Question
In a recent article in the Bracknell News Cllr Wayne Smith, when questioned about a proposed site for 270 houses on Council owned land in Barkham explained: “We are required to assess all land promoted for development as part of the local plan process”.
Cllr Wayne Smith also said “We are required to assess all land promoted for development as part of the local plan process” but he did add that “the Council wants a majority of new homes to be built in the so-called ‘Hall Farm / Loddon Valley’ major development in Arborfield” – a location where 2,200 homes could be built by 2037/38 which is the end of the plan period.
If the Council needs to build 2200 houses to meet its housing needs in Hall Farm/Loddon Valley by 2038 yet their draft LPU consultation plan is to build 4500+ houses at Hall Farm meaning many Wokingham residents in the South of the Borough will be forced to live in a building site up to the year 2057 or longer.
From today that is 35 years away. All on the banks of a river that has a history of flooding and under the shadow of a Category A dam at Bearwood Lakes in a climate emergency.
Why do you plan for 2200 houses in the local plan update but consult on 4500+ houses?
Minutes:
Question
In a recent article in the Bracknell News Councillor Wayne Smith, when questioned about a proposed site for 270 houses on Council owned land in Barkham explained: “We are required to assess all land promoted for development as part of the local plan process”.
Councillor Wayne Smith also said “We are required to assess all land promoted for development as part of the local plan process” but he did add that “the Council wants a majority of new homes to be built in the so-called ‘Hall Farm / Loddon Valley’ major development in Arborfield” – a location where 2,200 homes could be built by 2037/38 which is the end of the plan period.
If the Council needs to build 2,200 houses to meet its housing needs in Hall Farm/Loddon Valley by 2038 yet their draft LPU consultation plan is to build 4,500+ houses at Hall Farm meaning many Wokingham residents in the South of the Borough will be forced to live in a building site up to the year 2057 or longer.
From today that is 35 years away. All on the banks of a river that has a history of flooding and under the shadow of a Category A dam at Bearwood Lakes in a climate emergency.
Why do you plan for 2,200 houses in the Local Plan update but consult on 4,500+ houses?
I know you know most of this because we are living with your Plan as we speak.
National policy requires strategic policies in local plans to look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from adoption. However, when larger scale developments form part of a strategy, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead to take into account the likely timescale. Government policy now refers to a 30-year vision.
Providing a long-term vision, which sets out a holistic vision for a new community, can only be the right approach. To take any other route would be significantly misleading because it would be building on, building on, building.
The Hall Farm / Loddon Valley Garden Village proposed in the Revised Growth Strategy Consultation, provides an opportunity to create a sustainable new community with 4,500 new homes alongside jobs and the creation designated with a regional park along the River Loddon Valley, which currently does not have public access.
Setting a long-term vision of the new garden community is the right thing to do. This not only provides transparency; but allows the Council and other stakeholders to plan infrastructure appropriately. Having only a partial or short-term vision, would require infrastructure to be designed and added on in an ad hoc fashion over time, risking the quality and sustainability of the place.
As you are aware, no new homes or jobs would be located within areas at risk of flooding, nor would development have an impact on the communities further downstream. The consideration of flooding has been a key consideration from the outset of the masterplanning analysis, with a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment also undertaken.
I hope that helps.
Supplementary Question
You will recognise that I do not quite agree with that.
In connection with the LPU consultation, referred to in my question, a resident of Arborfield wrote to Michael Gove MP, yourself, Councillor Halsall and Sir John Redwood on 6th December concerning the inconsistency between Michael Gove’s evidence given to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on Monday 8th November and the approach being adopted by Wokingham Borough Council in respect of its strategic plan update. The Secretary of State did reply on 31st January and the resident e-mailed me again, also Councillor Halsall and yourself, on 2nd February. He did advise me that he received no reply or acknowledgement from either of you to both e-mails, although I did reply to both.
My question is as the resident raised his initial concerns to the Secretary of State during the Local Plan Update Consultation period, although the Secretary of State did not reply until 31st January, will you instruct the Local Plan Update Team to accept the reply from the Secretary of State as part of the submitted evidence to the Local Plan Update Consultation?
Supplementary Answer
There is no reason why we would not accept that. Also, Gary as a bill to that John has written to Mr Gove asking for a meeting. The letter that has been written is quite a detailed letter and we are waiting for a meeting with Mr Gove. So, it is not that we are ignoring any communication with the Secretary of State, quite the opposite. We want to meet him to discuss the various points we raised in our letter.