The following petition containing in excess of 1,500 signatures, which is the threshold to trigger a debate at Council, was submitted at the Council meeting held on 20 September 2018:
“Please sign our petition to generate a debate at Wokingham Borough Council and help defeat any impending plans for development of housing on Barkham Square and any other unsuitable sites that may be considered in the future. We the undersigned urge Council Members to hold a debate addressing proposals for 1,000+ houses which are in addition to the 3,500 houses already with planning permission. This is not only contrary to the adopted current Council planning policy but will have serious traffic and other implications for Barkham and surrounding parishes.
The main site proposed is Barkham Square. Residents accepted the development of the former Arborfield Garrison site as it involved largely regeneration of brownfield land but now the wider area is being exposed to potential development creep, meaning encroachment upon the much valued countryside and on our overstretched roads within Barkham, Arborfield and Finchampstead. This goes against current Council planning policies (such as CP11) which were designed to protect the separate identify of settlements.”
Minutes:
The Deputy Mayor announced that a petition containing in excess of 1,500 signatures, the threshold to trigger a debate at Council, had been received at the Council meeting on 20 September 2018:
Chris Heyliger and Laurence Heath, petition organisers, presented the petition the wording of which was:
“Please sign our petition to generate a debate at Wokingham Borough Council and help defeat any impending plans for development of housing on Barkham Square and any other unsuitable sites that may be considered in the future. We the undersigned urge Council Members to hold a debate addressing proposals for 1,000+ houses which are in addition to the 3,500 houses already with planning permission. This is not only contrary to the adopted current Council planning policy but will have serious traffic and other implications for Barkham and surrounding parishes.
The main site proposed is Barkham Square. Residents accepted the development of the former Arborfield Garrison site as it involved largely regeneration of brownfield land but now the wider area is being exposed to potential development creep, meaning encroachment upon the much valued countryside and on our overstretched roads within Barkham, Arborfield and Finchampstead. This goes against current Council planning policies (such as CP11) which were designed to protect the separate identify of settlements.”
Mr Heyliger addressed the meeting and set out the background to the petition. He stated that over 4,000 residents had shown concern over redevelopment in Barkham and the surrounding area by signing the petition. It was the largest petition submitted to Council. It was time for the Council to listen to residents and demonstrate its commitment by taking action to address residents’ concerns.
Mr Heyliger commented that enough was enough with regards to development in Barkham. With regards to traffic, Mr Heyliger stated that Barkham was a rural parish with narrow roads that could not be easily widened. The Strategic Development Location would more than double the area’s size and if an additional thousand homes were built in Barkham Square, it would more than triple in size. With less than 15% of development built so far, he believed that intolerable pressure would be placed on the surrounding roads. He highlighted that 86% of local residents currently travelled to work by car. Planned road improvements at Nine Mile Ride Extension and the Arborfield Relief Road would not alleviate traffic issues within Barkham.
With regards to the countryside, Mr Heyliger stated that a neighbourhood survey highlighted the importance of the countryside to many residents. The Strategic Development Location had been sold as a separate community within a separate separation boundary. However, this would not be the case if Barkham Square and surrounding areas were built upon and the separation distances would be filled in. Mr Heyliger felt that Planning Policy CP18, which intended to maintain separation between the Strategic Development Location and the surrounding settlements, would be contravened. The importance of the separation gap had been recognised.
Mr Heyliger went on to state that Barkham Square was not a sustainable location. It was poorly served by roads and there were no shops. 1800 additional houses within the Strategic Development Location had been accepted by Barkham so Barkham was not opposed to development overall.
Members discussed the petition. John Kaiser stated that it did not matter whether there were many more housing applications agreed, it was down to the ability of the developers to deliver the housing, something which the Council had no control over. Development of the area he felt would place a blight on existing residents’ homes, destroy the countryside and have an impact on the local way of life. John Kaiser went on to state that the levels of traffic congestion in Barkham and the surrounding area would increase and create problems. In Wokingham less than 20% of the houses approved had been built and there were already traffic congestion problems. He was of the view that two other potential sites identified were unlikely to proceed so Barkham Square was an easy target.
Andy Croy commented that the concerns raised were shared by residents in other areas in the Borough.
Ian Pittock stated that the site allocated for 3,500 houses in the Aborfield Strategic Development Locations had been largely a brownfield site. He believed therefore that the Arborfield, Finchampstead and Barkham areas had done their bit with regards to development across the Borough and that other areas could do more. There should not be any creep in development around the edges of the Strategic Development Locations. He felt that traffic issues in Finchampstead South would be exacerbated by development in Barkham and went on to state that new residents would be expected to make use of the already busy Finchampstead and Swallowfield surgeries.
Stuart Munro emphasised that the petition was premature in the process, in that the consultation on the Local Plan Update had only begun that week. All sites would be subject to comprehensive assessment and engagement before the Council approved its preferred strategy and allocations through the statutory Local Plan process. The Council would then advocate these to the Independent Local Plan Inspector and resist the alternative options being promoted, taking account of the specific circumstances in each case.
Carl Doran stated that the Government had created a climate which was favourable to developers.
David Chopping emphasised that there was a requirement for affordable and local new homes across the Borough but only where local need and appropriate available sites were identified. Decisions should be driven by local need and sustainability. Before building could take place planning for appropriate infrastructure and facilities was vital. He went on to emphasise that the Council’s decisions were sometimes overruled by the Planning Inspectorate.
Lindsay Ferris commented that the Objectively Assessed Housing Need number (OAN) for the Borough was at least 200 higher than that of neighbouring authorities. The increase in homes represented a 30% growth in properties over an 18 year period. He felt that a lower OAN, in line with that of neighbouring authorities, needed to be achieved.
Gary Cowan stated that a development in this location was unsustainable and unachievable.
Wayne Smith emphasised that Barkham Square was one of over 300 possible sites identified and that all would be assessed comprehensively. He encouraged residents to come to one of eight consultation events across the Borough to give their views.
In summing up Laurence Heath stated that the Local Plan Update had supposedly been well under way at the time the petition had been circulated but consultation had only recently been announced. He felt that Wokingham was the victim of unrealistic housing targets and that developing Barkham Square would create an urban sprawl to the east and west. He encouraged the Council to lobby central Government with regards to planning policy and to explain why the housing targets were unrealistic.
The following Motion was proposed by Stuart Munro and seconded by Wayne Smith:
‘All sites will be subject to comprehensive assessment and engagement before the Council approves its preferred strategy and site allocations through the statutory Local Plan process. Subsequently, we will advocate these to the Independent Local Plan Inspector and resist the alternative options being promoted taking account of the specific circumstances in each case. The process will only be complete once the plan has been endorsed by the Inspector and adopted by the Council.’
Upon being put to the vote, the Motion was declared by the Deputy Mayor to be carried.
RESOLVED: That all sites will be subject to comprehensive assessment and engagement before the Council approves its preferred strategy and site allocations through the statutory Local Plan process. Subsequently, we will advocate these to the Independent Local Plan Inspector and resist the alternative options being promoted taking account of the specific circumstances in each case. The process will only be complete once the plan has been endorsed by the Inspector and adopted by the Council.