Arborfield Garrison Landowners Consortium Planning Application Points

There are currently just over two weeks to get your comments for the Outline Planning Application from the Arborfield Garrison Landowners Consortium back to the council. Even if you have only a few comments to make it is vitally important that as many people as possible make representation to the council. Also if you are happy to share your comments with us please send them to us via the usual contact links. Also if you are happy for us to publish your comments on the site to give other residents some ideas we would be happy to do so. We will happily remove names and addresses if you wish those to remain confidential.

As a start Gary Cowan local councillor for Arborfield has passed on a list of points that he has collected and we are grateful for Gary allowing us to share them:

With the move to Lyneham not yet finalised development is expected to start on the green field areas indentified as RO1 to RO12. This will create various problems as follows

• Access to public transport (400M)
• Access to the SANG’s
• Area subject to surface water flooding
• Has the EA approved flood mitigation?
• Protection to trees on the A327 Green Route
• Protection required for  ancient hedges in this area
• Tree protection required for all the suitable trees on site
• The plan puts the existing flora and fauna at risk.
• New proposed road in the flood area
• Additional protection required to the existing badger run.
• Three story building heights inappropriate in a rural location
• Densities over 30 per Ha also inappropriate in a rural location
• Phasing is crucial and phased adoption must be in place otherwise new residents may have to live in an incomplete “building site” for well over 10 years if past history is anything to go by. This applies to the site overall and not just the starting phases

With respect to the main application overall I would make the following comments

• An important source of history is the Appeals at Whitehall Brick and Tile (Badgers Mount), Penrose Park and Poperinghe Way (Poppyfields) as elements do impact on how the garrison development evolves particularly in relation to the private sector access to MOD facilities including Public Open Space.
•  Large areas of the development are planned to have densities in the region of 45 per hectare making those parts 50% denser than Penrose Park which is very urbanising in a rural location.
• Four story development (R29/30) is also planned is unacceptable in the current rural “green” core of the garrison amongst areas currently protected by TPO’s
• There will be many problems around the impact of traffic overall not addressed in the PA with the MOD favouring traffic lights as a solution for example at Barkham Bridge with no major improvements seem to be planned for traffic heading into Wokingham or along the nine mile ride.
• The bypass route needs to be agreed/clarified as part of the planning application.
• Commonfield Lane should be upgraded to take 2 way traffic comfortably
• Improvements required on barrier down time at Wokingham Station
• Public Transport should include a “fast” bus service to Wokingham, Reading and Crowthorne Stations at peak hours and it could be linked to transport to the new secondary school.
• The proposed secondary/Primary school must be supported by a well designed pick up and drop off scheme. Designated school transport is required for the secondary school as the local roads will not take all the development traffic as well as the school run as most children who attend the new school will be within the three mile limit for school transport. Yellow busses are the answer but that be maybe for the council to manage.
• 50% of the garrison will become public open space which is a positive but the layout of the shopping area is very urban in design where with a simple change it could have a much better village feel by creating the outlook facing the open space rather than the car park. Children’s play areas could be part of the “new” outlook as could good community facilities.
• The MOD proposes the use of existing garrison recreational facilities but although they are to a good standard they fall well short of what is needed to support a development of this size.
• There should be no double counting of community facilities or open space as what is needed for the existing residents must be included (See Penrose Park and other local appeals) It would also be good to keep the museum somewhere on site.
• The housing variety and sizes will make allowance for existing sizes of houses on the garrison to give a better balance to the housing on the garrison.
• Proper buffer zones to water courses to protect water voles and other creatures
• Local need should be a consideration in allocation of affordable housing
• Allotments should be allocated on a parish basis depending on need and waiting lists
• the opportunity to provide self build opportunities should be considered.
• Culverts and small streams must have proper protection for the existing water voles and other fauna rather than the failed attempt at Penrose Park
• Some of the PA  is not in line with the master plan

Once again our thanks to Gary for sharing his points with the wider community.