Issue - meetings

Recommendation: Conditional Approval Subject to Legal Agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the construction of a segregated fast-track public transport, pedestrian and cycle bridge and viaduct, comprising concrete bridge structure supported by concrete columns, steel beams and reinforced soil embankment, together with new footway links and existing footway alterations, junction improvements and landscaping.

Applicant:Reading Borough Council Highways and Transport Department.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application as set out in agenda pages 55 to 130.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Additional comments of support from Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), Reading Buses, Reading and Wokingham Chamber of Commerce, Reading Business Growth and Skills Committee, Thames Valley Park Management Ltd, Microsoft and the University of Reading;

·           An additional comment from Network Rail;

·           Additional comments of objection from Tesco, Save Our Ancient Riverside (SOAR) and Cllr Bill Luck (Earley Town Council);

·           Additional residential comments objecting to the application (3 from Wokingham, 7 from Reading and 2 from unknown locations);

·           A clarification that 13 trees would be removed, rather than 14;

·           Two formatting corrections relating to pages 88, 89 and 92 of the published agenda.

Michael Firmager, On Behalf of Earley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the Town Council had concerns related to the design of the bridge, which the Town Council felt was unsightly. He added that the plans did not conform to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 124, which stated that developments should be of a high quality design and provide good levels of amenity and should conserve and enhance the surrounding natural environment. Michael stated that the proposed development would be (in essence) a large concrete bridge, which was contrary to NPPF paragraph 130 which stated that permission should be refused for development of poor design that failed to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functioned. Michael added that the proposed development was contrary to NPPF paragraph 170, which stated that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, by protecting and enhancing valued landscaped. Michael stated that the proposed viaduct was too close to the river bank and felt that the proposals did not retain or enhance any features of the existing landscape. Michael stated that the proposed development was contrary to NPPF paragraph 194, which stated that developments should provide exceptional and convincing justification should they harm a designated heritage asset. Michael added that the proposals before the Committee did not make any substantive changes from the proposals which were rejected by the Committee in June 2018 and that they failed to enhance the character of the area or provide any enhancement to Earley. Michael commented on his appreciation for the Save Our Ancient Riverside (SOAR) group with regards to their objection to this application.

Tamzin Morphy, Resident, spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the application before the Committee was the same as the application that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59