Announcement of the Preferred Bypass Route

Wokingham Borough Council will announce their preferred route for the bypass on Monday 15th July, at 7pm at the Henry Street Garden Centre.

If you are a resident of Arborfield Village, Farley Hill or any other of the areas through which the bypass may pass, or a regular user of the A327 this is a vitally important meeting to attend.

RoutesAs a reminder, this is the closest thing to a list of proposed routes that have been published – remember that the only certainty on this diagram is the connections into the existing road network, any real route certainly won’t be a sweeping curve like these.

We can however take some educated guesses as to where the routes might go. Option A is the “do nothing” option. Option B is a long bypass directly connecting directly to the end of the relief road around the South of M4 SDL at Shinfield, it then would take a path a long way from Arborfield but would have a significant effect around Farley Hill – rejoining the existing A327 at the junction with the proposed new access road into the Arborfield SDL. Option C would avoid Farley Hill and would run past Greensward Lane and Arborfield Court, it would meet the A327 again at the existing roundabout between the Garrison and the village itself. Option D would run very tight behind the houses in Chamberlain Gardens and Melrose Gardens, and alongside the recreation ground, effectively closely following the existing public footpath. Whilst this would bypass Arborfield Cross itself the extra traffic would still use the existing A327 past the houses further down the Reading Road. Option E is effectively another tight pass of Arborfield but on the eastern side, running behind the Coombes School and across the fields between Arborfield Cross and Langley Common Road.

We’ve published a poster advertising the meeting, please feel free to print out copies and share them around the affected areas to ensure as many people as possible know about the meeting.

BY PASS POSTER – FINAL.pdf


 

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Update on the Closure of the Shop

It’s now a week since the Spar shop closed suddenly. The closure has been covered both by BBC Berkshire and also by the local press. We’ve had quite a mix of responses.

In general the response has been sympathetic towards the staff at the shop over what they have had to put up with over recent months, with plenty more incidents mentioned to us aside from the two high profile overnight burglaries that ultimately led to the closure. A number of people have commented on the lack of security at the shop – for example no security shutters, and also the lack of visibility of the shop and also the ease with which thieves can escape even on foot through the estate.

The response from ESS, the company who runs the shop for the MoD highlights that the on site shop is still open (for those who aren’t aware there is a second shop within the Hazebrouck Barracks), and whilst this is fine for the MoD personell, for the civillian residents this shop is totally inaccessible. The Arborfield Stores has been highlighted as an alternative convenience store, but the key service missing from there for a number of years is a Post Office.

The alternative Post Offices locally are in Barkham, two in Finchampstead and one in Shinfield, however for a number of services such as collecting a parcel the only option is Shinfield Post Office as the other three are in the Wokingham postal area whereas Arborfield comes under Reading. It is important to note that whilst there is no requirement for the Spar to keep operating, the Post Office Code of Practice requires a six week consultation to be carried out before a Post Office is closed or any changes to the service provision are made – this applies equally whether it is a Post Office or a Post Office hosted in a local shop such as the Spar. Details of the process can be found here, along with contact details for who to complain to when the process is not followed. As with many other things everyone needs to write themselves, so if you are concerned about the lack of a Post Office in Arborfield, please contact the post office and ask them why there was no consultation as required by the code of practice.

Several members have highlighted some related points:

  • A neighbourhood store is usually required for significant housing developments, but in the case of the recent housing developments around the garrison the now closed Spar store was put forward as an alternative, therefore by moving the shop to a location where civillian residents cannot use the shop the MoD is breaking planning conditions under which they developed houses on former barracks.
  • The reorganisation of the local police areas, putting Arborfield in a much larger area has adversely affected policing in Arborfield. In particular the progress our previous PCSO did in reducing anti-social behaviour seems to have been lost.
  • We should collect a petition against the closure.
  • They’ve allowed the shop to be run down, they were just looking for an excuse to close it.

Hopefully a more formal response to the closure will be forthcoming from our Parish Council and Wokingham Borough Council, but given that the Post Office closure consultation process wasn’t followed, it should never have closed or moved in the first place. We would encourage people to personally complain under that process in the first instance.

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Closure of the Garrison Spar Shop

Any Garrison residents who tried to go to the Spar Shop and Post Office in Venning Road today would have got a nasty surprise – literally overnight the shop has been closed, apparently for good, the justification being the two break-ins that have occurred in recent weeks. The statement from the MoD suggests that the shop will be transferred to a more secure location within the base itself, which is of absolutely no use to the numerous local civillian residents who use the shop and in particular use the Post Office which until today was the only Post Office in Arborfield following the closure of the other Post Office on the Eversley Road a few years ago.

Anybody who now needs a post office now has a round trip in excess of three miles to either Barkham or California Crossroads – so much for creating a sustainable community here as pretty well everyone will now end up driving rather than walking to the convenient location in the middle of the Garrison here.

We released the press release below commenting on the closure, and Gill Purchase talked to Phil Kennedy on BBC Berkshire earlier this evening about the closure (Gill’s interview can be heard from 1:16:20 on iPlayer). The radio station is keen to keep up with the story so if you have any comment on the closure, and the difficulties it will cause please give them a call on their usual number 0345 900 1041, or text BERKS and your message to 81333. The Wokingham Times is also going to include the story tomorrow, so again please contact them with any comments.

Whilst there has been an increase in crime recently, the crime figures show that this is normally a quiet and peaceful area – certainly two out of the ordinary incidents are no justification for the overnight closure of the only shop in Arborfield Garrison, and the Post Office for the whole village without any form of consultation.

f – Community Left Without a Post Office With Shock Closure

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

News Roundup

The official consultation period for the planning application closed yesterday, however at the Community Forum meeting on Thursday evening Finchampstead Borough Councillor Simon Weeks who chairs the planning committee publicly confirmed something we’d heard a while ago, that the planning committee will take all responses received before it goes before the committee into consideration. The exact date it will go before the committee has yet to be confirmed, and may yet change given some of the other announcements at the meeting, so we still advise that residents get their responses in sooner rather than later.

There are a number of upcoming public meetings and exhibitions:

  • Finchampstead Parish Council have arranged a public exhibition of the plans at the California Ratepayers Hall next Saturday 29th June between 3pm and 5:30pm. We have to say that we were surprised that this is taking place after the end of the official consultation period, and after Finchampstead Parish Council themselves have submitted their response – how can it be representative of the opinions of residents if the public exhibition to consult them is after the closing date?
  • Wokingham Borough Council has called an additional Arborfield Community Forum on Highways for Monday July 15th we have yet to see an agenda, but we have heard from a number of sources that the council is to announce a preferred route for the Arborfield Bypass. UPDATE: Thanks to Cllr Keith Baker for getting in touch to say that the meeting will be dedicated totally to discussing the output from the Arborfield Relief Road Feasability Study.
  • In addition the agenda for the Arborfield Community Forum was changed at relatively short notice last week to include Cllr David Lee reporting on a meeting he has had with the directors of Crest Nicholson. The company has recently been appointed by the MoD to project manage the development from their side – note that although it’s not highlighted in the press releases they have to work with Wates Developments who are retained as the representatives of the Aegean Trust and Mr and Mrs Kenyon. The significance of this is that David Lee highlighted that two of the directors involved are local to Wokingham, one apparently living in the Arborfield area, and in particular they are not happy with aspects of the plan that has been submitted. Cllr Lee could not be specific about what they were unhappy with, but rather cryptically said that he did not think that the residents would be unhappy with the changes that Crest Nicholson were proposing. As a result Crest Nicholson would like to have a meeting with residents, a meeting that is tentatively scheduled for the third week of July. We will publish date and time details when we have them.

After the threat to the consultation process we received last week, we forwarded details to both Wokingham Borough Council and the police. Local media also picked up on the press release that we issued. A question was asked at the Arborfield Community Forum and the council officers confirmed that they have examined all the responses in favour received so far and are satisfied they are genuine. They also highlighted that any member of the public is free to come in to the council and similarly examine the responses. We have sent a formal letter to the council asking them to do everything they can to ensure the consultation process is carried out fairly and transparently for the benefit of everybody involved.

The council is currently running an Open Spaces consultation looking at parks and gardens, natural/semi natural green space, amenity green space, provision for children and young people, civic space, outdoor sports facilities, allotments, indoor sports facilities (sports halls), Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS), swimming pools and activity halls (community buildings). In terms of Arborfield it discusses dual use of school facilities and reuse of existing MoD facilities. The consultation is being carried out using a very simple online survey that we would encourage interested residents to fill in.

The main topic of discussion at the Arborfield Community Forum was schools, the secondary provision in particular. Whilst earlier drafts of the SDL plans included significant contributions for schools, and council suggestions that Emmbrook School might be moved to Arborfield changes in government regulations have curtailed that. At the meeting Piers Brunning from Wokingham Borough Council highlighted that one of the reasons for closing Ryeish Green, and moving Emmbrook was to be able to sell off the land and get the money from that sale to finance new schools. Unfortunately since local parents successfully opened a free school on the Ryeish Green site the council has been unable to do that. With increasing numbers of schools in the area becoming academies, and with the council fearing that if Emmbrook was moved local residents would similarly set up a free school and obtain the Emmbrook site, the council has changed their strategy. However another side effect of the free school regulations is that now the council is seen as provider of last resort, there is a process of putting new schools out to tender to go through before the council can even consider opening a school themselves. This led to some quite heated discussion, especially from busy and hardworking parents present, as the quickest way to get a school built on the SDL is for parents themselves to set up a free school – that could be up and running by September 2015. Going the academy route it would realistically be September 2017 when a school might be opened. Piers is gathering contact details for parents who wish to be involved with a potential free school bid, so if any parents are interested in being involved, please contact Piers.

Other interesting points to come out of the discussion are that whilst a strong argument for having a school here has always come from Finchampstead, with four primary school forms coming from the two SDL based primary schools when fully open, and currently approximately three and a half primary school forms coming from the existing schools at Farley Hill and Coombes, the six form entry school on the SDL will end up being almost exclusively for children on the SDL and around given the tiebreak criteria is distance to the school. As such once all the houses on the SDL have been built, another solution for secondary school provision in Finchampstead will be needed.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Threat to the Consultation Process

Today our group received an anonymous threat to the fair running of the consultation process for the planning application.

A developer is someone who wants to build houses in the countryside.  Conservationists say NO! NO! NO!

What is a conservationist?  Someone who owns a house in the countryside.

Drove through your village at the weekend.  I wept when I thought of all the beautiful green space which was cleared to make way for your big houses.  I think it is time the government started clearing villages like yours and returning the spaces to nature.  You can be compensated at the value of farmland without planning permission – let’s say 2-3,000 an acre?  That should pay for four months rent of a BTL microflat by the M3 at Junction 4a.

Worried about traffic you say?  Hmm, there were an awful lot of cares parked in drives when I went through the place.  Best you all switch to bicycles if you are so worried about pollution and noise.

By the way, me and a few friends have just started a discrete action group to get people on the internet to email and write to WBC in support of this development plan.  Wr’ve done it before – a few dozen students disrupted a similar local action group in a Sussex town of 10,000 who tried to block the building of a few hundred houses.  Thanks in advance for giving up your information to the electoral record, residents, it will come in much use – as will your lists of people to contact.

Due to the way consultations are carried out, the process is open to abuse. As the threat highlights unless people have expressly asked to be removed from the public version, the electoral register is a public document and is available to search online, so it is easy for people to retrieve the names and addresses of a number of local people and write fake letters from them to submit them to the process. For example responses in support of a controversial Tesco store in Leeds were found to be forged, and the threat highlights similar action they claim to have carried out on a controversial development in Sussex.

As such we are calling on Wokingham Borough Council to ensure that the consultation process for this important planning application is conducted in a way that is fair to all local residents and to the applicants by properly validating all replies to ensure that they are genuine.

We have released the following press statement, and will be formally contacting senior officers at Wokingham Borough Council to ask them to take the necessary actions. In the mean time if you have not yet submitted your comments, it is even more important that you make representation to the council, instructions on how to submit your comments can be found here.

Consultation Threatened

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How to Submit Your Comments on the Planning Application

Many local residents and anybody on the council mailing list will have had details of how to submit comments sent to them, possibly several times, however if you’ve mislaid the letter or haven’t as yet found yourself on any Wokingham Borough mailing lists below is a quick summary of how to make your comments.

We have previously published a guide on how to actually locate the planning application online, which can be found here. It is available both on the council site, and also on the Arborfield Vision site.

The council have a page detailing how to comment on a planning application which can be found here. That page also deals what matters you can and cannot comment on.

When writing or e-mailing we would recommend that you prominently include the application number, which is O/2013/0600 and also say clearly whether your letter is either in support of the application, a comment on the application or objecting to the application. Neither of these things have to be included, but it helps the overworked officers at the council if you do.

Another tip to ensure your comment gets noted (we found some comments in previous consultation exercises were never recorded) is to send it both by post, and also by e-mail, highlighting that you’re doing so in the letter. Given the vagaries of the postal system we would strongly recommend e-mailing your comments, or a scan of your letter.

One final point is that the council will be using responses to this application as an exercise in clearing their mailing list, so if you do not submit a comment to the application they will not contact you again about subsequent applications relating to the strategic development location.

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Further Comments for the Arborfield Garrison Landowners Consortium Planning Application

General comments

  • The planning application is premature as the route for the Arborfield Bypass has not been agreed and this will impact on the Traffic Assessment.
  • It is not clear when the Army will be vacating the entire site. Development should start on the brownfields ‘behind the wire’ and not on farmland, as is proposed in the Planning Application.
  • WBC should not approve the Planning Application unless it is entirely satisfied the Applicant has proved that ‘nil detriment’ is achieved on all roads, as per the Core Strategy.
  • WBC’s Core Strategy has been justified and pushed through by Councillors, despite significant opposition from residents, on the basis the landowners and developers will have to pay a much larger contribution towards the necessary infrastructure than would be the case with smaller developments.  The contribution to be paid by AGLC has yet to be agreed. Councillors must now deliver on this promise.

Phasing: Greenfield v Brownfield

The very first phase of the development (1a) cuts right through open farmland. There is no reason why Sheerlands Road can’t be used initially to provide access for construction traffic to the new District Centre. Development should start on brownfield areas, behind the wire and when the Army have physically left the Garrison.

Layout of District Centre

  • The layout is based on town centres such as Hungerford, which is inappropriate for a village feel in a rural setting. In particular, traffic lights at the main district centre junction give the area an urban feel.
  • It is not desirable to have the food store as a prominent feature of the district centre and this is not in keeping with a village feel or the Garden City concept.
  • The design statement promotes an enclosed public space.  More of the community facilities and shops should face the ‘village green’.

Density and Height of buildings

The density and height of the proposed houses in the middle to high density areas is not in keeping with a village and is too urban for this location

Protected trees

It is essential to keep all protected trees to maintain the rural character of the area. It seems some protected trees will be lost because of the planned access road from the A327. The route should be looked at again to prevent the loss of these trees.

Location of secondary and primary schools

  • The layout of the primary school and secondary school should be designed to ensure there are convenient drop off points which don’t block the main road. The design of the school buildings should be sympathetic to the rural character.
  • It is not at all clear how children from Finchampstead will be able to get to the new secondary school other than by car.

SANG: The SANGS will not be easily accessed in the early phases of the development.

 

Traffic Assessment

  • The traffic assessment is effectively invalid as it does not take into account the actual route of the Arborfield Bypass, which is yet to be announced by WBC.
  • The document is filled with inaccuracies e.g. stating Nine Mile Ride passes through the village of Finchampstead.
  • Trip rates seem unrealistic such as assuming 89% of the retail trips are internally generated and therefore only 11% of the supermarket customers will come from outside the development.
  • A number of the proposed junction improvements involve using third party land
  • Over half the proposed traffic improvements involve putting traffic lights at busy junctions.

Proposed junction changes:

Junction Existing traffic control Proposed traffic control Comment
Arborfield Cross roundabout Roundabout Traffic lights previously stated as preferred option but not included in application, shortest bypass route Full bypass needed
New access A327 to Nine Mile Ride Extension New standard roundabout
Nine Mile Ride/ Park Lane/ NMRE New roundabout
Langley Common Road/ Biggs Lane T junction Roundabout
Barkham Road/Barkham Street Roundabout Highway mitigation scheme (traffic lights)
Barkham Road/ Bearwood Road Roundabout Traffic lights
Barkham Road/ Evendon’s Lane Roundabout Traffic lights
Barkham Ride/Barkham Street/ Commonfield Lane T junction Make Commonfield Lane one way Unworkable proposal
Biggs Lane/Park Lane/Commonfield Lane T junction Mini roundabout
Nine Mile Ride/Finchampstead Road (California Crossroads) Two linked mini roundabouts Conventional traffic lights with additional left turn lanes Taking land from Cresswells Garage forecourt: Insufficient room for petrol tankers so garage forced to close
Barkham Bridge Priority one way Absolutely nothing Additional traffic is expected to go around via Commonfield Lane instead

 

Buses

The Planning Application talks about promoting sustainable transport modes. However:

  • There is no new bus routes proposed e.g. express routes and so sustainable travel relies entirely on the 144 bus, which only goes to Wokingham and Reading.
  • There are no proposals to increase the frequency of the 144 bus service in Phase 1 of the development.
  • The bus service will have to operate on congested route into Reading.

Cycle routes/ Bridle ways: The idea of combining bridle ways and cycle routes is impractical in many cases and one metre is not a sufficient width for a bridle way and does not meet standards.

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leaflets and Press Release

As the deadline for comments on the planning application next Friday approaches we have today released a press release about the school plans, along with a leaflet that is being delivered to as many houses as we can in Arborfield. If you can help by printing out some copies and distributing them to your neighbours that will help cover streets we don’t get to. Also here is the equivalent leaflet that Eversley Matters and Eversley Parish Council are distributing to residents in Eversley, again if this leaflet is more appropriate please print out and distribute to your neighbours. As the leaflet says EVERY REPLY MATTERS.

Secondary School Final

EPC Arborfield Application Leaflet 2013

Time is Running Out

Posted in Flyers | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Further Points for the Arborfield Garrison Landowners Consortium Application

Firstly thanks to everybody who has copied us in on your comments so far, below are a selection of points that have been raised that you may like to include:

  • The application proposes new full time traffic lights at California Crossroads but has no mitigation at all for White Horse Lane. White Horse Lane is currently a rat run at peak times and if there is a problem causing long queues at California Crossroads, full time traffic lights will result in significantly increased traffic trying to use the single track White Horse Lane.
  • The application proposes making Commonfield Lane in Barkham one way – however Highbarn Farm uses the lane to move farm equipment from the farm to fields, is this supposed to go all the way round via Barkham Bridge, or alternatively via California Crossroads?
  • The application indicates that the Garrison Church will be retained for community use, however it is also proposing to build a four storey block of flats on the Garrison Church parking. Where are the future users of the Garrison Church supposed to park?
  • The application includes no plans at all for the A327 – Reading Road in Finchampstead, nor the A327 – The Street in Eversley. If the army retain their housing stock on the Garrison site MoD personell that currently walk to work will instead be driving to Aldershot along the A327 – Reading Road and the A327 – The Street.
  • The community centre appears a little small considering that the proposal is to remove the existing community centre that serves the existing housing and put those functions into one community centre for the whole SDL, Jennetts Park in Bracknell has a much larger centre for many fewer houses.
  • The application proposes beginning work on the Kenyon and Aegean Trust land before the MoD have fully vacated, given that since the closure announcement the MoD have gradually increased the numbers of houses they are retaining what guarantees do we have that the MoD won’t renege on their promises again – the MoD first said they would leave Arborfield Garrison in 1937 and they’re still here! We increasingly run the risk of having a significant community of service personnel and their families with limited facilities surrounded by half a new community because the MoD still occupy land that is needed for new facilities. Building should not be allowed to start until the MoD have fully vacated the site how many more times will Wokingham Borough Council believe MoD promises only to be let down?
  • Wildlife and the countryside will slowly be lost for ever due to traffic and urbanization.  Finchampstead is currently a place to walk and observe wildlife. Deer, red kite, bluebells on White Horse lane in the Spring and many other features of real countryside not sterile SANGs. Gradually traffic is eroding the environs of Finchampstead as a habitat for wildlife. The pace of this deterioration will be considerably increased by the new development . Environmental degradation occurs very slowly and you are only aware of it when it is too late to reverse.
  • Regarding north-south traffic, a Government-funded bypass from Shinfield to the west of Arborfield and past Eversley will actually attract through traffic from a wide area and become a de-facto M4-M3 link, urbanising some delightful countryside.
  • The Woosehill application was initially turned down on the grounds of ‘prematurity’. Having been told that Census 2011 travel-to-work data won’t be available until at least October, and because we don’t yet know what will happen to the Lyneham development, can we ask for a deferral on the grounds of ‘prematurity’ until they are published?
  • The bypass route has not been announced, and must be able to calibrate its effect based on known travel-to-work patterns of civilian Garrison-area residents from the 2011 Census; the data won’t be available until at least the end of 2013.

  • Until the Station Link Road is complete and in operation, we won’t know whether it will improve matters or make them worse for eastbound traffic from Arborfield. In any event, we do know that there will be more peak-time trains through Wokingham in the next couple of years.

Please feel free to share your letters and e-mails and we will pass on any new points that are made.

If you have lost, or didn’t receive a letter with details on how to respond, details can be found on the Wokingham Borough site. The page also includes a list of matters that are considered not relevant for any comments.

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

 

Posted in Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment