish Council has started work on it, which once approved by residents becomes statutory.

“That’s the only way we could influence the way things go and now we can’t change the overall housing numbers.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (17)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 17

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

As I have said before (many times) the answer here is not more house building; it is to reduce the population. The Absolutely Gross increase in UK population causes many many problems, not just housing difficulties. So let's have some appropriate policies, not just in relation to immigration but also to discourage the numbers of children being born. Scrap all Child Allowances for a start: if you bring a child into this world it is your personal responsibility to fend for and succour it. No IVF on the NHS please. And other policies: but it is unfortunately political suicide even to think that way. Malthus understood all this more than 200 years ago and warned of the dangers, but no one takes any notice - except perhaps the Chinese.

AndyMan, Reading
19/12/2012 at 19:57

@Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham

Yes, she absolutely is trying to deny housing to people who haven't got it. Forget the location: whenever any housing is proposed for anywhere, greenfield or brow field, people like her come squirming out of the woodwork, demanding that it be stopped. There is an absolutely desperate need for additional housing, particularly in the south-east and I really despise people who, snug in their own little homes, go out of their way to deny that same sort of security to others.

Daniel in Reading
19/12/2012 at 18:17

Damiano_Tommassi, I suggest that if you want to come on GetReading and picking arguments that you ensure you have your facts air-tight.

The EU's own stats show that one quarter of births in the UK in 2009 were from mothers not born in the UK.

A Labour insider has admitted that opening the doors to foreign immigrants was a policy born to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - http://tinyurl.com/2uzb8gj

Wakey, wakey!

Fred Bloggs
19/12/2012 at 16:56

In the interests of integrity, I will mention that this is the gross number inwards. Net, and with a 4 person per household, would fill up these houses in two and a half days.

But you keep going ahead and campaigning. It's not as if families need places to live or anything like that.

IB Fudger
19/12/2012 at 16:12

"ruling in favour of massive development [of 1,350 homes]"

Guess how many immigrants (according to labour's mouthpiece, the BBC) came to the UK EVERY SINGLE DAY in the last year of Labour's reign of terror?

Give up?

It was 1,553. Every day.

No the word isn't 'massive'. Yes, the word for this is 'treason'.

IB Fudger
19/12/2012 at 16:00

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham

Look at the census figures and tell me where most of this 'natural' growth is coming from. I'll help you, it's from immigrants who have arrived since the last census.

I'm not blaming the Green party for Labour's immigration shambles, read it again. I said that the Greens and Labour are very similar parties.

And yes, Labour's immigration policy is verging on treason. It was done deliberately for political gains. Have a look at what Andrew Neather said at the time, and how statistics showed that 80% of immigrants would vote Labour at the first time of asking. Go google it and see for yourself.

Dong-Ding, 3rd world slum
19/12/2012 at 15:28

Dong-Ding,

The main reason for the need for new houses is natural population increase as a matter of statistical fact.

Blaming the green party for things that you attribute to the Labour party, rightly or wrongly, is ridiculous. You might as well blame UKIP recent government omnishambles, as they are "pretty much the same as" the Tories.

And political gains verging on treason? Seriously? They don't seem to have gained; they're sat on the wrong side of the house.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
19/12/2012 at 15:21

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham

I thought it was a fairly obvious point but clearly it wasn't. The main reason for the need for new houses in this country is the level of immigration which we have experienced over the last 10-15 years. An immigration policy carried out by Labour for their own political gains which verges on treason.

My point about being red on the inside is in reference to the Greens being pretty much the same as Labour, green on the outside and red on the inside.

Dong-Ding, 3rd world slum
19/12/2012 at 15:08

Daniel, she's not trying to deny anyone anything! Honestly, have any of you read the article, understood the point of what is being discussed and come to any sort of conclusion; do you have opinions on each of the points made? Or did you read 'Green party' and start throwing insults needlessly? I have no affiliation with the Greens, and as a neutral I can't understand this outpouring of bile.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
19/12/2012 at 14:55

We need a single campaign across the whole of Wokingham to stop the council destroying our green lungs. This article is worrying about the green areas surrounding our villages. It wasn't so long ago that the council was sworn to preserving a green belt surrounding the town.

What is to become the Buckhurst Farm estate had numerous planning applications rejected at the end of the 20th century citing the necessity of preserving the green belt between Wokingham and Bracknell. I can remember plans from Tesco, Wokingham Football Club and a couple of house builders being overturned

PoneRana, Wokingham
19/12/2012 at 14:53

Dong-Ding, are you trying to make some sort of point? No-one in the article has denied the need for new homes, and I don't see any link between the Green party and Labour (or the communist party, if that's what you're aiming at). Enlighten us, please.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
19/12/2012 at 14:52

Well, I hope Ms Bennet lives in a tent (she's a Green, so it's not completely out of the question...), otherwise it's pretty disgusting that she's trying to deny to other people what she has herself.