CONSULTATION SUMMARY – GARRISON (ARBSPD)

ARBORFIELD SDL SPD: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR STATUTORY CONSULTATION JUNE-JULY 2011

INTRODUCTION

This report contains a summary of the comments received as a result of the statutory consultation on the draft SPD. It also provides suggested responses from the Council, alongwide recommendations regarding changes to the draft SPDs.

Overall, it is important to note that consultation comments addressed matters that broadly divide into three categories:

Adopted Core Strategy: Matters which have already been agreed in the Adopted Core Strategy, and are covered by policies contained within that document. The SPD cannot alter or amend policies e.g. the principle of the development and the number of dwellings required for each SDL. These issues, whilst relevant to the development of the SDLs are outside the role and function to the SPDs.

SPD: Matters that are within the scope of the SPD, e.g. the preferred areas for development and the design quality of the development, and are therefore worthy of full consideration for the purposes of the consultation exercise. Where it is considered appropriate, changes to the SPD have been recommended in response to these comments.

Implementation: Matters which will be considered as part of the ongoing Development Management process, in light of the fact that the development of large scale SDLs will require ongoing design, planning and review over the anticipated build-out period. This includes, for example, the detailed design of highways, specific junction improvements and flood prevention and protection measures.

Inevitably there will be some areas of overlap. However, the following matrix indiates in the righthand column under “WBC Response” which category the issue being discussed most appropriately falls into.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 1 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – (ARBSPD)

Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Location SPD – Consultation Responses Theme 1: THE SDL DEVELOPMENT – Topic: Availability of land for development / Greenfield development / Scale of development / Separation of settlements Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Availability of land for development FC2/AG/4 Sarah Turner Agrees that further houses are required but not Summary behind the “wire” or before sites are vacated. There is general support for the Area B should be left untouched. redevelopment of the Garrison site to FC2/AG/9 Ali Payne Accepts that housing developments are needed in help meet housing need in the area. some areas but suitability of land must be assessed However, many respondents are by people who know the local impacts. concerned that the MoD has not FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte No development until Garrison has closed. Project confirmed a date for when it will vacate unviable if Garrison does not close. the site, which they believe will impact FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Understands the need to build on Arborfield upon the viability and deliverability of the Garrison but objects to start of development until proposed SDL. Garrison has closed. FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Understands the need to build on Arborfield The majority of respondents object to Garrison but objects to development until closure or green field development as part of the Garrison. SDL in particular Area B and existing FC2/AG/25 Neil Rickard Would have broadly supported redevelopment of playing fields. brownfield army site but objects to Greenfield development. WBC Response FC2/AG/26 Col J M Gaff Because of vacillating record of MoD with regard to actually vacating the site no development should The MoD is actively promoting the site for start until the MoD has left. development and its position has become FC/AG/28 Julie Scott Understands need to build on brownfield sites but clearer with its signalled departure from development should not start until the Garrison has the Garrison by 2013/14. The issue closed. continues to be monitored. FC2/AG/30 Andrew Clint Broadly supportive of the development but only once site has been vacated. The viability and phasing of infrastructure FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton No objection to new housing but not before site is is vital to allow sustainable development vacated. Areas B, C and D should not be built on to occur at Arborfield. The ARBSPD has and the existing playing fields should remain as well been amended to clarify the importance as existing green areas. Suggestion to turn areas B, of achieving overall delivery to ensure a Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 2 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

C & D into a country park. sustainable development for Arborfield. FC2/AG/34 Nigel Harry Development on brownfield sites is understandable but no development should start until Garrison has To deliver fully the necessary closed and brownfield site has been vacated. infrastructure it is important to ensure the FC2/AG/36 Steve Honour Acceptance of need for further housing. availability of land controlled by the FC2/AG/37 Martina Neubert & Concerns about uncertainty of MoD’s intentions for Consortia and MoD, to allow the phased Stephen Saunders Arborfield Garrison and no development should release of land for development to trigger proceed until site has been cleared. Development infrastructure delivery. should then commence on brownfield land. FC2/AG/38 Beth Quainton Acceptance of re-development of brownfield site but The ARBSPD stresses the need for an objection to development of Area B that is agreed Infrastructure Delivery Plan - to Greenfield land. address phasing - that will accompany FC2/AG/40 Katherine Taylor-Jones Plans suggest inclusion of privately owned land planning applications for Arborfield which writer considers unrealistic. Also MoDs (paragraph 1.21 and 4th bullet para. departure is unconfirmed. 2.4.10, 6a(v) and 6.1.1), and will be a key FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Understanding of need for housing but development consideration in the Local Authority's should not start before Garrison is closed. Should decision-making. MoD not vacate site only Greenfield development could go ahead which would be non-viable. Additional text has been included in FC2/AG/42 Neil Bidston Appreciates the need for houses and need to build paragraph 1.3.9 to emphasis the need for on brownfield sites but raises series of concerns a comprehensive approach to Arborfield's including that no development should start until delivery that states "...the overarching Garrison has closed and brownfield site has been consideration here is achievement of a vacated. sustainable community.” FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Need to build on brownfield sites is accepted but the development should not start until the Garrison has In reference to the resistance to the use closed and brownfield sites are vacated (if MoD of Greenfield land, and the prioritisation does not vacate site, whole project becomes of a “Brownfield first” approach to unviable). phasing, it is clear that the housing FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Need to build on brownfield sites is accepted but the targets for a borough which is development should not start until the Garrison has predominantly rural could not be met closed and brownfield sites is vacated (if MoD does without development on Greenfield land. not vacate site, whole project becomes unviable). It should also be highlighted that the SPD FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey What guarantees are there that the MoD will depart promotes the delivery of a high quality, the Garrison and when? Any work should start after well designed development, which is likely to take fifteen years to be fully Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 3 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

MoD has vacated site. completed. Artificial restrictions on FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat Highlights risk that MoD might not vacate the land phasing may hinder the achievement of as expected which could lead to an unviable the best possible development outcome development. in the longer term, and whilst the FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Need to build on brownfield land is accepted but no inclusion of the MOD land is a key development should start until the Garrison has element of the Core Strategy, a closed and the brown field site has been vacated by “brownfield first” approach should not the MoD. If Garrison does not close, the whole take priority over the good design, scheme becomes unviable. planning and infrastructure delivery of the FC2/AG/89 Seal Family Writer would accept small development on SDL. brownfield site of the Arborfield Garrison if and when MoD has vacated it. Section 8 of the SPD (pages 68-69) FC2/AG/93 Laura Donnelly Would support re-development of the brownfield emphasises the importance that an areas of the MoD site when the MoD ceases to use agreed phasing strategy will be for the the site (if indeed this is confirmed to be the case) developers and Consortia in securing but has no idea of the extent of the plans (building planning permission and in delivering a to greenfield land; development stretching almost to sustainable scheme for Arborfield. The and ). SPD states clearly that "piecemeal and FC2/AG/105 Robert Briggs No development until MoD has completely moved ad hoc applications which do not deliver out. a coherent and integrated strategic FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates While need to build on brownfield sites is infrastructure will be resisted (paragraph understood, no development should start until the 6.4.1). Garrison has closed (should MoD not vacate the site, the whole project would become unviable.) The ARBSPD also recommends that FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach No building works should start before the army has existing buildings and previously left the site. Hogwood Industrial Estate is currently developed sites be brought forward in the underutilised because of its poor location and is early phases of development (paragraph therefore unlikely to attract major employers. 6.4.2). FC2/AG/124 Mark Jones It is unclear if the army will more as planned. Therefore any development on greenfield site may Recommendation not be supported by required infrastructure to cope with extra volumes of cars, people, services etc. Text to be added in para. 2.2.1 that sets FC2/AG/128 Patricia Green As has sufficient land resources, there out the MoD’s commitment to leaving the (FC2/NW/10, is no need to designate any further sites. Garrison site and the responsibility of FC2/SW/15, WBC to monitor the MoD’s position.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 4 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/SM4/33) FC2/AG/132 Fred Trigg In principle in favour of brownfield development but (see above for summary, WBC response (FC2/IDC/6) concerns with this development. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/141 Dr Gail Milligan There is a genuine concern that the army may change their plans in which case the brownfield sites would not become available and houses would have been built on greenfield sites without supporting infrastructure. FC2/AG/144 David George Land Opposed to development going ahead before the certainty that the Garrison brownfield site will be available. FC2/AG/145 Elizabeth Peat Concern that if brownfield land does not become available the necessary infrastructure and services cannot be delivered and the entire Arborfield SDL would be not longer viable. FC2/AG/148 Matthew Payne If MoDs departure is delayed or cancelled the viability of the entire project would be put at risk. FC2/AG/154 Rick Wilson No development should start before the MoD has vacated the site. FC2/AG/156 Grace & Ernie Sackey It would appear the MoD have not finally decided to vacate the site. FC2/AG/158 Mr & Mrs Helliwell Development should be restricted to within the perimeter of the Garrison brownfield site and work should not commence until the site has been completely vacated by MoD. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Framework should not be finalised until the detail of the Arborfield Working the land available is known. SDL becomes unviable Party without the MoD area as the size of the development will no longer be profitable as infrastructure would still be required. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of It is a huge concern that the development contains the Arborfield Working elements which must proceed such as the

Party relocation of the Emmbrook School to Arborfield when the availability of the land contained in the Arborfield Garrison SDL is still very much in

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 5 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

question. FC2/AG/165 David G Land Objection as development is going ahead before certainty that Garrison will be available. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan Objection to development on greenfield land until and recommendations on this issue) (FC2/IDC/8) whole site is vacated. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan The ability of Arborfield garrison to deliver in the plan period is still in question as the MoD has not committed to a date when the site will be vacated. Under the Crichel Down rules has the MoD made every effort to return the land to the previous owners to avoid that this might derail the plans later? By not having the whole site available the phasing of SANG/Infrastructure/housing/five year land supply will be compromised. Council should have Plan B and development should not start until MoD has actually vacated the site. FC2/AG/176 Spencer King Development should not start until MoD has left the premises. FC2/AG/179 Mrs A J Green Development of brownfield site should only go ahead once site is vacated by MoD as if plans change and they do not leave, the nature of the development will change, leaving the coherence of any plans in ruins. FC2/AG/180 Geraldine Clarke Objection as there is no certainty that the MoD will leave Arborfield. Where will the amenities and support structure come from for such a large development without the land that the garrison currently occupies? FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Development should be started where it will have least impact and that is on brownfield site behind the wire and only after the army has left the site. FC2/AG/195 Caroline Atkinson Objection to development ahead of MoD’s departure. FC2/AG/196 Les Roland, Chairman Agrees with Mr Steve Bacon (FC2/AG/218,

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 6 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

of Froghall Drive FC2/IDC/18). FC2/AG/199 Alison Owen & Neil No development should start until MoD has actually Stubbs moved out. FC2/AG/201 Maxine Smale Is development really going ahead before garrison (see above for summary, WBC response has been vacated? and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer Development should only start once the MoD has Deering vacated the premises, and only on brownfield land. FC2/AG/204 Clare Sharp Development should not start before MoD has moved out. FC2/AG/212 Olivia & Peter Thornton Application should be turned down outside the garrison area, disallowed for all time. FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken For the SDL to e viable and sustainable, the MoD (FC2/IDC/17) will have to vacate the Garrison but there is uncertainty when this might happen. Therefore objection to any development until Garrison has been vacated. Commencement on Greenfield sites is not acceptable. Should MoD not vacate the site but greenfield sites be developed this would leave the development with no additional infrastructure and just add to the inadequate infrastructure and would therefore be unviable. FC2/AG/218 Steve Bacon Following a Special Executive Meeting at WBC on 2 (FC2/IDC/18) June 2011 assurance was given that no building will take place at Garrison SDL until army has vacated site. Army plans to leave by 2015. However, SPD states in para 6.4.1 that planned build-out rate will be 15 years which cannot be achieved by 2026 if the site isn’t available until after 2015. FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth Concerned that development will begin before MoD moves out. FC2/AG/223 Felicity Townsend No development should take place until the MoD moves out. FC2/AG/225 Timothy J Wileman Development should not start until the MoD has actually moved out. FC2/AG/226 Claire Wileman Work to develop the site should only take place

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 7 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

once the MoD have fully vacated the area in 2015 and not before. FC2/AG/227 Lindsay Partridge No development should start until the MoD has (see above for summary, WBC response actually moved out of the area. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/235 Geoff & Karen Hartnell No development until MoD has actually moved out. FC2/AG/246 Alison Worley Object to any development that occurs before the MOD has vacated the site. Always the prospect of the military remaining in situ. FC2/AG/250 Mrs S Hill Building work must not start until the MOD has vacated the Arborfield Garrison site. FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes - No development until the MOD has vacated. - Does the council agree that if the MOD does not vacate and the site become available then the development is unviable? FC2/AG/255 Mr & Mrs G.A.Hughes Development should only take place once the MOD have vacated the site and should be restricted to this site only. FC2/AG/264 Stephen and Christina Cannot accept development in Arborfield before it is Haigh certain that the army is leaving and it is set in stone. FC2/AG/268 Zoe Evans No permission should be given until the MOD has vacated the site. Object to the project proceeding before the MOD actually vacates the garrison. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara No development should start until the MOD has Brown moved out. FC2/AG/273 Sajjad Abbasi Object to any development outside the MOD fence. Building should only start here once then MOD have vacated. FC2/AG/275 Hina Abbasi Object to any development outside the MOD fence. Building should only start here once then MOD have vacated. FC2/AG/280 Colonel A H Millington Development opportunity should be modified and restricted to the current garrison areas only once they have finally vacated. FC2/AG/284 Mrs K Tipton No assurances that the MOD site will close. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 8 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/288 L Simms Building on Arborfield green sites should not happen until the MOD have vacated the Garrison site. FC2/AG/297 Darren Tipton If the MOD do not vacate does the development (see above for summary, WBC response become unviable? and recommendations on this issue) What happens if the development starts and the MOD do not leave? And there is no funding to complete the infrastructure what is plan B? FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter The AG-RAG supports a suitable sized development that maintains Arborfield’s rural nature, as long as development is restricted to brownfield behind the existing garrison wire and doesn’t start until the MOD have left the site. FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown Until the MOD actually vacates the Garrison, it would be ludicrous to think about starting to build in this area, as plans can change day to day. FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad What if the MOD doesn’t sell the land? FC2/AG/310 Chris Milligan Concerned that the Army may decide not to vacate the Garrison, in which case brownfield sites would not become available and houses will be built on green filed land without the supporting infrastructure. FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins There should be no development until the Garrison site is 100% vacated. Development should be on brownfield sites first. WBC needs a plan b if the MoD does not sell the Garrison land. FC2/AG/322 Daniel Boys Proposals are not appropriate in relation to the amount of land available. FC2/AG/324 Mr and Mrs Appleton No developments should start until the MOD has actually completely moved out. FC2/AG/335 David Batup Why not do something really different with the Garrison and make it a public park? FC2/AG/325 Peter Ayling No development should take place until the MOD has actually vacated to Garrison and the brownfield

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 9 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

sites. There is no guarantee that they will vacate, and the MOD have been known to change their plans. FC2/AG/331 Miss Linden Almond Object to any building until the garrison has been sold by the MOD. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence ( PPS 3) The site is not currently available for and recommendations on this issue) development. The first phase of houses cannot possibly be ready within 5 years. How can WBC justify this location in light of government policy? FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter No development should be allowed to take place until the MOD has fully vacated the site. The entire infrastructure quoted in the infrastructure delivery SPD must be delivered for the Arborfield SDL to be viable. This would mean that the MOD land must be available for development. Without it developers will not be able to build on the land and make sufficient profit for S106 contributions. FC2/AG/373 Alison Ward on behalf No planning application should be approved until (FC2/IDC/54, of Arborfield & Newland MOD has left. FC2/ENV/7) Parish Council FC2/AG/374 Carline Lavelle No development until decommissioning of the Garrison site has actually taken place. FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith Would WBC clarify that they continue to support what they have always maintained, and as stated publicly on several occasions by David Lee: no development should be considered until the MOD have physically vacated the Garrison site? FC2/AG/385 Ashley Wright How will WBC control the development if the MOD do not vacate from the site. Does WBC accept that no development can take place until the MOD have vacated? What will the plan be if the MOD does not vacate the site? How will WBC demonstrate a 5 yr supply if the Arborfield SDL is not viable? FC2/AG/387 Catherine Drew No development should take place until the Garrison has closed and the brownfield site has

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 10 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

been vacated by the MOD. MOD will not move out before 2013 at the earliest, and this means development will be started on greenfield sites not (see above for summary, WBC response brownfield land. and recommendations on this issue) If the MOD do not move, and brownfield land is not available then the area would have a non viable community of several hundred extra houses built on Greenfield sites with no supporting infrastructure. FC2/AG/397 Paul Taylor Object to development that occurs before the MOD has vacated the site. If development were to occur before would be left with loss of Greenfields an no upgrade in infrastructure and surrounding roads and an untenable increase in the local population. FC2/AG/401 Toby Perring MOD has been set to vacate the premises on a number of occasions, no guarantee that this will happen. There is then, a possibility that only greenfield land will be developed despite the existence of adjacent brownfield land. Amenities such as neighbourhood centres, district centre and secondary school are earmarked to be built on Garrison land. If this land is not released then the net result will be purely a dormitory development, with inadequate facilities for residents. WBC should make a commitment to not start any development until the Garrison is irreversibly committed to vacating the site. FC2/AG/408 Daniel Craddock MOD has been talking about moving from Arborfield for a long time. WBC’s LDF and SDL have validity until 2026 and therefore not sure how it will now be possible to complete this ambitious new town development within the time left. FC2/AG/410 Stephanie Weaver Building should only be on the brownfield MOD site, and only take place once they have left the garrison. FC2/AG/411 Dr Fiona Marston No development should take place until the Garrison has closed and the brownfield site has

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 11 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

been vacated by the MOD. MOD will not move out before 2013 at the earliest, and this means development will be started on greenfield sites not (see above for summary, WBC response brownfield land. and recommendations on this issue) If the MOD do not move, and brownfield land is not available then the area would have a non viable community of several hundred extra houses built on Greenfield sites with no supporting infrastructure. FC2/AG/414 A C Lewis The plans take no account of what will happen if the (same as 448L) MOD reverses their current proposal to vacate the garrison in 2014/2015. If this happened the available land for development would be green field land which would be unacceptable. FC2/AG/415 Nick Teall The development should not start until the MOD (same as 449) have vacated. FC2/AG/425 Stephen R Jones It is a possibility that the Garrison may not close. If this is the case the plan as a whole should be shelved until such time as the MOD has actually moved out of the Garrison. FC2/AG/426 Elizabeth Cannon Under no circumstances should development start until the MOD has vacated the garrison. WBC have a duty to ensure the current residents of Arborfield are not left with new development on Greenfields, half/built but promised infrastructure and no brownfield for development. FC2/AG/447L Mr & Mrs Colin The development should not start in any capacity Williams until the MOD has vacated the complete site. Greenfield development FC2/AG/3 Andy Fairclough Once green belt and green space is destroyed it is Summary gone forever for future generations. The local Many respondents raise concerns council seems hellbent on destroying and ruining [it] regarding ARBSPD’s proposal to locate forever against the wishes of the local populace. new development on greenfield land and FC2/AG/4 Sarah Turner Objection to loss of green space. the impact this would have on the local Reallocation in a distance of 2 miles considered ecology and potential loos of sports preposterous. fields.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 12 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/10 Marlene Simms Objection to development in Area B which is green belt land, especially as there is vast area of There was a trend in favour of brownfield brownfield land when army goes. development but objections to greenfield FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte Objection to development of Greenfield such as development. In particular Area B was Area B. identified by many respondents as a FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Objection to development of Greenfield such as location that should not be developed Area B. and concerns were raised regarding the FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Objection to development of Greenfield such as impacts of new development on Area B. Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive. FC2/AG/18 Barbara Crawford Objection to development and destruction of countryside. WBC Response FC2/AG/19 Jean Britland Objection to loss of Greenfield land. FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Is development in settlement boundaries? The ARBSPD responds to the planning FC2/AG/25 Neil Rickard Would have broadly supported redevelopment of context framed by the adopted Core brownfield army site but objects to Greenfield Strategy that identifies Arborfield as a development. location to accommodate up to 3,500 FC2/AG/218 Steve Bacon Any consideration of housing development on the new dwellings (concept rationale set out (FC2/IDC/18) green-field sites around the Garrison should be in Appendix 7 of CS). The adopted delayed until after 2026. planning framework recognises that there FC2/AG/26 Col J M Gaff Arborfield “Garrison” Development is bigger than will inevitably be a requirement for brownfield Garrison site. greenfield development - coordinated FC/AG/28 Julie Scott Opposition to development of any green field sites with the redevelopment of previously due to impacts on whole area as well as routes developed land - to meet the housing commitment. The SDL boundary has towards Reading, Wokingham and . been drawn widely to reflect this need FC2/AG/30 Andrew Clint Broadly supportive of the development but on and to avoid cramming development onto smaller scale and on brownfield sites. only the Garrison site. FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton Objection to development on Greenfield land such

as Sheerlands Fields that provide habitat for However, it is not the intention of the SPD badgers, moles, deer, squirrels, foxes, voles, water to simply meet housing numbers but to voles, birds, and grass snakes. balance housing needs within a broader FC2/AG/34 Nigel Harry Opposition to development on green field land. discussion on sustainability, reflected by FC2/AG/38 Beth Quainton Acceptance of re-development of brownfield site but a set of design principles that will shape a objection to development of Area B that is high quality scheme that seeks to retain Greenfield land. valuable green open spaces and, takes FC2/AG/39 Simon Quainton Objection to building on Greenfield sites. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 13 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/40 Katherine Taylor-Jones Objects to development on Greenfield areas. particular care in protecting the best of FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Objection to development on green field sites. the landscape features and creating a FC2/AG/42 Neil Bidston Objection to development on Greenfield sites, in comprehensive green infrastructure particular Area B (around Sheerlands Road and strategy (Design Principle 1: Landscape Tyler Drive) as there are many mature trees that are Framework that will retain existing home to bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos etc. sportsfields and provide a diverse range FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Objection to development on any Greenfield sites, of recreational open spaces - pages 26- in particular Area B (Sheerlands Road and Tyler 34). Drive). FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Objection to development on any Greenfield sites, The development area will include open in particular Area B (Sheerlands Road and Tyler space and it is therefore a misconception Drive). to assume all land will be developed FC2/AG/50 Mr. & Mrs Trevithick Development should be restricted to brownfield within the yellow areas on the development of the Garrison only when MoD has masterplans. vacated the site. FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Building on green fields before brownfield sites is The ARBSPD recognises the importance madness. Departure of MoD has not been of Area B in particular and the sensitivity confirmed that is required within the planning and FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey Development outside the wire on green field land is design of neighbouring developments. In without merit and will destroy rural nature of area. response to objections raised during the FC2/AG/70 T R B Andreae Objection to proposed development of land to south first Statutory Consultation, the scale of of brownfield site at the army barracks. Area B has been reduced. FC2/AG/73 John Carter Concern that green space would be reduced or lost. Paragraph 1c(iv) introduces the need for FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat No Greenfield development until the whole of the brownfield Garrison site is released and developed transition areas between existing and and by inference that no development should occur new developments. In the case of Arborfield Garrison ‘Area B’, the ARBSPD at all should the Garrison not be released. recognises the number of mature trees of FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat All existing green space within the existing Garrison amenity value which contribute to the development should be protected. character of the area and as such FC2/AG/84 Nigel Stoate Objection to building on green field land. proposes revisions that reduce land FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Objection to development on Greenfield land, in within Area B deemed suitable for particular Area B around Sheerlands Road and residential use. Tyler Drive. FC2/AG/89 Seal Family Objection to loss of playing fields and recreation Appendix 1 also illustrates an indicative areas as well as development on Greenfield sites. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 14 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/93 Laura Donnelly Objection to Greenfield development. Brownfield layout drawn for Area B which shows the sites and empty offices should be redeveloped first. retention of mature trees surrounding the FC2/AG/99 Ian Brenkley Unacceptable loss of green fields for housing existing community hall and transition development. areas bordering new and existing FC2/AG/103 Mrs V.L. Sinfield A better solution is to build on brownfield sites within development. the garrison wire. FC2/AG/431 Julia Shepherd The development will destroy the leafy nature of the Mature trees will be subject to tree area. preservation orders being prepared – FC2/AG/105 Robert Briggs Development must be restricted to brownfield sites para. 2.4.10. behind garrison wire; loss of green fields and open spaces is unacceptable. Paragraph 6.4.2 sets out the ARBSPD's FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Objection to development on any green fields, in guidance with regards to delivering particular Area B around Sheerlands Road and previously developed land before Tyler Drive. greenfield sites. The release of FC2/AG/112 Ian McBride Use of brownfield sites should be maximised while greenfield land to accommodate the greenfield sites should remain unaffected. 3,500 dwellings also provides the FC2/AG/225 Shirley Wisker I understood at previous presentation that opportunity for the delivery of a scheme redevelopment of brownfield land should come first that reflects a range of densities set out but this appears not to be so. by the SPD (pages 40-41), that can be FC2/AG/117 Ashley Hall Development of greenfield sites would be sensitively accommodated in the SDL. unacceptable. FC2/AG/118 Fenella Hall Development of greenfield sites would be In reference to the resistance to the use unacceptable. of Greenfield land, and the prioritisation of a “Brownfield first” approach to FC2/AG/122 Ann Tidey Objection as development will extend beyond brownfield site of the original garrison. phasing, it is clear that the housing targets for a borough which is FC2/AG/262 Jamie Arlon The development will change the character of the predominantly rural could not be met villages and vastly change the lives of people that without development on Greenfield land. make the area a wonderful place to live. It should also be highlighted that the SPD FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach Development should be restricted to brownfield land promotes the delivery of a high quality, on land “behind the wire”. Concern that only well designed development, which is greenfield sites will be developed while brownfield likely to take fifteen years to be fully sites might be left undeveloped for many years. completed. Artificial restrictions on FC2/AG/130 Mrs J Harrison Objection to development on greenfield sites phasing may hinder the achievement of (brownfield development is acceptable). the best possible development outcome FC2/AG/131 Mr R.L. Harrison Objection to development on greenfield sites in the longer term, and whilst the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 15 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(brownfield development is acceptable). inclusion of the MOD land is a key FC2/AG/134 Matt Lawrence What is the justification for building on greenfield element of the Core Strategy, a sites before brownfield sites? There should be a “brownfield first” approach should not transition stage whereby development would be take priority over the good design, limited to Garrison first to see how area copes with planning and infrastructure delivery of the this? SDL. FC2/AG/137 Mr & Mrs P Coles Regardless of the concerns of excessive scale the development should be restricted to development Section 8 of the SPD (pages 68-69) within the already very extensive confines of the emphasises the importance that an existing developed area of the Garrison. There can agreed phasing strategy will be for the be no justification beside greed to build on developers and Consortia in securing greenfield land. planning permission and in delivering a FC2/AG/138 Symone & Aaron Malin Objection to loss of green fields. sustainable scheme for Arborfield. The FC2/AG/141 Dr Gail Milligan Development should be confined to brownfield sites SPD states clearly that "piecemeal and and loss of green field sites should be minimised. ad hoc applications which do not deliver FC2/AG/144 David George Land Opposed to development of greenfield land with a coherent and integrated strategic consequential loss of trees and habitats. infrastructure will be resisted (paragraph FC2/AG/145 Elizabeth Peat Objection to development of greenfield sites before 6.4.1). brownfield sites are made available by MoD moving base. Loss of green space would also mean loss of The ARBSPD also recommends that space for recreation and play. existing buildings and previously FC2/AG/150 Mrs E Wilson Disappearance of green fields and open spaces is developed sites be brought forward in the daunting and will jeopardise Arborfield Village as early phases of development (paragraph she knows it. 6.4.2). FC2/AG/154 Rick Wilson Development should be restricted to brownfield sites. FC2/AG/156 Grace & Ernie Sackey Any development should proceed on brownfield Additionally the alternative site at land first to include development of infrastructure. was considered at the EiP into Any development of this size would no doubt result the Core Strategy but was judged by the in loss of greenfield land and loss of wildlife. Inspector to have a number of constraints FC2/AG/157 Roz Dommett Concerned about loss of greenfield land. Would it (e.g. sustainability, Greenfield, transport, not be more beneficial to wait until brownfield land location within emergency planning zone) which in combination meant that it was has been vacated by MoD? not felt to be a viable alternative to the FC2/AG/158 Mr & Mrs Helliwell Any development should be restricted to brownfield four SDLs identified in the adopted Core sites and should never be on valuable and Strategy. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 16 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

irreplaceable greenfield sites. FC2/AG/159 Simon Hall Support of redevelopment of the Garrison brownsite Recommendation: Comments noted but objection to development of southern part of and recommend no change to proposal (building on protected countryside). ARBSPD wording. Further objection to development being close to protected countryside on other side of A327 (several development applications were already rejected). FC2/AG/161 Angela Phillips Objection to loss of greenfield land and countryside. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Development on greenfield land is unacceptable. the Arborfield Working Once the development is fully planned the area Party outside the boundary must be officially classified as countryside to avoid further overspill development. FC2/AG/164 Linda M V Carter Concerned about loss of green space. FC2/AG/165 David G Land Objection as part of development would be on greenfield land. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Reference is made to the garrison as a brownfield site but the current local plan designation for a considerable part of the land is countryside. It does contain some significant and well used sports pitches, open green areas and attractive wooded areas. Area B is inappropriate as land is liable to flooding, has protected species and was the gap with Finchampstead. Development should be only on brownfield land until MoD has vacated site. FC2/AG/176 Spencer King Any building should be contained within the existing garrison boundary and not spread on greenfield land. FC2/AG/177 Fiona Dixon Objection of development on green fields as effect on local wildlife will be immense. FC2/AG/178 Bert Smit Any development on garrison must be restricted to brownfield sites behind the existing garrison wire. FC2/AG/179 Mrs A J Green Under no circumstances should there be

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 17 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

development on greenfield sites. FC2/AG/180 Geraldine Clarke Should we really build on greenfield sites when brownfield sites are available? (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/186 Martin Bloomfield The development will considerably reduce the and recommendations on this issue) (FC2/SW/34) amount of immediate green-space in the area. FC2/AG/187 Jackie Wright Development of greenfield areas is totally unacceptable. FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Greenfield sites should be preserved at the costs of brownfield sites. Impacts of new development could be reduced if it starts on garrison land as it is inaccessible to most and its loss would have little bearing in daily activities apart from noise and some increase in traffic. FC2/AG/189 Mike Boys Why have green fields to be used over and above the huge impact of developing the existing garrison site? It will take away the pleasant surroundings. FC2/AG/192 Ken Spice Objection to loss of green space. FC2/AG/194 Josephine Day Objection to development on green fields. FC2/AG/195 Caroline Atkinson Building should commence on the brown fields sites ahead of greenfield to preserve open spaces as long as possible. Large areas “behind the wire” should be first choice for new homes. FC2/AG/196 Les Roland, Chairman Agrees with Mr Steve Bacon (FC2/AG/218, of Froghall Drive FC2/IDC/18). FC2/AG/199 Alison Owen & Neil Development must be restricted to brownfield sites Stubbs behind garrison wire. Objection to unacceptable loss of green fields and open spaces. FC2/AG/201 Maxine Smale How can developers be allowed to bulldoze greenfield sites? Yes, there has to be development but this must be sensible development on brownfield sites within the garrison boundaries. FC2/AG/204 Clare Sharp Development should be restricted to brownfield sites behind existing garrison wire. Unacceptable loss of greenfield space. FC2/AG/208 Sarah Clark Objection to use of any greenfield land for this Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 18 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

development. Development should be only on land inside the garrison fence, thereby preserving the existing green space and reducing the (see above for summary, WBC response environmental destruction. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/212 Olivia & Peter Thornton Objection to greenfield development. FC2/AG/214 Edward Dixon Can it really be appropriate to pave over vast areas of green countryside with more rubbish? Acceptance of redevelopment of existing garrison buildings at the north end of ht camp but development of the south is only justified by improvement of profit of developers. It is not true that whole site is brownfield. FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to development on any greenfield areas (FC2/IDC/17) (Area B) within the SDL as they are valuable and well used amenities for existing residents. FC2/AG/218 Steve Bacon Much of the original Garrison site has already been (FC2/IDC/18) converted to civilian housing and remaining brownfield area is relatively small. But only around 1,000 dwellings could be accommodated on this built up area (but the road infrastructure would struggle even with this number). FC2/AG/219 Susan Ramsden Development should be restricted to brownfield sites. FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth Brownfield sites should be used instead of greenfields. FC2/AG/222 Mary Ferry Green fields are needed to store the carbon all those extra central heating systems and cars will produce. Please do not build on anything other than brownfield uncontaminated land. FC2/AG/223 Felicity Townsend Any development should be on brownfield sites behind the current garrison wire and not extend into greenfield areas. FC2/AG/224 D.R. Jones Not one property should be allowed to be built on (FC2/IDC/19) green fields or green spaces. FC2/AG/225 Timothy J Wileman Any development must be restricted to brownfield

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 19 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

sites behind the existing garrison wire. FC2/AG/226 Claire Wileman Currently enjoys green areas around garrison. If development is required, it should be restricted to brownfield sites behind the garrison wire. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/227 Lindsay Partridge Any development must be restricted to brownfield and recommendations on this issue) sites behind existing garrison wire. Greenfields need to be kept. Lost greenfields cannot be reclaimed. FC2/AG/233 Janet & Michael Objection to building on greenfield site as it will be Hewland lost forever. FC2/AG/235 Geoff & Karen Hartnell Development should be restricted to brownfield areas. FC2/AG/236 Dean Chamberlain Objection to building on green sites. FC2/AG/237 Jacqueline Joyce New development will destroy countryside. FC2/AG/238 Mr Williams Unacceptable loss of green fields and open spaces. FC2/AG/239 Helen Lewis Building on existing area of Garrison would be welcomed by most but to build on greenfield land is shocking. FC2/AG/242 David Evans Does not make sense to build on greenfield sites. Do not build outside the camp area and create a mini town that will ruin the local area. FC2/AG/245 Ken Ramsden People should have the right to live in an environment where they have access to green space and any development should be restricted to brownfield sites. FC2/AG/246 Alison Worley Strongly object to any development ‘outside the wire’ or on any Greenfield sites. FC2/AG/248 JP Watson Opposed to the destruction of green belt agricultural land and recreational facilities. Appalled that there appears to be a proposal for a piecemeal redevelopment of the site in order to circumvent existing Green Belt Legislation and Planning Laws. FC2/AG/249 Gill Purchase WBC should be protecting Greenfields Arborfield not facilitating their destruction. Building must be on brownfield sites only. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 20 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Proposal to destroy open space and well used playing fields (Area B) is repugnant. There is no justification for destroying swathes of (see above for summary, WBC response green fields on the technical pretence they are and recommendations on this issue) actually brown field FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes Object to the development of any green fields or the felling of any trees within the Arborfield SDL. FC2/AG/254 Kerry Moody Development will mean the loss of much beautiful countryside. FC2/AG/255 Mr & Mrs G.A.Hughes Development should occur on the Garrison site once the MOD have vacated, not on Greenfield land. FC2/AG/258 D. W Hamilton Park lane is the frontier for the Finchampstead area of special landscape interest and the conservation area around the church. Future plans for it should reflect that fact. FC2/AG/261 Kate Burnett Building on Greenfields is wrong. FC2/AG/262 Jamie Arlon Object to the destruction of green field sites, woods and wildlife along the A327. FC2/AG/263 James Lewis If the development goes ahead another large portion of the greenbelt will be destroyed. Have a responsibility to protect the greenbelt and the rural communities for future generations. FC2/AG/264 Stephen and Christina The number of houses planned for Arborfield is Haigh unsustainable and involves building on Greenfield sites. Adamant that existing open green space must be retained. Unacceptable to develop elements outside of the wire before the army leaves FC2/AG/267 Phil and Liz Wise Against building on green filed sites. FC2/AG/268 Zoe Evans Any development should be restricted to brownfield and not extend onto greenfield areas. FC2/AG/269 Katy Stanlake Object to building on green field sites. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara The development should be restricted to brown filed Brown sites behind the existing garrison wire only. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 21 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/271 Patrick & Alison Turley Playing fields and other open spaces are vulnerable to development. Open space and playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of (see above for summary, WBC response development. They should be owned and managed and recommendations on this issue) by the community. FC2/AG/272 C. Barratt Unclear in whom ownership and responsibility for the maintenance of open spaces in the SDL will be vested. Essential that plying fields and other open spaces are safeguarded in perpetuity against the risk of future development. The allocated recreational space is vulnerable to the possibility of future development. The open space and plying fields should be owned by the community. FC2/AG/273 Sajjad Abbasi Development will result in the Greenfields and trees being lost. FC2/AG/274 Master Ayaan Object to building on greenfield sites and loss of green fields and open spaces. FC2/AG/276 Claire Harris Not opposed to a reasonable sized development if it on brownfield and on the garrison but eating to what should be highly valued green space is completely unacceptable. FC2/AG/279 Robert Newman All public space within the SDL should be placed in public ownership in perpetuity to protect it. FC2/AG/282 Sophie Becker The drip of building on greenspaces is going to open the floodgate and in no time the entire south east will be one huge city. FC2/AG/284 Mrs K Tipton If the MOD does not close the community will be left with no Greenfield sites and no infrastructure to support an expanding community. FC2/AG/286 Russell Johnston Why is development to start on Greenfield sites before it is confirmed that the MOD will move? If the MOD doesn’t move this will be an unnecessary loss of green open space. FC2/AG/288 L Simms Encouraged to think about climate change, yet why are trees being cut down and houses being built on

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 22 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

green fields? FC2/AG/289 Bernard Hicks Particularly object to the Square idea. This is currently agricultural land and therefore green (see above for summary, WBC response filed. Being adjacent to the Arborfield site this will and recommendations on this issue) exaggerate an already unwelcome impact of such a large area of development and infill what is an important green gap between existing housing and the Arborfield SDL. FC2/AG/291 Roger Huggan Playing fields and other open spaces are vulnerable to the possibility of development. Public open space and school playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of future development. Playing fields and other open spaces should be owned and managed by the community. FC2/AG/293 Brigitte Huggan Playing fields and other open spaces are vulnerable to the possibility of development. Public open space and school playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of future development. Playing fields and other open spaces should be owned and managed by the community. FC2/AG/294 Andrjez and Olga Development on the garrison site should not extend Borowy significantly into the green fields and open countryside surrounding the garrison site. FC2/AG/295 Lucy Stoneham Concerned about the effect the development will have on the remaining green areas available in the locality There are many brown filed sites available locally that will have much less of a direct impact and loss of green areas. FC2/AG/297 Darren Tipton Cannot understand how development can start on Greenfields before the MOD have vacated. FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown Plans to rob Arborfield of its Greenfield’s should be reconsidered.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 23 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad Greenfield sites are currently tranquil and should not be built on. Why are plans not being restricted to Brownfield sites behind the Garrison Wire FC2/AG/304 Sean Green Oppose the development on Greenfield land ‘Area B’ (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/305 Lorraine Bek Oppose the development on Greenfield land ‘Area and recommendations on this issue) B’ FC2/AG/306 Andy Scott Any development should start on brownfield areas of the site first. Greenfield sites should be developed last, if at all, the army may even decide to stay at the garrison after all. FC2/AG/309 N M Long-Field Developments proposed on greenfield sites, are not welcome and will deface the identity of Barkham FC2/AG/310 Chris Milligan Development should be largely confined to brown field sites and loss of greenfield sites should be minimised. Concerned that there are plans to build on the greenfield sites before the army have vacated the Garirison. FC2/AG/311 Chris Heyliger Playing fields and other open spaces around (FC2/IDC/35) Arborfield are vulnerable to the possibility of development. These should be safeguarded against development. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock Worried about the amounts of green fields that will (FC2/IDC/37) be lost and the impact on the Thames Basin SPA FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins Why is there a need to build on the greenfield site at all? FC2/AG/322 Daniel Boys Development on greenfield must not happen. Important for wildlife and if development goes ahead the space between these areas will be significantly reduced with boundaries becoming non existent. FC2/AG/324 Mr and Mrs Appleton Unacceptable loss of greenfield land and open space. Development should be confined to brownfield land and provide enough development for this area.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 24 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/325 Peter Ayling Opposed to any development on greenfield sites FC2/AG/331 Miss Linden Almond The development extends way beyond the present (see above for summary, WBC response brownfield garrison, and impacts hugely on and recommendations on this issue) greenfield space. Makes no sense to impose such a large ‘new town’ on greenfield site which will impact so disastrously. FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence Can WBC restrict building to brownfield site and not on greenfield land? FC2/AG/343 Craig Osborne Playing fields and other open spaces are vulnerable to development. Open space and playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of development. They should be owned and managed by the community. FC2/AG/345 Kate Whyte The size of the development is too large and will sprawl into rural areas. FC2/AG/349 Julia Townsend - Rose The plans represent a huge overdevelopment and would seriously impact on the rural nature of the area. FC2/AG/353 Stewart Richardson Playing fields and other open spaces are vulnerable to development. Open space and playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of development. They should be owned and managed by the community. FC2/AG/354 Wynn and Helen Green spaces in the SDL will come under pressure Kenrick in the future, so robust arrangements must be in place to prevent potential infilling of the SDL. FC2/AG/359 Robert King The scale of the development is inappropriately excessive, and encroached unacceptably onto greenfield areas to the south of Arborfield Garrison. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter Development should be restricted to brownfield sites behind the garrison wire only. Plenty of brownfield land that can be built on without the need to destroy trees, wildlife, Greenfields and other open space. AG-RAG estimates that the brownfield land makes up less than 40% of the proposed SDL, the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 25 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

remaining being Greenfields and other open spaces. FC2/AG/363 Darren Rutter The new development will mean that green space might be as much as 5 miles from people’s homes. (see above for summary, WBC response Walking to them will be dangerous due to the and recommendations on this issue) amount of traffic on the roads. Destruction of green spaces and fields is unacceptable. Building should only happen on brownfield sites FC2/AG/365 Roger and Sarah Unacceptable loss of green field sites and wildlife Murfitt habitats. FC2/AG/370 Penny Arlon Object to the destruction of greenfield site. Strongly feel that this part of should remain rural. FC2/AG/373 Alison Ward on behalf Brownfield land should be developed before (FC2/IDC/54, of Arborfield & Newland greenfield. FC2/ENV/7) Parish Council FC2/AG/374 Carline Lavelle Objection to greenfield development in anticipation of nearby brownfield land potentially becoming available. FC2/AG/375 Hazel Burges As so much green space is to be built on in Arborfield and Barkham, new residents might appreciate being able to enjoy Elms field in Wokingham, however most of that will be built over. The field was left as a leisure facility by a past resident, why an extra supermarket? FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith Putting such a huge development all around, whilst providing us with a country park located far away from residential areas will not replace the level of enjoyment gained from current surroundings. Yet to see a firm affirmation that the proposed country park would not be earmarked for future development at some point. FC2/AG/381 Robert A. Rowe Public open space and playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of future development. Facilities should be owned and managed by the community.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 26 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/383 Cristina Marinoni Playing fields and other open spaces are vulnerable to the possibility of development, and should be safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of future (see above for summary, WBC response development. Should be owned and managed by and recommendations on this issue) the community. FC2/AG/387 Catherine Drew Completely object to any development on Greenfields or the felling of any trees within the Arborfield SDL. The development of Area B is particularly objectionable as a green site. FC2/AG/389 Laura Heyliger Appears that the playing fields around Arborfield are vulnerable to the possibility of development. Vital that public open spaces and school playing fields are safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of future development. FC2/AG/391 Nick Philips Object to the scale of the proposed development. Support development on brown filed sites, but strongly wants to protect greenfield sites. FC2/AG/393 Rod & Judi Hoy Building on recreational/playing fields will be a great loss to the people of Barkham, Arborfield and surrounding villages. Would be better to have a smaller development within the boundaries of the existing MOD infrastructure so the recreational areas can continue to be used. FC2/AG/394 Richard Watson Much of Farley Hill is designated as and Area of Special Landscape Character. No EIA appears to have been carried out on the impact to Farley Hill and villages surrounding the development. FC2/AG/397 Paul Taylor Strongly object to any development ‘outside of the wire’ or on greenfield sites. The destruction or removal of green fields is totally unacceptable and unnecessary. FC2/AG/401 Toby Perring Against development on greenfield land.

FC2/AG/403 Sarah Warr Object to the merging of villages, where the green

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 27 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

space dividing communities has been marked for development. There was a promise of a network of greenways to (see above for summary, WBC response connect into Wokingham Town, this has been and recommendations on this issue) omitted from the SPD –request it to be reinstated. FC2/AG/405 Daniel Craddock Unacceptable to develop so many green fields and rural sites. 3500 homes should be built in a more suitable and less rural location. Development will eat into the rural area and reduce the gaps between parishes and villages. Why can’t it be a smaller development on the garrison brownfield site? FC2/AG/410 Stephanie Weaver Does WBC realise what effect the development will have on the rural area. Completely object to the development of any green fields. FC2/AG/411 Dr Fiona Marston Completely object to any development on Greenfields or the felling of any trees within the Arborfield SDL. The development of Area B is particularly objectionable as a green site. FC2/AG/414 A C Lewis Opposed to development on greenfield sites. (same as 448L) FC2/AG/415 Nick Teall The proposed ‘all or nothing’ development makes (same as 449) disproportionate use of greenfield land. FC2/AGG/416 Rob Rowe on behalf of Considerable concern that the allocated recreational Barkham Village space is vulnerable to the possibility of further Residents Association development. Essential that playing fields and other open spaces are safeguarded in perpetuity against the risk of future development. The best way to achieve this is to ensure they are owned by the community. FC2/AG/422 Mr M Henley Playing fields and other open spaces are vulnerable to development. Open space and playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity against risk of development. They should be owned and managed

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 28 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

by the community. FC2/AG/423 Mr D Bradley The proposal to build on Greenfields is contrary to (see above for summary, WBC response the principal aim in the current Government Natural and recommendations on this issue) Environment White Paper. Opposed to building on Greenfield sites. FC2/AG/425 Stephen R Jones Cannot understand why it is necessary to build on green belt and the playing fields particularly in a rural location that is already swamped with traffic. FC2/AG/426 Elizabeth Cannon Vehemently objected to any development that proposes to take away from the open green playing fields and the farmland in Arborfield. FC2/AG/427 Catherine and Kevin Want last remaining green areas to stay and to be Goodwin enjoyed, not to be submerged in more traffic and other problems that come from over developed areas. FC2/AG/429 Francis and Audrey Deplore the loss of the Greenfields and open sites Moore must be preserved at all coasts for the next generation. Little thought seems to have been given to the provision of leisure facilities so the loss of open space will be felt keenly Development should be restricted to brownfield sites. FC2/AG/433 J.A & V.E Bines If the plans must go ahead, development must be kept at least on brownfield sites within the present boundaries of the camp. Any encroachment onto greenfield sites between the present villages will be intolerable. FC2/AG/434 R. Beer Object to the destruction of Greenfields. FC2/AG/435 A. J. Cockrill The proposed development would eliminate a huge area of precious greenfield open land between the existing heavily populated areas of Yateley, Arborfield and lower . FC2/AG/436 T. Scrase Building should be confined to the Garrison, and the farmland to the west and south should be left as

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 29 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

farmland. If Wokingham wants more housing it should look at a 2 mile radius of the town centre. There is plenty of (see above for summary, WBC response space. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/440 Mrs J.H.P Sharpe In years to come there will be regret at losing farms, fields and open spaces to concrete and tarmac. FC2/AG/447L Mr & Mrs Colin The proposed development should be contained Williams within the existing brown field sites within the current MOD boundaries. FC2/AG/447L Mr & Mrs Colin The removal of such large areas of green fields and Williams amenity space is unacceptable. FC2/AG/454 Mrs C Hayward Greenfield sites should not be built on. Any further development in this area will mean that Barkham will lose its identity and is likely to become a dormitory suburb. Scale of development FC2/AG/4 Sarah Turner Arborfield would become a built up area/mini town Summary FC2/AG/11 Margaret Walker Objection as “new town” would be too big and infrastructure inadequate to accommodate this. Whilst some respondents accepted a FC2/AG/12 Ray Walker Objection as “new town” would be too big and small number of new houses, many found infrastructure inadequate to accommodate this. the scale of development, proposed by FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Density is inappropriate for rural area and area is the SPD, and its associated impact on not appropriate for such a massive development. the rural character and existing FC2/AG/25 Neil Rickard Considers proposal to be overdevelopment. community lifestyle of Arborfield being FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton A lesser development of 1,000 new houses on unacceptable. brownfield land would be ok if built with green areas. Concerns were also raised about the risk FC2/AG/34 Nigel Harry Development will have significant impacts upon of exceeding the 3,500 dwellings for whole area as well as routes towards Reading, Arborfield. Wokingham and Bracknell. FC2/AG/37 Martina Neubert & Objection to loss of Greenfield land. WBC Response Stephen Saunders FC2/AG/39 Simon Quainton Objection to scale of development. The Arborfield SDL sits within a planning FC2/AG/43 Patricia Bedale Extent of development is out of keeping with context framed by the adopted Core surrounding rural area. Strategy, which sets out a requirement for Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 30 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/50 Mr. & Mrs Trevithick Objection as development is disproportionate with a guideline figure of 3,500 new dwellings, rural surroundings. Bus terminal, supermarket and employment provision and associated schools proposed are all out of scale with the community services and facilities that are development. required to be delivered at Arborfield FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey Massive house building and doubling of industrial within the planned period. area is not wanted in this rural area. No objection to a few hundred houses being built on brown field Appendix 7a) of the Coe Startegy states: sites. “the scale of the settlement, which has FC2/AG/61 Mellissa Goswell Plans are oversized and should be reduced to fit been determined through a balanced rural location. view of the physical capacity of the site, FC2/AG/63 Derek Hazell Objection to development of 3,500 dwellings in an the number of dwellings required to already heavily overpopulated area that will swamp create a sense o f community and surroundings with traffic, noise, air and light support some local services, pollution, engine vibration and lessen life quality for the desired character of the development all. (which is derived in part through FC2/AG/65 Theo d’Orgee Concerned over size and scope of development. development densities), and a FC2/AG/67 Andrea Lake on behalf Proposed development is too large. Doubling the requirement to provide a mix of dwelling of Lake Family size of the Hogwood Industrial Estate is types and sizes.” unacceptable with all the brownfield sites in the area. Paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 set out the FC2/AG/69 Tony Hogarty Area cannot sustain extra traffic and people; the ARBSPD’s role in guiding the 3,500 new master plan leaves it open for additional houses dwellings for Arborfield within the planned over the proposed 3,500 which would be period. devastating. Development is too large. FC2/AG/74 Carole Roake Project of this size would kill off so much of the The impact of the new development upon countryside and cause trouble for existing residents. Arborfield is a key consideration of the FC2/AG/76 Russell Pickett Objection to additional houses on selective sites SPD, which has been shaped by which were not part of original plan. landscape and character analysis FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison Any further housing expansion will destroy informed by Council Officers, the community and life style. Plans to build more than consultant team and local residents in a 3,500 homes at Arborfield and reported plans for an series of consultation events. This extra 3,000 are complete madness and will bring information has been helped to inform the area to standstill. preparation of a document that actively FC2/AG/84 Nigel Stoate Objection as development is excessive in terms of seeks to guide development in a size and will have serious and negative impacts on thoughtful and sensitive manner.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 31 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

the area and community. It will change the character Design principles that seek a response to of the area beyond recognition. The development mitigate the impacts of the scale of the should be either restricted accordingly or a new new development on the character and location found. function of Arborfield are reflected by FC2/AG/92 Mark & Julia The whole plan is too big for the area and its initiatives to: provide a landscape McDonnell infrastructure. framework - responding to its setting - FC2/AG/93 Laura Donnelly Questions general growth strategy of Government. and embodying a green infrastructure Concerned that a whole new town is created with and open space strategy that integrates new schools, shops, sports centres, extending the seamlessly with the rural surrounds at the industrial area, roads and 3,500 or more homes and edges of the SDL (Design Principles 1a, that it would merge Arborfield, Finchampstead and 1b, 1c and 1e). Eversley into one mass housing estate. It would be out of keeping with Eversley, a village. Character typologies have also been FC2/AG/94 Teresa Mozley Concerned that there is no upper limit for housing. developed to help guide development, 3,500 houses is far too many and should come with most built up areas in the centre and down – not be left open so that numbers can be the gradual reduction in built intensity increased. towards the edges of the SDL (Design FC2/AG/99 Ian Brenkley Development is too large and does not retain the Principle 3a, figure 4.5 and table on rural character of the surrounding area. pages 44 - 45). FC2/AG/101 John Spencer Arborfield has had several new housing estates added and is big enough. The addition of transition areas illustrated FC2/AG/102 Barry Edmonds Supported the need for housing in and around in Figure 3.1 and additions to paragraphs Eversley, particularly for local residents, but the 1c (iv) also highlight measures to manage scale of proposed development will ruin the the impact of the new development on environment and the quality of for existing residents existing built up areas. for years to come. FC2/AG/103 Mrs V.L. Sinfield Size and density of the development will have an Recommendations adverse effect on the area. FC2/AG/105 Robert Briggs Proposed development is too large. Objection to Noted – no recommended change. doubling in size of Hogwood Industrial Estate. FC2/AG/112 Ian McBride Scale of development too great for area as it will swamp the existing infrastructure and alter in a detrimental way the rural and scenic nature of the area. FC2/AG/119 Alan Maxwell The development is too large and imbalanced to its

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 32 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

surroundings, robbing the area and landscape of its rural character. FC2/AG/120 Kerry Chalmers Development is far too large for the area. FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach In light of depressed economic climate the (see above for summary, WBC response development should be scaled down. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/125 Jon Tupman Why are so many new homes in greenfield sites in Barkham planned when 3,500 homes are already planned in Arborfield Garrison, half of which lies in Barkham Parish? Fear that the development will ruin this semi-rural location. FC2/AG/126 Anne Petts In addition to Garrison site 30 other sites are (and other promoted for development in Barkham. These are SPDs) greenfield sites, do not meet sustainability criteria, are a threat to Barkham’s identity, and create more traffic. FC2/AG/134 Matt Lawrence Upset by dramatic impact on environment when a whole new town is being built within a mile. FC2/AG/135 Geoff Whitfield Area is already overcrowded having negative effect on quality of life on the local inhabitants. Development will have negative impacts on locals such as traffic, construction vehicles, noise and general pollution. FC2/AG/137 Mr & Mrs P Coles Development is excessive in size particularly given the semi-rural nature of the surroundings. FC2/AG/138 Symone & Aaron Malin No need for more houses or new schools. FC2/AG/139 Ariane Droogmans Development is simply too large and will ruin character of the area and affect house prices. FC2/AG/140 Jayne Yeo Objection as development is not in keeping with character and history of local area and will be

detrimental to lifestyle of residents in Arborfield and on this side of Wokingham and Finchampstead as rural nature of the location will be lost.

FC2/AG/141 Dr Gail Milligan Scale of development is far greater than is

appropriate; it would transform Arborfield into a

soulless and sprawling subtopia.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 33 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/142 Kathryn Curran Concern that the development will exceed the 3,500 houses already planned. FC2/AG/147 Kath James Objection to size of proposed development; a new (see above for summary, WBC response mini town in this area would spoil rural environment. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/148 Matthew Payne Building 3,500 new homes will have significant urbanisation impact on immediate and surrounding area. FC2/AG/154 Rick Wilson Will doubling the size of Hogwood Industrial site help the area? FC2/AG/155 Ian Hill The scale of development seems too large for the wellbeing of residents in the locality, for wildlife habitat, for infrastructure etc. FC2/AG/156 Grace & Ernie Sackey Any development of this size would no doubt result in loss of greenfield land and loss of wildlife. FC2/AG/158 Mr & Mrs Helliwell Development is too large for rural area. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Number of homes at the end of development will be the Arborfield Working in excess of 3,500 due to the existing property. Party There is concern of existing homes being “double- counted” There should be a cap at 3,500 homes. Green spaces need to be protected from the start. FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan Can you guarantee that the SDL planned areas for (FC2/IDC/8) development are as shown on Map 1.26 and not changed for the developer to increase the number of houses before 2026 or after? FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Pressure to build additional houses is evident; this will destroy the whole concept of the SDL. FC2/AG/176 Spencer King Number of houses should be restricted.

FC2/AG/177 Fiona Dixon The huge development at the garrison will

devastate the relative peace and tranquillity of the

area.

FC2/AG/178 Bert Smit Objection to doubling the size of Hogwood Industrial

Estate due to so many industrial units in

Wokingham and adjoining districts being empty.

FC/AG/179 Mrs A J Green A suitably sized development on brownfield site of Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 34 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

garrison will enhance the area and provide much needed housing but 3,500 homes are excessive and out of keeping with the area. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/183 Steve Betts Proposals constitute over-development which will and recommendations on this issue) change nature of area. What proof is there for the need of such a large number of developments in this area over this timescale? If they remain vacant they will be a haven for anti-social behaviour.

FC2/AG/184 Nick Sharman Objection to number of houses planned for this area. FC2/AG/187 Jackie Wright The proposed development is extensive and constitutes over-development which detrimentally changes the whole nature of the area. FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Limiting development to just brownfield site would help with traffic issues. Housing forecast is based on out-of-date data. FC2/AG/194 Josephine Day Objection due to size of development in rural area. FC2/AG/195 Caroline Atkinson Plans should be revised to reflect a lower number of new homes. FC2/AG/199 Alison Owen & Neil Proposed development is too large. Stubbs FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer Arborfield is a small village that cannot cope with Deering development of such extent. Size of development should be reduced. FC2/AG/204 Clare Sharp Development is too large. FC2/AG/212 Olivia & Peter Thornton Huge over development. FC2/AG/214 Edward Dixon Proposed development is out of scale and keeping with the predominantly rural character of the area and will devastate local communities like Eversley ad Finchampstead. FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to density proposed as it is too high for

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 35 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(FC2/IDC/17) semi rural location and residents will have to endure a building site for 14 years. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/218 Steve Bacon The Garrison SDL should be scaled-back to cover and recommendations on this issue) (FC2/IDC/18) just the existing built-up area resulting in around 1,000 dwellings to be started after 2015. FC2/AG/219 Susan Ramsden Concerned about the enormous size of the development. FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth Not against housing but scale will overwhelm the community. FC2/AG/224 D.R. Jones The proposed development is a giant step too far. (FC2/IDC/19) FC2/AG/225 Timothy J Wileman Proposed development is far too large. FC2/AG/226 Claire Wileman Currently enjoys green areas around garrison. Do we really need 3,500 extra homes when there are currently 40 homes on the market within a 1 mile radius? If development is required, it should be much smaller. FC2/AG/227 Lindsay Partridge Proposed development is too large and will not retain rural character of the area. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love Huge array of facilities to be built means that this development is far too big. FC2/AG/233 Janet & Michael The site is far too big and extends way into the Hewland countryside. The development should only be on garrison site. FC2/AG/235 Geoff & Karen Hartnell Development is too large. FC2/AG/238 Mr Williams Development is too large for this small rural village. FC2/AG/239 Helen Lewis Objection to volume of new housing proposed. FC2/AG/242 David Evans The development is too many houses, people and cars. It will change the semi rural character of Arborfield and Finchampstead. FC2/AG/245 Ken Ramsden The size of the development is too big. The Wokingham/Finchampstead infrastructure can’t cope with it. FC2/AG/246 Alison Worley Question the size of the development, obvious that the roads and village location is not suitable for an Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 36 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

additional 3,500 houses. FC2/AG/248 JP Watson Totally opposed to the current proposal to create a new town the size of in the vicinity of Arborfield Garrison to include existing agricultural (see above for summary, WBC response land. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/250 Mrs S Hill Disagree with the total number of houses and the amount of green filed development in a rural area. FC2/AG/255 Mr & Mrs G.A.Hughes The scale of the development is too large. FC2/AG/264 Stephen and Christina Object to the scale and nature of the development. Haigh FC2/AG/266 Dr. Michael Shaw The proposal is excessive and the whole area has insufficient infrastructure to support it. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara The proposed development is too large Brown FC2/AG/280 Colonel A H Millington The development is too large and overly ambitious for the area concerned. Should not build beyond the garrison site. FC2/AG/289 Bernard Hicks The target figure of 11000 new homes seems vastly over estimated. How have these figures been obtained? WBC does not seem to be in any way interested in delaying until more accurate figures are available. If the scheme goes ahead where are people going to find employment and schooling? FC2/AG/294 Andrjez and Olga Do not believe there is a need for 12,500 properties Borowy in the Wokingham area. WBC should find a number of smaller sites to accommodate a reduced number of houses rather than building 4 large sites. This will enable better use of existing infrastructure, rather than having to build it anew on the large sites proposed. FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown Arborfield is a small and tranquil village. The scale of development proposed will take this away from existing residents. Scale of the development is too large and it does not have benefits to local residents.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 37 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/415 Nick Teall Consultation with neighbouring authorities has not (same as 449) been completed as required by PPS3. Urge the council to reconsider the scale and timing (see above for summary, WBC response of the development at Arborfield. Taking a more and recommendations on this issue) realistic approach to balancing demand for new houses with the wishes of the local community. There is a need for a more holistic and joined up approach, working more closely with other local authorities, local businesses and the wider community. FC2/AG/306 Andy Scott The development is too large, and would stretch towards Finchampstead and Barkham and add to the development of the conurbation of Wokingham. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock Proposed size of the development is too big. Require something more sympathetic with the surrounding environment; it should blend with Arborfield not bypass it as a new town bolted on the end. FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard - The proposed development is too large for the infrastructure, and money from developers will not proved sufficient funds. - The case for the scale of the development proposes has not been made. FC2/AG/321 David Sands Concerned about the scale of the development. It is likely to generate an additional 28000 vehicles during peak times, and an estimated 25% can be assumed to use , which would put a strain on the free and safe movement of traffic in Finchampstead. FC2/AG/324 Mr and Mrs Appleton The development is too extensive for the area and does not retain any of the rural character of the existing environment. FC2/AG/325 Peter Ayling The proposed development is too large for the area; new homes should be distributed more evenly throughout Wokingham and Berkshire.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 38 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Fc2/AG/326 Jenny Thaw Object to the size and the impact of the development. Several smaller developments would have far less impact on the area. FC2/AG/327 Simeon Pines Scale of development is out of proportion to the (see above for summary, WBC response rural nature of the area. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/328 George Thaw Object to the size and the impact of the development. Several smaller developments would have far less impact on the area. FC2/AG/332 Ms Celia Matthews The impact the development will have on the residents of ‘The Street’ FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence - (PPS3) There is nothing in the local area to match this style, scale and density of development. - (PPS7) why is WBC forcing such a huge development when a smaller one within the current Garrison would be sufficient? FC2/AG/335 David Batup Garrison is an obvious sit to develop but instead of high density why not consider a lower density option, ¼ of that proposed? Build executive homes and use the profit to offset the cost of higher density housing. These could be built either north or west of Arborfield where it would be easier to build an additional motorway junction. FC2/AG/336 Dr Mike Matthews Construction of a large amount of houses in this location will have a detrimental impact on the rural character of Eversley, and the surrounding areas. Damaging to quality of life for existing residents. FC2/AG/337 John and Kirsty The development seems too big, and beyond the Hayward facilities in place to serve it, the infrastructure can’t cope. FC2/AG/340 Saskia Heath This are cannot accommodate this many new houses, and particularly the traffic they will bring. FC2/AG/342 Helen and Phil Howes Appreciate the need for housing, but the scale of the development is too large. FC2/AG/345 Kate Whyte Hope the size of the development will be

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 39 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

reconsidered. Sure there are other areas within the Wokingham area that could take some of the extra housing without the negative impacts. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/347 Phillippa Radford Feel that the development is too big and will impact and recommendations on this issue) on village life in Eversley FC2/AG/355 Hatty Masser Urge WBC to reconsider the huge scale of the development at Arborfield and the reckless, inflexible all or nothing approach. FC2/AG/356 Dr and Mrs McBurnie Concerned about the size and nature of the development. FC2/AG/359 Robert King The scale of the development is inappropriately excessive, and should be restricted to the current garrison footprint. FC2/AG/365 Roger and Sarah Murfitt The size of the development is too large and not in keeping with the area. FC2/AG/368 Anne Rutter Can understand the need for new houses and improvements to local services, but the plans as they stand are too large. FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith Arborfield is a small village; an additional 3.500 houses would have a detrimental effect on existing residents. Cannot see how the development can serve as anything other than detrimental to the people who live there. Can WBC outline how it can justify supporting such a development in a rural location in light of the statements in the SPD that the development must not ‘harm the character of existing communities’ as well as ‘aiming to protect and enhance the very good quality of life enjoyed in the borough.’ FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium raises objections to the SPD and cannot Landowner Consortium sign up to and deliver the proposed SPD because it does not make provision for a minimum 3,500 dwellings. FC2/AG/433 J.A and V.E Bines The proposed development is wholly inappropriate and will completely alter the character and

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 40 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

appearance of Arborfield. Why can’t WBC say no to the whole idea of enforced development of the countryside? (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/394 Richard Watson - The SPD fails to adequately take account of and recommendations on this issue) or assess the impact on, the areas surrounding the proposed development, A development of this scale will have significant detrimental impact on the surrounding areas of Farley Hill, and Finchampstead that are not addressed n the SPD. - The council should reconsider the size and scale of the proposed development. FC2/AG/397 Paul Taylor Question the size of the development, our roads and village location is simply not suitable for any additional houses and cars. FC2/AG/401 Toby Perring On environmental grounds the overall scale of the development is objectionable. Beyond a certain size, Arborfield will cease to have its rural quality, to the detriment of all. FC2/AG/403 Sarah Warr The development will destroy community spirit that is required in as per the Governments big society policy. will be engulfed into a sprawl. Already have a large traveller community to support and increasing development will overwhelm the community resources. FC2/AG/415 Nick Teall The development is not in proportion or in keeping (same as 449) with the area. FC2/AG/424 Mrs Brunhilde Williams The scale of the development is entirely out of proportion for the area, and the infrastructure is under developed. FC2/AG/429 Francis and Audrey Development should be much smaller and should Moore not start until the MOD has completely moved away from the site.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 41 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/435 A. J. Cockrill Development should be dispersed in smaller pockets adjacent to existing built areas using existing infrastructure where possible. FC2/AG/439 Mr D. A Woolgar Accept that some development is necessary but 3500 houses are too much and will cause a complete upheaval. FC2/AG/441 unknown - The proposal to build not just on the garrison site is completely out of proportion with an acceptable level of development. - If additional housing is needed there are many more appropriate alternative sites in the south east which should be looked at. FC2/AG/447L Mr & Mrs Colin Williams The proposed development is too large for the area and does not maintain the rural character. Separation of settlements FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Danger of merging of separately functioning Summary traditional communities and disregard for green Maintaining Arborfield’s distinct gaps. settlement pattern and avoiding loss of FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton Development will result in loss of individual villages identity through encroachment on and creation of a sprawling new town area. neighbouring villages such as Barkham FC2/AG/39 Simon Quainton Development would join up Finchampstead and and Eversley were raised by many Eversley and the already overdeveloped line of respondents. Some felt in particular that development out from Reading towards . no formal initiatives were set out by the FC2/AG/48 Mrs J.C.M. Asteraki There is no formal declaration of “Separation of ARBSPD to maintain the separation Settlements” between the development and that between Arborfield and Finchampstead area of Finchampstead along Reading Road, along Reading Road, Park Lane and Mill Finchampstead, Park Lane, Finchampstead, and Road. New Mill Road, Finchampstead. FC2/AG/49 Mr J.D. Asteraki There is no formal declaration of “Separation of WBC Response Settlements” between the development and that area of Finchampstead along Reading Road, Retaining separation and settlement Finchampstead, Park Lane, Finchampstead, and identity is a key issue for the ARBSPD, New Mill Road, Finchampstead. which is emphasised by figures 2.2 and FC2/AG/53 Tracy Reis Gaps should be between the areas and not lined up 4.5. like dominoes. The development should be scaled

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 42 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

back significantly and sensible limits are set. The SPD sets out character typologies FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Development would stretch 6 – 7 miles from that help to guide development within the Eversley to Arborfield contrary to planning SDL, with most built up areas in the guidelines that require open spaces between centre and the gradual reduction in built residential areas. intensity towards the edges of the FC2/AG/58 Beryl Hazell Development will create a massive continuous ARBSDL (Design Principle 3a, figure 4.5 ribbon of development from Aldershot to Reading – and table on pages 44 - 45). where will the gaps be which Planning Policy decrees? The ARBSPD stresses the need for a FC2/AG/64 Graham Bell Fears sprawling and criticises lack of defined sensitive approach in terms of managing settlement boundaries. the relationship between existing and FC2/AG/68 Mrs W. Hall There is no formal declaration of “Separation of new developments as illustrated by the Settlements” between the development and that additions of transition areas and design area of Finchampstead along Reading Road, solutions illustrated in Appendix 1. In Finchampstead, Park Lane, Finchampstead, and particular the indicative design approach New Mill Road, Finchampstead. for the Nine Mile Ride Gateway FC2/AG/69 Tony Hogarty Planning Policy states that gaps should be created demonstrates how settlement separation between existing communities, yet the Garrison can be managed successfully. This development extends to within a mile of Eversley augmented by text in paragraph 1c(iv) itself. that states " In particular, the sensitive FC2/AG/76 Russell Pickett Barkham is a village in its own right and with these introduction of new planting at the south extensive developments there is a danger that eastern edge of Arborfield Garrision Barkham will lose its individuality. should be considered as a mechanism to FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat The new community will straddle three parish help enhance and protect the distinct council areas which has implications in terms of residential setting of Finchampstead." infrastructure politics etc which has the potential to divide the community rather than unite it. Recommendation – no recommended FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison A separate local council should serve the SDL changes. instead of decisions being taken by Barkham and Arborfield Parish Councils. FC2/AG/84 Nigel Stoate There are insufficient gaps between communities. FC2/AG/93 Laura Donnelly The development would merge Arborfield, Finchampstead and Eversley into one mass housing estate. Document indicates that site retains separation from Finchampstead and Barkham but

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 43 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

no mention of Eversley. FC2/AG/94 Teresa Mozley Narrowing the gap between Arborfield and Eversley is contrary to Government Policy. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/95 Angela & Malcolm Mc Concerns about building in Barkham (Garrison and recommendations on this issue) (and Dade development and other houses). Wokingham will Infrastructure lose its status as one of the best places to live and SPD) become blighted by traffic and the boundaries with Bracknell and Reading will become blurred. FC2/AG/101 John Spencer Development will mean that Eversley and Arborfield would mere together. They should be kept apart with woods and fields to maintain own identities. FC2/AG/112 Ian McBride To maintain unique character of affected villages and hamlets, the existing discernible spaces between tem must be protected. FC2/AG/114 John Hicks Does this mean that the built up area will extend from Arborfield to Yateley? FC2/AG/117 Ashley Hall No formal declaration of “Separation of Settlements” between the proposed development and the area of Finchampstead along Reading Road and Park Lane. FC2/AG/118 Fenella Hall No formal declaration of “Separation of Settlements” between the proposed development and the area of Finchampstead along Reading Road and Park Lane. FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach The gap between the SDL and Finchampstead North is practically non-existent as houses run all along Nine Mile Ride resulting in no visual gap between the two settlements. The development boundary should be pushed back towards Arborfield Garrison (not in line with review undertaken by WBC in 2004). Hogwood Industrial Estate should be moved further back. FC2/AG/129 Julie Kentish Barnes Gap between Eversley and development is too small. FC2/AG/132 Fred Trigg Arborfield and Barkham should be kept separated

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 44 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(FC2/IDC/6) both physically and visually. FC2/AG/136 Brian and Carole Le Agree with SPD about Finchampstead remaining (see above for summary, WBC response Page completely separated from the development in order and recommendations on this issue) to protect its semi-rural identity and character. FC2/AG/137 Mr & Mrs P Coles The gap between boundaries of proposed development and Finchampstead as proposed would be far too small – in danger of loosing its identify and becoming indistinguishable sprawl to the south of Wokingham. FC2/AG/142 Kathryn Curran Concern that the boundaries between the two villages will reduce and create a mini-town in the countryside. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of The new community should be a separated from the Arborfield Working existing settlements/ be a separate Party community/parish (could be called Langley Common). FC2/AG/169 Tara Bickers Loss of green fields will leave no buffer between Arborfield and Eversley. FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan Objection to development of Area B as it erodes the (FC2/IDC/8) gap between Sheerlands and Barker and Finchampstead. Swallowfield should be added to para 2.3.3, FC2/AG/176 Spencer King The extent of the proposed development shows that the villages of Arborfield and Finchampstead will be almost one large residential area with no distinctive boundaries between the two. FC/AG/179 Mrs A J Green Such a large development will mean that the gap between Arborfield and Finchampstead will be reduced and become too small which will have detrimental impacts on village and change its character. FC2/AG/183 Steve Betts Proposals constitute over-development which will change nature of area and eat into green belt between villages in the area. FC2/AG/186 Martin Bloomfield Already the space between

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 45 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(FC2/SW/34) Bracknell/Wokingham/Crowthorne//Earley (see above for summary, WBC response has been significantly reduced and this will and recommendations on this issue) continue. FC2/AG/187 Jackie Wright The proposed development will greatly eat into the current green belt between the villages in the area. FC2/AG/194 Josephine Day There is hardly any differentiation between the towns and villages and the area is turning into one giant housing estate. FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe Development would be too close to existing built up areas and will have detrimental impacts on the surrounding countryside. FC2/AG/208 Sarah Clark Land between garrison and Eversley acts as an important green barrier between the two villages and must remain so. FC2/AG/227 Lindsay Partridge Gap between development and Finchampstead is too small and needs reconsidering. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love If plan goes ahead gap between Eversley and the “New town” will be severely diminished. FC2/AG/234 Mr L Carr Will there be provision for a “green lung” between Eversley and Arborfield? FC2/AG/239 Helen Lewis Objection due to permanent impact on the rural feel to this area with a corridor being created of new housing all the way from the outskirts of Eversley through to Reading.

FC2/AG/243 Stephen and Cheryl The loss of green field area will effectively create a Clark single urban area linking Wokingham to Reading. FC2/AG/244 Richard Love The gap between the Arborfield site and Eversley will be very small and this point needs careful consideration. FC2/AG/282 Sophie Becker The Arborfield development will reach the outskirts of Eversley robbing us of the distinct separate village character. FC2/AG/287 Mrs C. S. Heffernan The development comes very close to Eversley and goes against planning policy that there should be

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 46 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

gaps left between communities. FC2/AG/294 Andrjez and Olga Bringing the development to the edge of (see above for summary, WBC response Borowy Finchampstead will remove countryside between and recommendations on this issue) the villages and expand urban sprawl. FC2/AG/306 Andy Scott - The wooded area on the south west corner by Park Lane/Reading Road/New Mill Lane acts as a demarcation between Finchampstead and the new southern spread of what would be the new settlement, and should be preserved. - A smaller less intensive development would be more suitable to keep the demarcations between the settlements. FC2/AG/310 Chris Milligan Scale of the development is greater than is appropriate, and would ruin the sense of community in Arborfield. FC2/AG/314 Finchampstead Parish Strongly support the layout of development that Council removes housing to the south of the Nine Mile Ride extension linking Park Lane and Finchampstead North. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock The gaps between Arborfield, Finchampstead, Barkham and Eversley will be lost. FC2/AG/339 David Bell on behalf of Whilst accepting the fact that the current FC2/STST/11 Heckfield Parish development proposals do not involve building right Council up to Eversley, the southern end of the development would be very close to the county boundary and bring closer the day when the two communities are joined. FC2/AG/341 Liz Scott The size of the development will lead to suburban sprawl with little space to separate the settlement from Finchampstead and Barkham. The area around Finchampstead will be encroached on by the development. FC2/AG/348 Celia Adams on behalf Care must be taken to ensure that Farley Hill is of Swallowfield Parish distinctly separated from Arborfield Garrison

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 47 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Council development. There should be no development to the West of the A327. FC2/AG/357 Anne Hobbs Concerned that Eversley will just become part of a (see above for summary, WBC response big housing estate. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/365 Roger and Sarah Murfitt The gap between the current border of Finchampstead and the new development is inadequate. FC2/AG/367 Ken & Sue Naish The development will lead to a vast area of urban sprawl from Arborfield through to Bagshot in one direction or through Farnham to the other. The development could easily see the eroding of the gap between Arborfield and Eversley. FC2/AG/371 Patricia Clark Has the promise of green gaps been inserted into the SPD? Unhappy that area is becoming an urban sprawl and will lose its identity. FC2/AG/385 Ashley Wright Important to keep the separation between , Finchampstead and the Garrison site. Key foundation of the Core Strategy to ensure we do not lose the identity of the current local villages. Development must be sympathetic to local surroundings FC2/AG/388 Eoin Igoe Believe that the gaps between the communities should be retained in the form of open spaces, fields, recreational areas to ensure the area doesn’t become a conglomeration. FC2/AG/390 Monica Vecchi Igoe Major development should be restricted to the main SDL sites as promised by the council and the open spaces between communities and recreational areas within the communities should be preserved permanently under the control of communities. FC2/AG/403 Sarah Warr Would like the plan to avoid ‘joining’ towns to be reconsidered. Although pinewood may not be considered a green area, it is a gap that provides space; building on it is not the correct action. FC2/AG/405 Jeff and Jane Thomas By blurring one of the major boundaries between

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 48 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Eversley and its neighbours there will be a consequent and unhelpful reduction in Eversley’s community spirit and identity. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/423 Mr D Bradley The thought that there could be almost continuous and recommendations on this issue) urbanisation of land bordering the A327 from Eversley to Reading, a distance of 10miles is abhorrent. FC2/AG/427 Catherine and Kevin Want villages to stay individual and not merge into Goodwin one area, because greenfield is built on instead of brownfield sites. FC2/AG/436 T. Scrase It is better to have proper towns and real country than endless sprawl. FC2/AG/447L Mr & Mrs Colin Williams The proposed development boundary is very close to that of the existing Finchampstead Village. Theme 2: IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENT & AMENITY - Topics: Impact on wildlife/loss of trees/Biodiversity / SANG / Proposed open spaces / Views / Pollution / Flooding / SUDS / Allotments / A sustainable location Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Impact on wildlife/loss of trees / Biodiversity FC2/AG/8 Paul Pardon Development would result in significant damage to Summary local habitat and wildlife. FC2/AG/10 Marlene Simms Development in Area B would sacrifice many Many concerns were raised regarding the mature trees and impact bats in vicinity of Tyler impact of the proposed development at Drive. Arborfield upon the local environment FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte Objection to felling of trees (e.g. mature trees and wildlife species. Particular concerns opposite the entrance to Gerring Road and by were raised regarding the potential loss Community Centre; these trees are home to bats, of existing mature trees in Area B woodpeckers, cuckoos etc.). especially Gerring Road, Tyler Drive and FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Objection to felling of trees (e.g. mature trees nearby the Community Centre. opposite the entrance to Gerring Road and by Nearby SSSIs are also identified by Community Centre; these trees are home to bats, respondents as sensitive areas that are woodpeckers, cuckoos etc.). likely to be affected by the ARBSDL FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Objection to felling of trees (e.g. mature trees development. opposite the entrance to Gerring Road and by Community Centre; these trees are home to bats, WBC Response woodpeckers, cuckoos etc.). Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 49 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Negative impact on environment and wildlife and Measures to balance development with decrease of open spaces and woodlands. the protection and enhancement of the FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Objection due to impact on bats. local natural environment are set out by FC2/AG/30 Andrew Clint All mature trees should be maintained; in particular the ARBSPD and have played an planting to south of rugby pitches around the influential role in the development of the community centre should not be touched. preferred spatial framework plan. FC2/AG/37 Martina Neubert & Objection to threats to wildlife caused by Stephen Saunders development. Areas highlighted in yellow in figure 3.1 FC2/AG/40 Katherine Taylor-Jones Objects to loss of plants and animals. correspond to broad development areas FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Objection to felling of any trees within Arborfield that will include a range of landuses not SDL (e.g. mature trees opposite entrance to Gerring confined simply to built development. Road and by Community Centre that home bats, The SPD stresses that a comprehensive woodpeckers, cuckoos etc). There is also a badger and thoughtful approach should be taken in the area. by the developers in order to ensure that FC2/AG/42 Neil Bidston Objection to felling of any trees within the Arborfield important greenspaces, local topography, SDL as they are home to bats, woodpeckers, mature trees, hedgerows, wildlife habitats cuckoos etc. and other areas of biodiversity and FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Objection to any felling of trees within Arborfield ecological importance are incorporated SDL (in particular opposite the entrance to Gerring appropriately into the schemes. These Road and by the Community Centre there are trees sentiments are reinforced throughout the that are home to bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos, etc SPD. Paragraph 2.2.1, sets out that and there is a badger in the area. existing woodlands, trees and hedgerows FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Objection to any felling of trees within Arborfield need to be included as part of an overall SDL (in particular opposite the entrance to Gerring landscape strategy. Paragraph 2.4.10 Road and by the Community Centre there are trees also sets out a commitment to retain the that are home to bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos, etc best established trees and protect wildlife and there is a badger in the area. habitats. FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott The development would devastate the rural environment. Whilst paragraph 1a(i) highlights the need for schemes to integrate the FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey Development will result in destruction of trees which cannot be replaced. existing tree pattern including avenues of trees associated with the Garrison (such FC2/AG/66 David Valentine Development will destroy wildlife. as the distinctive horse chestnuts FC2/AG/67 Andrea Lake on behalf Concerned about the wildlife and its habitat that adjoining Nuffield Road and the remnant of Lake Family currently thrives in the fields and hedges. avenues of oak around West Court). FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Objection to felling of any trees within Arborfield Additional protection will be afforded by Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 50 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

SDL. Mature trees particularly opposite the entrance Tree Preservation Orders. Paragraph to Gerring Road and by Community Centre should 1c(iv) articulates more clearly the be protected as they are home to wildlife (bats, sensitivity required by developers when woodpeckers, cuckoos). There is also a badger in drawing up schemes for Area B that the area. incorporate the existing mature trees and FC2/AG/86 Faith Scott Concerns regarding impact on a Special Protected retain the amenity value of the area. Area. FC2/AG/89 Seal Family Felling of mature trees would endanger wildlife (e.g. Connectivity between new and existing bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos, badgers). areas of open space, green FC2/AG/103 Mrs V.L. Sinfield The semi-rural nature of the area will be lost and will infrastructure, sports and play areas is become urbanised. also stipulated by the ARBSPD as a key FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Objection to felling of any trees. There are mature principle that should shape future trees in particular opposite the entrance to Gerring development schemes (paragraph 1e(i) – Road and by the Community Centre that provide 1e(v). habitat to protected species and other wildlife. There is also a badger run it the area. A strong steer is also provided within FC2/AG/110 John Goodman The C24 connecting Eversley (A327) to Heckfield Design Principle 1: Landscape (A33) bisects a European Special Protection Area Framework (pages 26-34) that seeks a with a variety of fauna and flora. An increase in comprehensive approach regarding the traffic must inevitably degrade its performance and integration of all important landscape its legacy. features into the masterplan. Key FC2/AG/124 Mark Jones Environment welfare (trees and animals) or features of this design principle include: protected species seems to be quite relaxed which is unbelievable as once destroyed it cannot be • the requirement for a detailed tree replaced. survey to accompany planning FC2/AG/130 Mrs J Harrison Concerns about impact upon animals, birds, insects applications by developers; and plants due to building on greenfield land. There • an integrated approach that will include are a wide variety of flora and fauna including bats, watercourses (including that bisecting the deer, badgers, foxes, grass snakes, adders, SDL broadly from east to north west dragonflies, damselflies, cuckoos, goldfinches and feeding into the existing balancing lake in increasing number of wild plants. the north eastern part of the SDL FC2/AG/131 Mr R.L. Harrison Concerns about impact upon animals, birds, insects adjoining Biggs Lane, and that which and plants due to building on greenfield land. There runs from the centre of the SDL are a wide variety of flora and fauna including bats, southwards), ponds, wetland areas, deer, badgers, foxes, grass snakes, adders, grassland, footpaths and bridleways; • a requirement to demonstrate how the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 51 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

dragonflies, damselflies, cuckoos, goldfinches and existing landscape features have increasing number of wild plants. influenced the development of FC2/AG/132 Fred Trigg Streams in area are home to many waterfowl and developers schemes; (FC2/IDC/6) the meadows provide grazing for wild deer and • a requirement that masterplans should should be kept free of development. be sensitive to and reflect the landscape FC2/AG/141 Dr Gail Milligan Objection to loss of green space, mature trees and identified within character zones; wildlife. • a requirement to respect sensitive areas FC2/AG/144 David George Land Development would result in loss of mature trees such as and California and wildlife habitat. Country Park; and, FC2/AG/145 Elizabeth Peat Objection to felling of trees which contribute to the • a requirement for developers to protect character of the area. They also provide habitat to and enhance ecological and biodiversity animals and their loss would decimate the local habitats and include how it will be wildlife. delivered and maintained. FC2/AG/156 Grace & Ernie Sackey Any development of this size would no doubt result in loss of greenfield land and loss of wildlife. The development schemes should also FC2/AG/161 Angela Phillips Objection to loss of wildlife habitats. introduce new landscape and green FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Environmental impacts of development on infrastructure features such as new public the Arborfield Working greenfield land have not been properly researched open spaces, SANG, a water Party (regarding e.g. habitats, wildlife, ancient management system, native woodland hedgerows). and tree planting, new hedgerows, FC2/AG/163 Elizabeth Wood Dismayed at potential loss of mature trees, green grasslands and wild flower meadows, space and wildlife refuges as a result of this allotments and sports and play facilities. development. FC2/AG/165 David G Land Objection as development on greenfield site would Recommendation result in loss of mature trees and wildlife habitat. FC2/AG/167 S.M. Allison on behalf Bramshill Parish is primarily a SSSI Site and Comments by respondents that relate of Bramshill Parish increasing traffic has adverse impacts upon flora to topics such as mitigating the effects Council and fauna. of development on greenspaces, trees, wildlife, amenity etc have been FC2/AG/169 Tara Bickers Development will have catastrophic effects on considered by the ARBSPD. However, wildlife. due to its role, detailed comments FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan Concerned that specimen trees, hedgerows and received will be considered in greater (FC2/IDC/8) groups of trees will be eliminated. detail in later stages of the design and FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan It is important that the tree officers establish the planning process through quality of the hedgerows, groups of trees and trees Environmental Statements. of importance before the land has been sold to a

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 52 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

developer. Data is out of date. Impacts on bats and Natural England were consulted. They birds highlighted. A blanket TPO was promised for made no comments on the Draft the whole site but has this been done yet? Arborfield SPD. Is a 20 odd year disturbance acceptable environmentally? No changes are recommended. FC2/AG/177 Fiona Dixon Objection as development of green fields will have immense impacts on local wildlife. FC2/AG/179 Mrs A J Green Development will have impact on wildlife and people alike (loss of habitat). FC2/AG/183 Steve Betts Proposals constitute over-development which will destroy mature trees and impact local wildlife including badger sets. FC2/AG/189 Mike Boys Can not more thought be given to leaving adequate spaces for wildlife to travel between building developments? FC2/AG/194 Josephine Day Objection to safeguard green spaces, wildlife, water etc. FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe Development will have detrimental impacts on the surrounding countryside and wildlife. FC2/AG/201 Maxine Smale How can loss of wildlife be justified? FC2/AG/208 Sarah Clark Objection to loss of mature trees and ancient hedgerows. FC2/AG/214 Edward Dixon Development will place intolerable strain on nearby SSSI. FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to development of greenfield sites as they (FC2/IDC/17) contain established trees, hedgerows and wildlife. FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth Green fields and trees should be maintained. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love The increase in traffic will possibly damage the environment. FC2/AG/233 Janet & Michael Wild animals and our way of life in the area need to Hewland be protected. FC2/AG/236 Dean Chamberlain What will happen to existing habitats and wildlife? FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes Green field sites are home to wildlife and any development would greatly risk their habitat. FC2/AG/258 D. W Hamilton The Berkshire, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 53 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

conservation area is bound by Park Lane to the south west. It is an established conservation area rich in bird, plant and animal life. Limited access to (see above for summary, WBC response Park Lane would greatly enhance the protection of and recommendations on this issue) this conservation area FC2/AG/263 James Lewis Concerned about the effect on the wildlife in the area, in particular deer and bats. FC2/AG/267 Phil and Liz Wise The wildlife in the area will be affected. The building and construction will drive away woodpeckers, badgers and deer. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara The loss of green fields and wild life is the lesson to Brown teach future generations that its ok to destroy the gifts of mother nature. FC2/AG/284 Mrs K Tipton How will WBC develop the area and not impact on the areas mature trees, shrub land and wildlife species? FC2/AG/297 Darren Tipton There are many mature trees, particularly opposite the entrance to Gerring Road and by the Community Centre. They are home to bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos and other wild animals. There is also a badger run in the area. Any development would endanger this wildlife. FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown This development on Greenfield sites will destroy the wildlife around us. FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad Developing in Greenfield sites will only speed up global warming, destroying vegetation and trees that naturally soak up C02 and release oxygen. what about the designated badger run in Area B on the plans. and what about the bats, squirrels, foxes, woodpeckers and other wildlife on the site? FC2/AG/304 Sean Green Mature trees opposite the entrance to Gerring Road and by the Community Centre, which are home to bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos and other wild animals. There is also a Badger run in the area. Tree felling would therefore endanger these animals. No tree

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 54 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

felling should take place and no animals should be killed. FC2/AG/305 Lorraine Bek Mature trees opposite the entrance to Gerring Road (see above for summary, WBC response and by the Community Centre, which are home to and recommendations on this issue) bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos and other wild animals. There is also a badger run in the area. Tree felling would therefore endanger these animals. No tree felling should take place and no animals should be killed. FC2/AG/306 Andy Scott The wooded area on the south west corner by Park Lane/Reading Road/New Mill Lane crossroads is not indicated on any maps. This copse supports wildlife including Coal Tits and must be preserved. Mature trees lining the A327 from Sheerlands Road to the Park Lane/Reading Road/ New Mill Lane crossroads give the route a semi rural character and should be maintained. The development is shown reaching up to Reading Road on the west side, currently this area is tree lined and no development should encroach pm these trees. The development is within a few hundred meters of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area and as such should not be allowed without all of the southern area of the site being left as SANG (at least all of the area from the officers mess south). This area is marked as a proposed SANG in the plan but currently it supports a diverse variety of wildlife. Turning this area into a SANG is likely to destroy much of its biodiversity. FC2/AG/310 Chris Milligan The development would have a huge impact in terms of loss of green space and the resultant loss of mature trees and wildlife and space for people to walk and children to play. FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins There is an abundance of wildlife in and around

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 55 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Arborfield Garrison; Deer, bats, woodpeckers, hedgehogs and foxes. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/322 Daniel Boys Any proposed bypass will result in further significant and recommendations on this issue) loss of woodlands, green spaces, fields and hedgerows. FC2/AG/325 Peter Ayling Strongly object to the destruction of any established trees and other wildlife. FC2/AG/330 F A Scott Development on greenfield will mean the loss of wildlife habitat and many mature trees. FC2/AG/341 Liz Scott Incomplete survey in Constraints Plan. Concerned that an area of copse at the southernmost point of the site has not been marked. If this has been missed other areas may have been too. Removal of trees along the A327 will degrade the character of the area and will result in the loss of habitat for wildlife. Bramshill is part of the Thames Heath Special Protection Area and supports a population of endangered species including Woodlark. During construction, this area is likely to receive more public access, particularly if there is no SANG from the start. FC2/AG/348 Celia Adams on behalf Would like the borough to consider that any local of Swallowfield Parish gravel extraction and earth works should be done Council with careful consideration to the local environment and with minimum disruption to the quality of life of those living in the vicinity. FC2/AG/349 Julia Townsend - Rose The development will have serious negative effects on valuable wildlife habitats. FC2/AG/356 Dr and Mrs McBurnie The proposed bypass if it came south of Arborfield would ruin rural and countryside areas and destroy wildlife and the environment. FC2/AG/357 Anne Hobbs Concerned for all the wildlife, will they abandon the area once building commences and the massive increase in traffic, and the disturbance to both

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 56 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

human and wildlife this will cause. FC2/AG/359 Robert King The development will permanently remove a (see above for summary, WBC response significant area of valuable wildlife habitat, and is and recommendations on this issue) not adequately mitigated by the SANG. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter Totally object to the development of the areas marked as ‘Area B’. There are many mature trees particularly opposite the entrance to Gerring Road adjacent to Tyler Drive, along Sheerlands Road and by the Community Centre. The trees are home to bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos and other birds and wild animals. Any tree felling would endanger all this wildlife. AG-RAG has been repeatedly told that blanket TPOs will be served on all the trees in the SDL to protect them from development. When will these be put in place? FC2/AG/363 Darren Rutter Concerned about the impact the development and the traffic during construction will have on wildlife in the Arborfield Garrison area. Concerned about the loss of trees to accommodate development. Damage to the environment through higher C02 levels The development is unethical. FC2/AG/364 Vivien Quinn The increase in traffic will have harmed the environment. FC2/AG/365 Roger and Sarah Murfitt Unacceptable loss of green field sites and wildlife habitats. FC2/AG/368 Anne Rutter Scale of the development will destroy trees, hedgerows, greenfields. It will also decimate the wildlife in the area. FC2/AG/370 Penny Arlon Object to the destruction of fields, woods, and wildlife that will occur along the A327. FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith A huge development on an area home to wildlife such as bats, deer, foxes and badgers many of which are protected species. How can WBC defend

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 57 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

the decision to plough up so many acres of green fields, rendering destruction to the habitat of so much of WBC’s protected wildlife? (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/386 Carrie Temple on Recommend that a project-level appropriate and recommendations on this issue) behalf of the RSPB assessment be undertaken for the SPD proposals to ensure that impacts on the SPA are fully considered in planning terms. FC2/AG/387 Catherine Drew Object to development of ‘Area B’ as there are many mature trees, particularly opposite to Gerring Road and by the Community Centre. The trees are home to bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos, and other wild animals. There is also a badger run in the area. Any tree felling would endanger the wildlife as would the loss of greenspace. There is also the damage to local wildlife that would be incurred (not just in area B) by the loss of mature trees and green space and the increased flood risk. FC2/AG/391 Nick Philips The destruction of natural habitats and turning of farmland over to housing will have a significant impact on the local wildlife as well as the feel of the area. FC2/AG/394 Richard Watson One of the potential routes for the Arborfield bypass runs right through farmland and ancient woodland within the boundary of Farley Hill and would at a stroke destroy the unique character of the area through ht he destruction of open farmland, existing mature woodland and countryside that forms part of, or immediately adjoins the ASLC. The fields adjoining the A327 forms an invaluable green space for wildlife including barn owls, lapwings, red kites, buzzards, cuckoos, bats and deer. This habitat would be destroyed if the Arborfield bypass is built through the fields of Farley Hill adjoining the A327. FC2/AG/405 Jeff and Jane Thomas Concerned about the environmental impact of the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 58 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

development in terms of additional noise, exhaust fumes, and roadside damage. The street in Eversley will be particularly hard to live on. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/410 Stephanie Weaver Rural area is home to many forms of wildlife and the and recommendations on this issue) proposals will kill them off. FC2/AG/411 Dr Fiona Marston Object to development of ‘Area B’ as there are many mature trees, particularly opposite to Gerring Road and by the Community Centre. The trees are home to bats, woodpeckers, cuckoos, and other wild animals. There is also a badger run in the area. Any tree felling would endanger the wildlife as would the loss of greenspace. There is also the damage to local wildlife that would be incurred (not just in area B) by the loss of mature trees and green space and the increased flood risk. FC2/AG/415 Nick Teall There are a number of important national and (same as 449) international biodiversity sites in this area and species protected under the UK and EU legislation. The plans do not take this appropriately into account. The development will further fragment and isolate existing areas such as SSSI in and have a detrimental effect on other SPA and SPC areas. FC2/AG/425 Stephen R Jones Strongly object to the development outside of the garrison. There are many mature trees that will need to be felled for the plans to go ahead which will impact wildlife. Badger run at the back of house was designed to protect badgers. Building on it will damage the environment for badgers. What plans to WBC have to ensure the habitat remains? Natajac toads, frogs and numerous birds will also be affected FC2/AG/426 Elizabeth Cannon There are many mature trees which will need to be felled for the plans to go ahead which will impact

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 59 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

wildlife. There are many birds, including woodpeckers, gold crest, tits and finches in the area. The development (see above for summary, WBC response will destroy their habitat. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/427 Catherine and Kevin The Arborfield bypass might ease traffic problems Goodwin from all the extra cars from the new development but at what cost? Its impact on mammals, birds, and insects, where will they go? Not willing to pay for the wilful destruction of habitat. FC2/AG/434 R. Beer Object to the destruction of trees and wildlife in and around Arborfield. SANG FC2/AG/19 Jean Britland Car parking provision for new green spaces Summary (SANGS) will only encourage car usage. The provision of SANG is supported FC2/AG/51 Sheena Reid Inclusion of SANG is to be applauded and however, there is widespread support for assurances that this will not be moved or reduced this provision, concern remains about would be welcome. some of the more detailed issues, in FC2/AG/67 Andrea Lake on behalf Access to SANG unsafe for walkers or cyclists due particular: of Lake Family to rat run along small single track lanes (e.g. Park  the need for the Arborfield SPD to Lane, Commonfield Lane). acknowledge the need for FC2/AG/105 Robert Briggs Proposed SANG will be over 2 miles from Arborfield contributions towards Strategic and therefore be hardly local. Access Management and Monitoring FC2/AG/136 Brian and Carole Le The SPD is not clear what exactly will be done with (SAMM), in keeping with the Core Page this area of land. It should retain its current rural Strategy; character so any alterations should be kept to a  a desire to ensure optimum and safe minimum to merely make it accessible to residents. access to the SANG, for existing and If the area will be more purposively developed an future residents; and untouched area of land between Park Lane and the  an acknowledgement of the role that edge of the SANG should be retained to ensure historic buildings can play in Finchampstead doesn’t become an “add on” to the enhancing the quality of green Arborfield development in due course. infrastructure. FC2/AG/150 Mrs E Wilson Proposed site of alternative green space will be over two miles from Arborfield which will be difficult for WBC Response the elderly or families with young children. FC2/AG/161 Angela Philips Concerned about loss of habitat and wildlife. The provision of SANG to mitigate the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 60 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of SANG must be provided. If the Garrison doesn’t impact of the development upon the the Arborfield Working close, no other development to be allowed unless Thames Basin Heath SPA is a critical Party pro-rata SANG is provided. element of the ARBSDL. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan A larger SANG would be better for all users. The phasing of SANGS is not a good idea as it might The SPD acknowledges the requirement take 50 years to mitigate the disruption to the for the SANG to take full account of the landscape and it is therefore better to start the design criteria and specification of SANGS at the beginning for the enhancing of the Natural England. SANGS to establish. Location of SANG is not the best for residents. The ARBSPD states in paragraph 1c(vii) FC2/AG/186 Martin Bloomfield Already well served by Country Parks but these are how the SANG should be located in the (FC2/SW/34) no substitutes for the “real” thing. southern part of the SDL, (noted by the FC2/AG/189 Mike Boys Why the loss of green fields to be compensated by EiP Inspector as an appropriate SANG an artificial “country park” which becomes a location), around West Court which is a destination for Sunday outings? Why is the SANG Grade II Listed Building, as one large, two miles away from where residents are living now comprehensive site with appropriate while current fields are only 6m away? parking accessible to the A327. The FC2/AG/199 Alison Owen & Neil Proposed SANG will be over two miles from SANG should be provided in accordance Stubbs Arborfield. with the requirements of the WCS and FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Proposed SANG is already greenfield space in so Natural England. (FC2/IDC/17) far as it is established farmland. Therefore the proposal that SANGS compensate for loss of The SPD emphasises that the SANG greenfield space is flawed. should also play a significant role in FC2/AG/225 Timothy J Wileman The proposed SANG will be over two miles from helping to provide high levels of Arborfield. connectivity between areas of open FC2/AG/233 Janet & Michael As a result of development locals would have to go space, green infrastructure, sports and Hewland several miles along even more congested roads to play areas in order to ensure good levels enjoy open space. of access and use. There will be a FC2/AG/238 Mr Williams Unacceptable loss of green fields and open spaces. network of walks to /from SANG. The nearest natural green space will be over two Paragraph 1e(iii) states that: "particular miles from Arborfield too far without means of attention should be given to providing transport. good connections between the proposed SANG and the residential neighbourhoods".

Natural England has no objection to the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 61 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

nature and approach to SANGs.

Recommendation

The Arborfield SPD should include references to contributions to the SAMM and re-affirm requirements for safe and convenient access to the SANG for all residents. FC2/AG/246 Alison Worley Object to the positioning of SANG over two miles away. Ridiculous that the area of alternative natural green space will require residents to get in their cars. FC2/AG/249 Gill Purchase Offering SANG over 2 miles away is no compensation. FC2/AG/258 D. W Hamilton The establishment of the SAND will help maintain the settlement separation objective and reinforce and be consistent with the current designation of the area of Finchampstead to the East and the south east of Park Lane as an area of Special Landscape interest. FC2/AG/264 Stephen and Christina It makes no sense to have SANG 2 miles away, Haigh when the existing green areas are to be destroyed. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara Why should residents be made to travel miles to find Brown green space to enjoy? FC2/AG/306 Andy Scott The development is within a few hundred meters of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area and as such should not be allowed without all of the southern area of the site being left as SANG (at least all of the area from the officers mess south). This area is marked as a proposed SANG in the plan but currently it supports a diverse variety of wildlife. Turning this area into a SANG is likely to destroy much of its biodiversity. FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins The SANG is nowhere near us, what good is that?

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 62 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Clearing green filed and countryside and then replacing it in a site that is not close. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard Prefer earlier plans which show SANG space in the and recommendations on this issue) north of the site FC2/AG/341 Liz Scott The SPD does not detail the design of the SANG. No mention is made of the type of habitat it will contain. Concerned that the design of the space will be detrimental to local wildlife. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock Believe the assumption of 2.2 members per household which you have calculated the SANG provision on to be too low. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter WBC’s justification for building on Greenfield land is a new SANG are, this argument is flawed as the new SANG areas is already green filed, open site and farmland. It is also 2 miles south of where the majority of the existing residents live. FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium disagrees with SANG location to the Landowner Consortium south because it does not maximise links to other areas of open space and is too far away from residents – separate locations would be preferred. FC2/AG/397 Paul Taylor Object to the positioning of SANG over 2 miles away. Ridiculous that the area of greenspace will require residents to get in their cars, increasing congestion and pollution FC2/AG/426 Elizabeth Cannon The proposal to provide SANG 2 miles from the current playing fields means that children will have nowhere to go, football/rugby clubs etc will no longer be a local amenity. Views FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Obtrusive visual impact on open countryside Summary (urbanisation). Loss of views onto the countryside was FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton on behalf Objection to loss of views of existing properties raised by some respondents and loss of of backing onto Area B (Barker Close). privacy. AG-RAG FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Her property backs onto Area B and house lies WBC Response

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 63 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

within 6m of the boundary with Area B. Loss of view and privacy is inevitable. Development will also It is not within the scope of the ARBSPD have impact upon property value. to set out detailed measures to help FC2/AG/189 Mike Boys His property backs onto Area B with the result of mitigate the loss of views. The later loss of views and impacts upon property value. stages of the planning and design process will consider this aspect in more detail. However, the ARBSPD does acknowledge the importance of retaining residential amenity and privacy of existing users for sensitive locations such as Area B.

In relation to the Preferred Spatial Framework Plan (Figure 3.1) there continues to be opposition to Area B, which lies adjacent to existing homes. It should be noted that in response to the previous statutory consultation exercise in relation to Arborfield SPD, amendments have been made to reduce the scale of Area B to ensure areas of existing mature trees around the community centre are excluded; that expectations of the average gross density of the area have been reduced; and indicative sketch layouts have been included to demonstrate how development might be designed to manage the impact of development on existing homes. Appendix 1 includes an indicative design layout for Area B that demonstrates an approach that respects the privacy of existing buildings within Area B through ensuring that boundary planting and back gardens of new lower density dwellings lie adjacent to existing Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 64 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

properties.

Recommendation

No recommended change. FC2/AG/309 N M Long-Field The fact that this is an area of outstanding beauty seems to be treated with such disdain. FC2/AG/363 Darren Rutter The development will destroy the views across fields for many properties. Will impact on the value of property. Pollution FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte Objection to dust and noise pollution by Summary development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Many concerns were raised regarding the Road. levels of pollution associated with the FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Objection to dust and noise pollution by construction of the new development and development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands the likely increased levels of traffic Road. thereafter. In particular, the negative FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Objection to dust and noise pollution by impacts of pollution on locations within development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Area B such as Tyler Drive and Road. Sheerlands Road from noise and dust FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Concerns about increase in traffic, noise and other were highlighted as was the potential pollution. new bus route along Whitehall Drive and FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Opposed to development of Area B due to resulting its associated traffic pollution. Impacts of dust and noise pollution. increased traffic on surrounding villages FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton Development will result in unacceptable pollution were also raised such as traffic travelling levels – fumes, noise, and rubbish. through Eversley. FC2/AG/40 Katherine Taylor-Jones Reading Road is cause of major noise and air pollution and destroys wildlife and people from WBC Response pollution related illnesses. FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Whilst concerns about increased pollution Drive to busses would cause noise and air pollution. as a consequence of development are FC2/AG/42 Neil Bidston Concerned about impacts of increased traffic on acknowledged, legislation and pollution. regulations are in place to ensure that the FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Objection to dust and noise pollution caused by impact on air, noise and water quality is development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands managed and maintained at acceptable Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 65 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Road. levels. FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Objection to dust and noise pollution caused by development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands In addition it should be noted that Road. provision for greater levels of non-car use FC2/AG/53 Tracy Reis Increase in noise, pollution and vibration is massive should help to limit impact if these are concern. taken up by local residents. FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Development will change people’s way of life in the village due to noise and construction fall-out, Recommendation vibration, damage to buildings, noise, and pollution. FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey Objection as construction vehicles will produce No changes in relation to this issue are pollution and noise. recommended. FC2/AG/60 Jacqueline Hogarty Massive increase in traffic on A327 through Eversley could have immense impacts both physically with vibration and pollution and socially. FC2/AG/63 Derek Hazell Objection to development will swamp surroundings with noise, air and light pollution, engine vibration and lessen life quality for all. FC2/AG/73 John Carter Concern that development would increase pollution. FC2/AG/82 Tove B Godfrey Increase of traffic through Eversley, especially construction traffic will create more dust, pollution and noise. FC2/AG/84 Nigel Stoate The development will create unacceptable increases in traffic, noise, pollution, vibration and disturbance in the local area. FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Objection to noise and dust pollution that would be caused by development.

FC2/AG/96 Brendon & Alison Watt Development will cause noise and pollution in

Eversley.

FC2/AG/98 Alison Saunders Traffic will cause pollution which is bad for the

environment and residents.

FC2/AG/100 Bev Hutchings Increase in traffic would increase pollution, noise

and disturbance to unacceptable levels. FC2/AG/105 Robert Briggs Objection to disruption, noise, dust and pollution during the 15 year construction process. FC2/AG/106 Mr M C Woodman The A327 seems to be the only route into the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 66 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

development causing huge impact on level of traffic, noise, pollution and dust. FC2/AG/107 Mrs J Woodman The A327 seems to be the only route into the (see above for summary, WBC response development causing huge impact on level of traffic, and recommendations on this issue) noise, pollution and dust. FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Objection to dust and noise pollution caused by development. FC2/AG/112 Ian McBride Disruption, noise and air quality will worsen to intolerable levels. FC2/AG/113 M J Green Noise pollution near B3272 will be considerable. FC2/AG/114 John Hicks Increase in noise pollution during the working week. FC2/AG/124 Mark Jones Duration and extent of access road works will result in massive impacts such as pollution and noise. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara Disruption that would be caused to family life during Brown the long process of construction and for years after. FC2/AG/125 Jon Tupman Fear of continuous traffic noise. FC2/AG/128 Patricia Green Pollution is part of the work progress but should be (FC2/NW/10, limited by WBC taking control of the spread of FC2/SW/15, works, preventing piecemeal development. FC2/SM4/33) FC2/AG/130 Mrs J Harrison Concerned about noise and pollution caused by extra traffic.

FC2/AG/131 Mr R.L. Harrison Concerned about noise and pollution caused by

extra traffic.

FC2/AG/135 Geoff Whitfield Development will have negative impacts on locals

such as traffic, construction vehicles, noise and

general pollution.

FC2/AG/139 Ariane Droogmans Concerned about noise and pollution this

development will bring. FC2/AG/141 Dr Gail Milligan Objection to the noise, disruption and pollution created by construction of a development of this scale. FC2/AG/142 Kathryn Curran Increase of traffic will affect the environment and increase pollution which may have lasting affect on conservation area. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 67 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/143 John Hartle Increase in traffic will result in increased pollution to environment and property in conservation area. FC2/AG/145 Elizabeth Peat Rerouting of the 144 bus route combined with increased traffic would increase noise and air (see above for summary, WBC response pollution. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/150 Mrs E Wilson Objection as increase in traffic will increase pollution. FC2/AG/155 Ian Hill The development will in crease noise, damage and pollution. FC2/AG/158 Mr & Mrs Helliwell Disruption, noise and pollution for 15 years construction period is not acceptable. FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan Highlights that land adjacent to Barker Drive suffers (FC2/IDC/8) from methane gas emanating. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Will pollution on A327 increase due to development? Some of data is historic. Has site decontamination been taken into account? FC2/AG/176 Spencer King The development and construction works will bring intolerable levels of noise, pollution and disruption over next 15 years. How can Council overlook this issue without carrying out extensive surveys and monitoring prior to any decision being made. FC2/AG/179 Mrs A J Green Increase in traffic will increase pollution and noise. FC2/AG/182 Pauline Lawton Very concerned about increase in traffic, noise and (duplicate of pollution. 438) FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Development will increase noise, in particular for

adjoining properties. New bus service will increase noise impacts on existing residents.

FC2/AG/189 Mike Boys Development will increase noise, in particular for

adjoining properties.

FC2/AG/190 Mike Preston Additional traffic will have knock-on effects on

pollution and the environment.

FC2/AG/191 Jocelyn Lomer Pollution from additional traffic will impact environment (e.g. beech trees are already dying).

Also concerned about noise impacts. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 68 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe Increase in traffic will increase pollution, greenhouses gases and vibration. FC2/AG/198 Philippa Varcoe Existing traffic has already adverse impacts on (see above for summary, WBC response residents such as noise, pollution, and will affect the and recommendations on this issue) children (ability to do school work). And additional traffic will make situation worse. FC2/AG/199 Alison Owen & Neil Disruption, noise, dust and pollution which will be Stubbs created during the 15 year construction period. FC2/AG/204 Clare Sharp Disruption, noise, dust and pollution which will be created during the 15 year construction period. FC2/AG/206 George Moudiotis Development will bring noise, dust and pollution. FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to resulting noise and dust pollution. (FC2/IDC/17) FC2/AG/216 Mrs Dee Varcoe Traffic on A327 is already huge problem and residents’ safety is at risk not to mention health hazards due to increased pollution. FC2/AG/225 Timothy J Wileman Construction traffic will cause noise, dust and pollution. FC2/AG/226 Claire Wileman Worried about dust, dirt and pollution that the new development of this size will generate. FC2/AG/227 Lindsay Partridge Noise pollution is already high around Nine Mile Ride and will become worse. Also concerned about disruption, dust and pollution. FC2/AG/229 Leone Brown No account has been taken of the affect of noise, pollution and vibration from increased traffic on the conservation area of The Street and Eversley Cross both in general environmental terms and specific damage to listed buildings. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love The increase in traffic will add noise and pollution. FC2/AG/233 Janet & Michael Increase in traffic will result in pollution, noise, dust Hewland and vibrations. FC2/AG/235 Geoff & Karen Hartnell There will be unacceptable level of noise and pollution during construction. FC2/AG/238 Mr Williams The noise, disruption and pollution which will be created during the development are unacceptable Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 69 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

for a prolonged period of time. FC2/AG/239 Helen Lewis Objection to pollution. FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown Government wish to reduce levels of pollution yet this development will massively increase both air (see above for summary, WBC response and noise pollution, not just during construction but and recommendations on this issue) from increased traffic going through Arborfield. Does not fit in with Governments/councils Green plans FC2/AG/304 Sean Green Object to the dust and noise pollution that would be caused by any development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Road. FC2/AG/305 Lorraine Bek Object to the dust and noise pollution that would be caused by any development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Road. FC2/AG/310 Chris Milligan The noise. Disruption and pollution created during construction of a development of this scale would change the character and the environment forever. FC2/AG/321 David Sands Additional traffic would destroy the character of the area, generating further pollution and noise detriment to residents. FC2/AG/324 Mr and Mrs Appleton The gap between the development and Finchampstead is too small and the noise, dust and pollution which will be created during construction will be intolerable. FC2/AG/325 Peter Ayling Unacceptable levels of noise, dust, pollution and disruption during the 15 year construction. FC2/AG/327 Simeon Pines The development would lead to increased noise and pollution. FC2/AG/331 Miss Linden Almond The noise and pollution which will effect people living on the Reading Road through Finchampstead and Eversley FC2/AG/332 Ms Celia Matthews Increased noise levels likely to be experienced due to increased volumes of traffic during construction. The health implications due to rising carbon induced pollution, and the lack of sleep due to noise. FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence How do the development plans aim to reduce Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 70 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

emissions and reduce the need to travel by private car? (PPS13) can air quality assessment results be (see above for summary, WBC response made available, with projected calculations of and recommendations on this issue) impact on air quality due to future traffic planned to pass through Eversley. FC2/AG/348 Celia Adams on behalf Lighting for the development should be kept to a of Swallowfield Parish minimum and light pollution should be kept to a Council minimum in the surrounding countryside. In particularly the proposed relief road should not be lit as it would have an adverse impact on the rural nature of the areas in and around Farley Hill. FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes Object to the dust and noise pollution that would be caused by any development around Tyler Drive, Gerring Road and Sheerlands Road. FC2/AG/261 Kate Burnett Pollution and damage to buildings caused by the increase in traffic. FC2/AG/267 Phil and Liz Wise The scale of the development will have an impact on the nature and quietness of the area. Will directly impact on quality of life and will be against the human rights act of 1998. FC2/AG/274 Master Ayaan Concerned about the increase in noise and pollution that will be caused by the development. FC2/AG/277 David Simpson, Air quality within the Street in Eversley will be so County bad it is likely to become the worst area within this Councillor area bounded by Reading to the North, Basingstoke to the South and Bracknell to the East. Houses, schools and hospitals are considered noise sensitive. Proposing to put an extra 4,500 vehicle movements per day through The Street in Eversley. What are the mitigation measures?

FC2/AG/286 Russell Johnston The traffic noise along the Nine Mile Rode is already a problem. FC2/AG/287 Mrs C. S. Heffernan There is no employment in the immediate area so

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 71 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

people will have to go to the nearest railway station (see above for summary, WBC response travelling by car, causing pollution, noise vibrations and recommendations on this issue) and disturbance to residents. FC2/AG/292 Oliver and Kathyrn Concerned about the noise and pollution levels Webster through the parish that will destroy the special. The development will inevitably result in significant amounts of light pollution in the surrounding area. Restrictions should be imposed on the types and location of street lighting. FC2/AG/295 Lucy Stoneham Concerned about the impact the building work and machinery/transportation will have on pollution. FC2/AG/358 Susan Philips The noise, dust and pollution which will be created during the 15 year construction. FC2/AG/359 Robert King As a resident of Bridge Cottages, Barkham already suffer from noise pollution, reduced air quality, loss of privacy and inability to leave or enter driveway. An increase in traffic on the B3349 would further affect quality of life. FC2/AG/364 Vivien Quinn Increased traffic in Eversley will make noise and air pollution worse. FC2/AG/370 Penny Arlon Object to the increased levels of pollution, dirt and dust and vast increase in actual air pollution that all of the new construction and residents vehicles would make. FC2/AG/374 Carline Lavelle Increase in traffic will cause decline in air quality and increase in fumes. FC2/AG/387 Catherine Drew Dust and noise that will be generated by any development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Road. FC2/AG/391 Nick Philips The increased volume of vehicles will have an affect on the air quality and quality of life of children who currently enjoy such a green part of the Borough. FC2/AG/396 David and Louise Concerned about the additional noise, pollution and Dunne vibrational disturbance with impact to property and the local environment (contrary to Human Rights Act

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 72 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

of 1998) FC2/AG/398 Laurence Heath Development will increase traffic on roads and will expose residents to noise and pollution. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/407 Martin & Kate Robinson Concerned about the increase in noise and and recommendations on this issue) pollution. FC2/AG/410 Stephanie Weaver Widening of Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive, and Baird Road would mean buses and other traffic would be travelling on what are currently cul-de-sac and/ or small roads. This will cause an increase in noise and air pollution close to/ on the route. Object to the noise and dust pollution that would be caused by any development around Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive. FC2/AG/411 Dr Fiona Marston Dust and noise that will be generated by any development around Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Road. FC2/AG/413 Dawn Maylam Already a pollution problem on the A327, an increase in traffic would make the problem worse. FC2/AG/417 William Gilmore The Development would have an extremely devastating effect on the village of Eversley. Would be subjected to high increase in traffic, noise, vibration, which would be detrimental to homes and the local environment. FC2/AG/424 Mrs Brunhilde Williams Resident of Finchampstead. Already observing increased air pollution, noise levels and vibrations of buildings. FC2/AG/428 Christa Wynne-Jones The vehicles for the proposed construction and subsequent use of the new housing, schools and shops will generate an intolerable amount of noise, pollution and reverberation causing incalculable damage. FC2/AG/429 Francis and Audrey The damage caused to the environment by pollution Moore and noise, not only by traffic but also by the provision of extra services and building activity is unacceptable.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 73 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/445L Andy South The local area including Eversley would become blighted with extra noise pollution and a great deal of damage to the environment. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/446L Jane South The increase in traffic through Eversley would and recommendations on this issue) increase noise pollution and potential damage to the natural environment in this area. FC2/AG/447L Mr & Mrs Colin Williams The development has a 15 year development plan, which will bring noise, dust, pollution and traffic chaos to locals for a prolonged period. Flooding FC2/AG/5 Phiala Mehring on There is very little comment in SPDs regarding Summary behalf of LVRA managing flood risk both on and off site (three of the proposed SDLs already have flood issues Concerns were raised regarding the associated with them). This should be included in impact that new development would have the environmental section of the SPDs and also the on increasing flood risk in the local area. infrastructure (sic). A water management strategy Some felt the ARBSPD had not should be put in place. Also ground water conditions adequately addressed flood risk issues. should be analysed and factored into the flood risk In particular, the impacts of the proposed analysis of each site. Both Shinfield Link Road and development on increasing pressures on SANG are in the flood plain and should be surface water drainage were identified by consulted upon asap. many respondents. Sensitive areas LVRA would like to see the following included in the liable to flood were identified as SPDs: Wheatlands Farm, Park Farm and 1) Plans for SUDS for site as whole Bannisters Farm as well as fields next to 2) General SUDS plans for individual Nine Mile Ride, Park Lane and properties Sheerlands Road. 3) Sustainable plans for water use and water storage WBC Response 4) Maintenance (when, what, funding, upgrading of existing SUDS) Flooding is a concern to local residents, 5) Links into existing systems however the strategic flood risk 6) Impact of development on surrounding assessment will lead to appropriately properties engineered solutions for flood prevention Initial consultation with water companies and other and flood protection measures. The EA interested parties. wish to continue to work with WBC to

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 74 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

ensure a suitable outcome. The ARB FC2/AG/9 Ali Payne Concerns about effects on drainage that is already SPD identifies areas for development that poor (in Park Lane). are outside parts of the SDL known to Surface water from Arborfield side of Farley Hill flood. already runs along A327 and joins with water from West Court/Hogwood area and Park Lane at a To help protect the residential quality culvert under the road. Park Lane ditches collect from risks of flooding, the ARBSPD surface water from Finchampstead Church area, recommends as part of the landscape Wheatlands Farm, Park Farm and Bannisters Farm. framework for Arborfield (illustrative Road by Park Farm is often flooded as well as the Landscape Framework Diagram shown in field opposite Nine Mile Ride, the proposed figure 4.1) that a comprehensive system entrance to the development and extended for water management be provided that Hogwood Industrial Estate. includes at least: Incomprehensible that major development will not • proposals for effective sustainable add to drainage problems as it has to join existing urban drainage, drawing on evidence water courses. from other developments; Culvert under A327 has no capacity to cope with • measures to avoid flood risk; surface water now. • new ponds, which can enhance the Black Water River feeding into the Loddon needs recreational and visual qualities of the dredging. SDL; and, With all the flooding issues, how can land be • wetland areas. suitable for development? Drainage should be discussed first not later; back to Attention should be given to the existing front methods cause anger and do not inspire network of watercourses, ponds and confidence. drainage ditches on the Arborfield FC2/AG/14 Julie Bardsley Existing flooding and drainage problems at Park Garrison SDL as part of the overall flood Lane and proposed development will add to existing attenuation and open space strategy. problem. Extension to Hogwood Industrial Estate sits on a field that floods; where would the water go? Development will produce water that will add to Regard will also need to be given to the problem. Detailed plans should be published. Flood and Water Management Bill 2010 FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte Objection to increased risk of flooding particularly in regards to SUDs maintenance. along Sheerlands Road due to greenfield Contributions will be expected for the development. construction of Sustainable Urban

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 75 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Objection to increased risk of flooding particularly Drainage Systems (SUDS) and their on- along Sheerlands Road due to greenfield going maintenance. development. FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Objection to increased risk of flooding particularly Recommendations along Sheerlands Road due to greenfield development. Greater reference to flood risk as FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Concerns about increased flood risk. shown in Figure 2.2 is made within the FC2/AG/26 Col J M Gaff Increased flood risk in Eversley. accompanying text. Also, the Council FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Opposed to development of Area B as it would note that the Wokingham Core increase flood risk Strategy Appendix 5 makes provision FC2/AG/29 Elaine Teresa Howard Concerned about flooding and drainage problems in for monitoring. This ensures the the area. Council will monitor and where FC2/AG/36 Steve Honour Concern regarding flooding at Park Lane in July necessary review the adopted SPD 2007. Suspicion is that assumptions on flood risk and supporting SA/SEA/HRA were made on basis of current position, not the post documents (as necessary) over its Arborfield Garrison development position. anticipated 15 year lifespan in relation Flood risk prevention should be discussed early on. to key issues that arise to ensure it FC2/AG/40 Katherine Taylor-Jones Reference to 2007 flooding and more housing provides the optimum guidance based would put more households at risk and put existing on the best information available at support services under serous strain. that time, and taking into account any FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Development would increase flood risk in area, development and infrastructure as it particularly along Sheerlands Road. occurs, in order to achieve the best FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Objection to increased flooding particular along possible outcome from the Sheerlands Road caused by development. Development Management process. FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Objection to increased flooding particular along Sheerlands Road caused by development. Text to be added at Section 6.1 to make explicit the requirement for a FC2/AG/51 Sheena Reid Concerned that significant increase in hard Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. standings and roads will increase run-off causing

flooding. Given that there have been problems with

flooding locally, this is an important issue and

restrictions should be put in place to safeguard front

gardens.

FC2/AG/62 Terry Heffernan Development will add to local flood risk, being close

to the and its tributaries.

FC2/AG/66 David Valentine Development will increase risk of flooding. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 76 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/67 Andrea Lake on behalf Several floods in recent times in the area. Impact of of Lake Family extra housing should be assessed. FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat Given that the land is already soggy the (see above for summary, WBC response development has the potential to cause serious and recommendations on this issue) flooding problems both within the SDL, adjacent to it at Barkham Bridge and along Park Lane and further afield at places such as Swallowfield and land between Arborfield and Shinfield, both of which flood regularly with existing levels of development. Relocation of Emmbrook school due to flood issues on current site to this site seems ludicrous as proposed location is also subject to flooding. FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Objection to increase in flooding, particularly along Sheerlands Road that would be caused by development on Greenfield sites. FC2/AG/105 Robert Briggs Objection to increased risk of flooding in the area. FC2/AG/106 Mr M C Woodman Flooding in 2007 affected property in Finchampstead due to Park Lane not being able to withstand the amount of rain water running down from Arborfield, old culverts around the house (not first time that Park Lane flooded). Improvements to drainage not sufficient for additional development. Development at Arborfield requires sufficient drainage. FC2/AG/107 Mrs J Woodman Flooding in 2007 affected property in Finchampstead due to Park Lane not being able to withstand the amount of rain water running down from Arborfield, old culverts around the house (not first time that Park Lane flooded). Improvements to drainage not sufficient for additional development. Development at Arborfield requires sufficient drainage. FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Objection to increased risk of flooding in the area, particularly along Sheerlands Road that would be caused by development on greenfield sites.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 77 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/129 Julie Kentish Barnes Farm land very low lying and boggy. FC2/AG/141 Dr Gail Milligan Loss of green space might increase flood risk. FC2/AG/147 Kath James Highlights flood risk and supplied photos of previous (see above for summary, WBC response floods. Sewage system could not cope. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/157 Roz Dommett Concern that flooding will increase. This has been notable since the Elizabeth Park estate was built. FC2/AG/160 Rachel Stockton Existing drainage system is inadequate to deal with heavy rainfall causing flooding and illness (e.g. contraction of a water borne virus Giardia). What are the plans for improving the sewage system for the existing residential area? Area is Level 3 flood zone. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Environmental impacts of development on the Arborfield Working greenfield land have not been properly researched Party (regarding flooding). FC2/AG/168 Dave Hogg Infrastructure would struggle with development (e.g. (FC2/IDC/7) Mill Lane, is regularly closed due to flooding which create chaos). FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan No consideration has been given to the previous submission by the EA on flooding in determining location for development which will set a dangerous precedent for the location of housing, schools, community buildings etc. FC2/AG/174 Lee & Emma Painter Flooding is a big issue (2007 floods also affected Langley Common Road) and will in future affect even more people with this development. FC2/AG/199 Alison Owen & Neil Increase in risk of flooding throughout the area. Stubbs FC2/AG/204 Clare Sharp Increased risk of flooding in the area. FC2/AG/205 Karen Hathaway A327 is often flooded. FC2/AG/219 Susan Ramsden Concerned that increased building on floodplains raises the risk of flooding (see Lower Earley). FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth What about recent flooding problems? FC2/AG/222 Mary Ferry Proposals imply that houses would be set on banks stream. Site is in a flood plain which will have Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 78 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

implications for insurance and safety. Buildings should be set away (at least 100 yards, maybe with a decent leisure area on either side of the stream) or build on stilts/floats. FC2/AG/224 D.R. Jones Development will increase flooding. (FC2/IDC/19) FC2/AG/226 Claire Wileman Concerned about increase in flooding. FC2/AG/228 Lindsey Bailey Bottom of Fleet is flooded in heavy rain and (see above for summary, WBC response impossible to drive through unless in a 4x4. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/233 Janet & Michael If trees are felled and replaced with buildings, isn’t Hewland there a greater risk of flooding? FC2/AG/234 Mr L Carr What plans have been made to alleviate the A327 road flooding that presently occurs at the rear of Bramshill Hunt? FC2/AG/236 Dean Chamberlain In July 2007 Arborfield was cut off by immense down poor which the development would make worse. FC2/AG/238 Mr Williams Severe flooding in 2007 and concerned that the development of the local area will increase the risk of flooding in the future. FC2/AG/245 Ken Ramsden Concerned that excessive building on floodplains raises the risk of flooding, as has been seen in Lower Earley. FC2/AG/247 Sue and Geoff Ash Eversley and the southern regions of Finchampstead have suffered local flooding in recent years. The development will result in increased water use and waste water disposal. Will this increase the risk of local flooding? FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes A detailed flood study with hydraulic modelling of watercourses shown on page 10 of the plan should be carried out to ascertain the actual existing flood risk to the area in line with PPS25. FC2/AG/266 Dr. Michael Shaw It is quite clear that half the problem with flooding is too much concrete and not enough earth. FC2/AG/269 Katy Stanlake Concerned that WBC and the developers have not Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 79 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

learned from other examples of flooding caused by the building of new developments. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara Object to having an increased risk of flooding in the Brown areas as it could devalue property. FC2/AG/280 Colonel A H Millington Road stability with underlying water table movement causes flooding in some garrison areas with its myriad water courses every winter. FC2/AG/292 Oliver and Kathyrn Flooding at Swallowfield is a bug local issue. Any Webster additional surface water discharging to the river (see above for summary, WBC response Blackwater will significantly increase the problems and recommendations on this issue) of flooding in Swallowfield. Ask for alternative methods for dealing with surface water from roads and houses in the Garrison development. FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown Building on green sites will increase the risk of flooding. Flooding has already occurred and the effects of flooding are devastating. FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad - Concerns about the provision of adequate drainage and the increased flood risk with development o Greenfield’s. The water system cannot cope with existing development let alone 3500 more houses in the area. - how are the council going to ensure that all aspects of drainage are considered? FC2/AG/304 Sean Green Object to the increased risk of flooding in the area particularly along Sheerlands Road that would be caused by development on greenfield sites. FC2/AG/305 Lorraine Bek Object to the increased risk of flooding in the area particularly along Sheerlands Road that would be caused by development on greenfield sites. FC2/AG/309 N M Long-Field One of the major factors missing from the list of concerns is flooding. July 2007 events are testament to the failure of services and infrastructure to be able to cope with the volume of water. This needs to be addressed.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 80 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/310 Chris Milligan Concerned that the loss of green space might increase the risk of flooding. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/320 Gemma Paxton House was flooded in 2007 as a result of the and recommendations on this issue) strengthening of ‘The Street’ in order to accommodate HGV’s. Poor drainage led to high surface run off. FC2/AG/325 Peter Ayling Object to any large scale development that would reduce natural flood defences and put our properties at risk of flooding. FC2/AG/331 Miss Linden Almond Building on greenfield will increase the risk of local flooding. FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence PPS1 ‘avoid development in areas at risk of flooding’ Eversley is historically prone to flooding. What measures and studies have been taken to explore the increased risk of flooding due to the effective concreting over of fields and countryside? FC2/AG/348 Celia Adams on behalf - Swallowfield village is in part within the of Swallowfield Parish floodplain of the River Loddon and the River Council Blackwater, and has flooded in the past. The new development on Greenfield sites will increase run off into the rivers, which will create a severe flood risk. - Parish council trusts that the EA will be heavily involved with the design and implementation of any measures required to reduce flood risk. That any concerns by will be taken into account. That it will be ensured that the measures agreed to stop further run off will be maintained into the future. That a flood risk assessment will be carried out and the results taken into account. FC2/AG/356 Dr and Mrs McBurnie Concerned about flooding FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter WBC has failed to undertake and issue the results of an up to date flood risk survey. Several parts of

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 81 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

the SDL are already prone to flooding and the huge development will only make the flood risk worse. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/362 Jack Moeran on behalf Overall the EA support the principles of and recommendations on this issue) (and other of Environment Agency environmental sustainability covering biodiversity SPDs) protection and enhancement, flood risk management and reduction and sustainable surface water drainage which has been referred to in the Arborfield Garrison SDL. However, the EA states that ongoing work between WBC and the EA to revise the SFRA should, once completed, inform the SPD and location of developable areas. The EA does not state however that the lack of this emerging data should prevent the continued work to adopt the NWSDL.

The EA notes that areas of flood risk have been identified in Fig. 2.2 but have not been reflected within the text of section 2.2. While flood risk is not significantly prohibitive to development of this site the EA encourages referring to this in order to be consistent with other SDL SPDs and Table 8 and section 6.58 of the SA/SEA.

FC2/AG/385 Ashley Wright Flood risk modelling appears to be missing from the consultation presented by WBC. Is WBC leaving this to the developer? Surely WBC should carry out its own flood risk modelling? What measures have WBC put in place to protect the area and new home owners from flooding once the developer has gone? FC2/AG/387 Catherine Drew Opposed to the increased risk of flooding in the area, particularly along Sheerlands Road, that would be caused by any development on the green filed sites. FC2/AG/410 Stephanie Weaver Object to the increased risk of flooding in the area, especially along Sheerlands Road/Tyler Drive,

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 82 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

which already exists, that might be caused by any development on the green filed site. FC2/AG/411 Dr Fiona Marston Opposed to the increased risk of flooding in the (see above for summary, WBC response area, particularly along Sheerlands Road, that and recommendations on this issue) would be caused by any development on the green filed sites. FC2/AG/415 Nick Teall Building is taking place on areas that have been (same as 449) identified by the EA as liable to flooding in the north eastern boundary. Further work is required to investigate and development appropriate models of associated impact on local hydrology. Changes in the hydrology as a result of the development and increased runoff could have a detrimental effect on SSSI and SPC areas, of local, national and international significance. FC2/AG/424 Mrs Brunhilde Williams Flooding in places. Lack of cleaning ditches appropriately and regularly. FC2/AG/425 Stephen R Jones - Penrose Park suffered badly with flooding in recent years. The area as a whole is susceptible to flooding. If Greenfields are concreted over we will suffer like the residents of Penrose Park. - What assessment has WBC done on the increased flood risk? FC2/AG/426 Elizabeth Cannon - This part of Arborfield is susceptible to flooding but the green fields protect our homes. If it is concreted over it will increase the chance of flooding. What assessment has WBC done on the increased flood risk? FC2/AG/431 Julia Shepherd The development will increase the risk of flooding. FC2/AG/434 R. Beer Do the developers know that the area is liable to flooding, resulting in sewers overflowing and pollution of the river?

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 83 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/454 Mrs C Hayward Concerned about the proposed development of a 4 acre plot of land to the rear of 336 to 350c Barkham Road. Believe that the building of the Paddocks (see above for summary, WBC response houses has caused drainage problems as so many and recommendations on this issue) trees had to be felled. If more trees are felled then the problem will be worse. Sustainable drainage FC2/AG/5 Phiala Mehring on Promotes the correct planning, implementation and Summary behalf of LVRA maintenance of SUDS and would like to see SUD Flood mitigation measures set out by the plans required as part of outline planning ARBSPD are supported. These applications. initiatives should be secured by the local FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of SUDS need to take both existing flood areas and planning authority through every stage of the Arborfield Working drainage and impact of additional development on the planning and delivery process. Party runoff into account. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan SUDS should not be a reserve matter but part of the WBC Response master plan. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems are required throughout the SDL, and can be located where necessary alongside streets, the District and Neighbourhood centres and open spaces. The choice of surface materials for hard landscape areas will take into account the opportunity for comprehensive SUDS; this will need to be demonstrated at the Reserved Matters stage as detail landscape schemes begin to emerge (paragraph 1d(ii)).

Flooding is a concern to local residents. Strategic flood risk assessment will inform flood prevention and flood protection, and facilitate discussions with the EA.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 84 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Recommendation

Greater reference to flood risk as shown in Figure 2.2 is made within the accompanying text. Also, the Council note that the Wokingham Core Strategy Appendix 5 makes provision for monitoring. This ensures the Council will monitor and where necessary review the adopted SPD and supporting SA/SEA/HRA documents (as necessary) over its anticipated 15 year lifespan in relation to key issues that arise to ensure it provides the optimum guidance based on the best information available at that time, and taking into account any development and infrastructure as it occurs, in order to achieve the best possible outcome from the Development Management process.

Text to be added at Section 6.1 to make explicit the requirement for a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. FC2/AG/257 Thames Water TW understands that planning obligations cannot be FC/STAT/6 used to secure water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades as it is funded differently through OFWAT Support: reference to CS Policy CP4 which states that planning permission will not be granted unless necessary infrastructure is provided use of sustainable drainage systems in appropriate circumstances, However not appropriate in all areas, e.g areas with high ground water levels or clay soils which do not allow free drainage. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 85 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Requirement for payments to maintain SUDS (where these are appropriate) inclusion of sections on water, drainage and waste in Tables 1 and 3 (see above for summary, WBC response reference to need to discuss with TW if there is a and recommendations on this issue) need to update or replace the existing sewage treatment works to provide additional capacity

Water and wastewater necessary for SDLs will be determined by exact locations of development, scale and phasing. This should be discussed with WBC and developers along with funding methodology As water and wastewater infrastructure has yet to be determined, the list in Tables 1-4 should not be seen as exhaustive FC2/AG/240 Phiala Mehring on Any proposed development must tae the threat of behalf of Loddon Valley flooding into account at the earliest point in the Residents Association planning process with the objective to reduce flood risk from both surface water river based and ground water source. SUDs are seen as the panacea for all pluvial problems, however thus is only the case if they are planned, implemented and maintained correctly. Ideally a water management strategy would be in place before any plans for development are submitted to WBC. For all sites LVRA would like to see as part of outline planning: plans for SUDs for the site as a whole General SUDs plans for individual properties Sustainable plans for water use and water storage Maintenance what has to be done, when, how it is funded and how upgrading of old SPDs is to be managed. How SUDs will link to existing systems Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 86 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Impact on development on surrounding properties Initial consultation with water companies and (see above for summary, WBC response other interested parties. and recommendations on this issue) LVRA would also like to see ground water condition analysed and the results factored into the flood risk analysis of each site. Allotments FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan Is there room for allotments as per photo? Summary (FC2/IDC/8) Provision for allotments should be made FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan What provision has been made for allotments in within the ARBSDL. SDL? WBC Response Paragraph 1c(v) states: "In addition to open space requirements proposals for allotments should be made in order to promote local food production."

Recommendation No change recommended.

FC2/AG/301 Jan Heard 30 individuals are already on the Parish Councils waiting list for allotments which proves there is demand. A 4 – 5 year search for allotments has failed to identify suitable land. Other neighbouring villages have publicly run allotments, but for the last 50 years Arborfield has not. This should be addressed in the development of the Garrison. Most suitable site for an allotment would be to the north of the site where it is central to most people. Possibly as part of a SANG. Allotments should be part of the first phase of development to assist in building community

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 87 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

relations. If the site is to become an eco town the allotments would be entirely in keeping (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard Think the allotments should be sited to the north, and recommendations on this issue) and the land should be in perpetuity for community use. A sustainable location FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Area has no jobs, industries or employment and all Summary residents would be commuting elsewhere. Comments questioned the sustainable Development is therefore in wrong location. credentials of the location for new FC2/AG/55 R G Services (UK) Ltd Development is intrusion to the countryside and development due to low existing levels of wellbeing of the local population. employment opportunities, infrastructure FC2/AG/62 Terry Heffernan Development fails government policy to provide provision and impact on the local housing in suitable locations with access to environment. employment and amenities. FC2/AG/69 Tony Hogarty Development is in an unsuitable location with WBC Response insufficient infrastructure. FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat Garrison is not a good location for housing The development should be planned and development neither for employment nor for developed to achieve a good degree of infrastructure. Indeed it specifically contradicts self-containment. The daily needs of its aspects of the original South-East RSS that urged residents should be catered for through urban expansion rather than new towns. provision of a mix of services and FC2/AG/83 Bob Godfrey Development will have detrimental impact on area in employment opportunities which are and around Eversley Cross. easily and safely accessible. Planning for FC2/AG/87 Brian Scott This development is not near amenities or jobs and efficient and convenient public transport infrastructure will not support a development of this for those undertaking journeys beyond size. the SDL should be evident, and the use FC2/AG/93 Laura Donnelly Development doesn’t make sense as it is not near of alternative modes of travel should be jobs but the industrial area needs to be extended, made appealing and attractive for local shops and sports facilities added to create jobs for trips. the future residents. FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach Unsuitable location for a massive development as The Local Planning Authority will need to site consists of primarily open countryside, is not be reassured that incentives and near major transport links such as the M3, M4, innovations are in place to encourage A329M or a railway station. Only justification is that residents to adopt sustainable travel

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 88 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

a small proportion is brownfield land (introduction on patterns from the scheme’s inception. page 1 is misleading). New buildings at Arborfield Garrison will FC2/AG/129 Julie Kentish Barnes Development is not near a station and trains are demonstrate the use of sustainable very full anyway and where are the jobs going to building techniques to ensure high levels be? of energy efficiency. FC2/AG/137 Mr & Mrs P Coles There is not sufficient demand for property locally and there is little or no justification for a residential The scale of the development offers an development of such density and magnitude in a opportunity for local energy generation, semi-rural area largely devoid of any existing or new and water and waste management employment opportunities. schemes. These are seen as essential FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan The site currently has limited facilities. Wokingham components of the development. In is the nearest railway station and main shopping addition, proposals for local food area. Mr David Hollis the Local Plan Inspector production and composting should be commented at the time on the lack of sustainability formulated. Long-term management of of this site and others as part of this SDL. the landscape should encompass such Site is unsustainable. activities and plans to demonstrate how FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe Area is deemed unsuitable due to lack of jobs and this will be achieved will be required. amenities. FC2/AG/205 Karen Hathaway Maybe area is not suitable for such a large Recommendation development if so much additional infrastructure and facilities need to be provided? No recommended change. FC2/AG/222 Mary Ferry Why does Wokingham need more houses in such a remote location that would not benefit the town itself as Reading is better for shopping? FC2/AG/229 Leone Brown This development is not located near a transport hub as indicated by Government Policy. A new link between the M4 and M3 needs to be created at the southern end of the development to facilitate access via the A33 rather than through Eversley. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love The lack of infrastructure and facilities in the proposed development location means that a “New Town” will be created spoiling much needed green space and countryside. FC2/AG/277 David Simpson, Fail to meet the definition of Sustainable Hampshire County Development as not only are you compromising the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 89 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Councillor needs of the present residents but also future residents. Failed to recognise the anything except the short term needs of Wokingham BC to have (see above for summary, WBC response extra housing. and recommendations on this issue)

FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad Developing in greenfield sites will only speed up global warming, destroying vegetation and trees that naturally soak up C02 and release oxygen. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock Building too many houses for the development to be sustained. Damaging he environment for existing residents by not fully considering the infrastructure first. Having to build all the amenities as the development is cut off. Theme 3: HIGHWAY SAFETY Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response FC2/AG/7 Tim Cox Reading Road is already a fast and dangerous road Summary with a speed limit that is not enforced; already there The potential detrimental impact that have been numerous accidents and the only increased traffic as a result of the possible solution is a by-pass. proposed development would have on FC2/AG/9 Ali Payne Junction of Park Lane/A327 is a black spot and existing highways was a key concern. In there have been several fatalities there. particular highway safety along Reading FC2/AG/14 Julie Bardsley Junction with A327 Reading Road is black spot for Road, Gerring Raod, California accidents with fatalities; traffic calming is needed. Crossroads, Tyler Drive, Park Lane, Nine FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte Increase in traffic (incl. construction traffic), in Mile Ride and A327 were picked out as particular at Gerring Road and Tyler Drive are quiet troubled areas. The impact on highway areas and development Sheerlands Road and Tyler safety for surrounding villages such as Drive would pose real risk to safety of playing Eversely was also identified. children. FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Increase in traffic (incl. construction traffic), in The introduction of the bus route through particular at Gerring Road and Tyler Drive are quiet Area B and the existing adjacent roads areas and development Sheerlands Road and Tyler was also raised as a concern by some Drive would pose real risk to safety of playing respondents. children. FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Reading Road is already very busy and experiences WBC Response regular incidents that cause delays. Increase in Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 90 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

traffic (incl. construction traffic), in particular at As part of the ARBSPD’s role in Gerring Road and Tyler Drive are quiet areas and establishing good design, it sets out a development Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive minimum set of standards which should would pose real risk to safety of playing children. be achieved to deliver the new development. Developers will be FC2/AG/19 Jean Britland Reading Road is very dangerous and noisy. encouraged to exceed these standards (comment made where possible and will be expected to in letter that was apply new standards that arise during the forwarded to life of the document. Council not in direct response) The ARBSPD recommends that the FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Increase in traffic would put lives of children at risk. layout of each neighbourhood should: FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton Development will result in traffic incidents. FC2/AG/36 Steve Honour Concern about highway safety as junction of [Park • the first priority should be given to the Lane?] and A327 is a notorious accident black spot. safety, comfort and convenience of Traffic calming measures should be implemented. pedestrians; FC2/AG/40 Katherine Taylor-Jones Park Lane is used as rat run and there have been • second priority should be afforded to serious accidents. Road is unsuitable for further cyclists, who should also benefit from traffic. safe and easy routes, as well as secure FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Gerring Road and Tyler Drive are currently safe cycle parking; and, areas for children to play; any development around • public transport users should be given Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive would pose sever third priority for movement within threat to safety of children. neighbourhoods and to centres, with FC2/AG/42 Neil Bidston Currently Gerring Road and Tyler Drive have little public transport stops being located traffic and are safe for children but any development within a short walk of each dwelling, and around Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive would provision made for real time information pose a real and sever threat to safety of children. and well designed shelters. The provision FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Concerned about development around Sheerlands of good access to public transport is a Road and Tyler Drive that would pose sever threat key objective in all the SDLs and is aimed to safety of children due to increase in traffic. at improving sustainable travel FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Concerned about development around Sheerlands throughout the Borough and beyond. Road and Tyler Drive that would pose sever threat Design measures will take account of to safety of children due to increase in traffic. safety issues when detailed plans are

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 91 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/51 Sheena Reid Concerned about increase in traffic (construction prepared. and future residents) as area already suffers from congestion. Eversley Street is already busy and The quality and safety of the public realm unsafe. Park Lane is dangerous with sharp bends are key features that the SPD seeks to and poor visibility and an increase in traffic would guide development schemes by increase dangers; it should be made into a “no promoting routes and spaces which are through road” for ALL construction traffic and attractive, safe and uncluttered and “access only” to avoid becoming a short cut. integrating existing residential FC2/AG/53 Tracy Reis Speed and volume and traffic along Reading Road development on the periphery of the SDL past school causes huge safety issue. to provide safe and convenient access to FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Eversley Street is already dangerous and is new services and facilities. currently being assessed for traffic damage and . personal safety concerns. Traffic needs to be The SPD reflects best practice but new reduced not added to. Impacts of traffic have not schemes will also be required to reflect been considered which forms a technical Government policy. contravention of planning requirements by WBC. The Street is too narrow and Hampshire CC is The SPD also recommends in paragraph reviewing the road to see how the risk can be 2c(i) that developers reflect the Disability reduced. This cannot be overruled by an unplanned Rights Commission guidance on inclusive increase in traffic from the development in another design should be followed to ensure county. compliance with the Disability and FC2/AG/56 Andrea Long Busy road through Eversley and additional traffic will Discrimination Act 1995. This requires wreak havoc. Bridge on outskirts of village is single development that is: lane and would collapse under additional traffic. • Easily used by as many people as FC2/AG/57 Lee Mackie A327 currently suffers from heavy traffic and possible without undue effort, special speeding that are a serious risk to highway safety. treatment or separation; FC2/AG/58 Beryl Hazell Objection as it will result in additional traffic through • Able to offer people the freedom to a village where crossing the road is already unsafe choose how they access and use it and FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey Nine Mile Ride is already a race track where many allow them to participate equally in all accidents happen and additional traffic will have activities it may host; impacts. • Able to embrace diversity and FC2/AG/60 Jacqueline Hogarty Massive increase in traffic on A327 through difference; Eversley would have serious impacts upon village • Safe, legible and predictable; and and its conservation area and making life difficult • Of consistently high quality in design and unsafe. and layout terms

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 92 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/64 Graham Bell Highway safety concerns due to increase in traffic from construction works and future residents. The guidance provided in the ARBSPD is FC2/AG/65 Theo d’Orgee Concerned over size and scope of development that intended as part of an ongoing design will cause total gridlock for all access roads to process. The detailed design of streets Reading and increase incident rate. should conform to the principles set out in FC2/AG/67 Andrea Lake on behalf Unsafe to cycle the small single track lanes (e.g. the Department for Transport’s Manual of Lake Family Park Lane, Commonfield Lane) as they are used as for Streets, and should be generated rat runs. through discussions with the Local FC2/AG/69 Tony Hogarty Traffic is already problem in Eversley and to Highway Authorities. Discussion with the increase it would increase danger to residents. Local Highway Authorities will also FC2/AG/72 Ann Haddrill Increase in traffic on A327 would be disastrous for address issues relating to off-site Eversley – levels of traffic and size of commercial infrastructure and highway works, traffic using The Street is hazardous to both the junction improvements and uogrades to housing and pedestrians. the existing network. FC2/AG/73 John Carter Concern that construction traffic through narrow streets of Eversley and Arborfield Villages would be Recommendation danger to residents, result in damage and mud on the roads etc. The Council note that the Wokingham FC2/AG/78 Mrs R Henley Traffic calming (e.g. traffic lights) would be Core Strategy Appendix 5 makes (FC2/IDC/2) welcomed. provision for monitoring. This ensures the FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison Traffic calming at Barkham Bridge (e.g. traffic lights) Council will monitor and where necessary would be welcome. review the adopted SPD and supporting FC2/AG/82 Tove B Godfrey There is too much traffic already which could lead to SA/SEA/HRA documents (as necessary) a serious accident as the roads are not built to over its anticipated 15 year lifespan in support the increased traffic. Lack of safe and wide relation to key issues that arise to ensure pavements in The Street and Longwater Road. it provides the optimum guidance based FC2/AG/83 Bob Godfrey Objection as development will raise possibility of a on the best information available at that serious accident. time, and taking into account any FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Development around Sheerlands Road and Tyler development and infrastructure as it occurs, in order to achieve the best Drive would pose a threat to safety of children due to construction traffic and increased general traffic. possible outcome from the Development Management process. FC2/AG/90 Mrs J. F. Gubby Objection to development due to volume and speed

of traffic through Eversley. In combination with the

need to cross the roads (lack of pavement) makes it

very dangerous for children.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 93 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/92 Mark & Julia Plans of traffic going through Eversley will make it McDonnell even more dangerous. FC2/AG/96 Brendon & Alison Watt Development will increase traffic thereby making the A327 dangerous. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/99 Ian Brenkley Nine Mile Road will not be able to cope with and recommendations on this issue) additional traffic as it is very narrow and dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. FC2/AG/104 David Long Road safety is extremely important and vital t well- being of villagers of Eversley. Additional traffic will have detrimental impact on quality of life for the village. FC2/AG/106 Mr M C Woodman Concerns about lack of investment in transport. A327, the only access to development, is very busy and already cause of number of fatal accidents. FC2/AG/107 Mrs J Woodman Concerns about lack of investment in transport. A327, the only access to development, is very busy and already cause of number of fatal accidents. FC2/AG/108 Ian Keene Excessive traffic through Eversley is dangerous and development will add to it and ruin life in Eversley and reduce value of property. FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Gerring Road and Tyler Drive are currently relatively quiet areas providing a safe haven for children to play. Development and increase in traffic would pose a threat to safety of the children. FC2/AG/113 M J Green Of particular concern is safety and impacts of increased traffic. FC2/AG/114 John Hicks Reading road approaching Eversley and the junction at the Tally Ho together with the partial blind spot at the Fleet Hill junction need to be addressed. New Mill Road/Park Lane junction is prone to accidents. FC2/AG/115 Shirley Wisker A327 already very busy and exiting house is already

difficult to due to heavy traffic. There have been many incidents already. Despite having raised concerns of getting in and out of Arborfield on the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 94 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

A327 at previous presentation, this has not been addressed. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/124 Mark Jones Development will result in increase in traffic that and recommendations on this issue) poses a risk to cyclists. FC2/AG/130 Mrs J Harrison Concerns that extra traffic will make Park Lane/New Mill crossroads on the A327 even more dangerous. FC2/AG/131 Mr R.L. Harrison Concerns that extra traffic will make Park Lane/New Mill crossroads on the A327 even more dangerous. FC2/AG/132 Fred Trigg School Road is already a major rat run increase the (FC2/IDC/6) already existing danger to children both walking and cycling to and from Coombes School. Providing access to the SDL from Langley Common Road would increase traffic and potentially accidents dramatically. Langley Common Road and School Road should have traffic calming measures put in place with reduced speed limits. FC2/AG/134 Matt Lawrence Walking kids to school/nursery can be a hazardous journey having to cross road three times due to lack of pavement on both sides and narrow carriageway so that vehicles have to drive up the kerb to pass each other. Vehicles have driven into houses along A327. Another high risk spot is the sharp corner and narrow bridge by the Tally Ho. How would another 50% traffic be catered for? How could development go ahead without a bypass? FC2/AG/140 Jayne Yeo Increased volume of traffic will be hazardous. FC2/AG/141 Dr Gail Milligan There are genuine concerns for pedestrians, especially children with the increased volume of traffic. The increase in traffic will not improve situation rather make it worse. FC2/AG/142 Kathryn Curran Increase in traffic will increase danger for local residents walking children to school and cycling (no cycle lanes and road is in parts very narrow). Are there any traffic calming measures that could be undertaken without harming the aesthetics of the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 95 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

historic nature of the village? FC2/AG/143 John Hartle A327 is already extremely heavy (in excess of 600 vehicles per hour in each direction at peak times). (see above for summary, WBC response The safety of children walking to school should be and recommendations on this issue) protected. FC2/AG/145 Elizabeth Peat Objection to increase in traffic and its impacts upon safety of residential areas. Rerouting of the 144 bus route to run past end of Gerring Road would combined with increased traffic would pose a real risk to safety of children living in this street. FC2/AG/146 Chris Swale Concerns about increased traffic along School Road and impact upon safety. FC2/AG/158 Mr & Mrs Helliwell Nine Mile Ride has already heavy traffic load and no further traffic is needed which would endanger school children. FC2/AG/159 Simon Hall Extra traffic would increase danger at already dangerous junction A327 with New Mill Road. FC2/AG/160 Rachel Stockton Reading Road in Eversley/A327 is extremely busy and dangerous (e.g. HGVs mounting footpath due to narrow road width). Additional flow of traffic will make it more dangerous along this road. It is only a matter of time before a serious accident occurs on the 90 degree bend. It is already dangerous for children to walk to school along the road. FC2/AG/164 Linda M V Carter Concerned about construction traffic through narrow streets of Eversley and Arborfield villages that will endanger residents over such a long period. FC2/AG/169 Tara Bickers Increase in traffic and excess speed is dangerous and an accident is waiting to happen (e.g. the Street, Eversley and New Mill Lane). FC2/AG/171 Victoria Brookling A327 is already congested with heavy traffic (commuter and HGVs) which is dangerous due to narrow roads and excess speed. FC2/AG/175 Helen De Meyer A bypass should be built at the earliest opportunity and a safe and efficient traffic management scheme

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 96 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

to be put in place which would mean safer roads for residents of Arborfield Cross as well as preserving rural feel of village. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/176 Spencer King Concerns how a low classified road with schools, and recommendations on this issue) shops, nurseries and a country park can be earmarked as a major access route. High speeds and increase in traffic will pose risk to individuals (children, pedestrians, cyclists). Stretch of Nine Mile Ride is only paved on one side but on unpaved side there are bus stops for Reading – these are not safe considering the increase in traffic. California Crossroads is already dangerous for pedestrians and challenging for drivers and would require changes to the master plan. FC/AG/179 Mrs A J Green Increase in traffic will increase danger to pedestrians, especially children walking to school. FC2/AG/181 Mrs Marion Desai Barkham Road, Langley Common Road and (FC2/ICD/10) Bearwood Road are already very busy. These roads should be 30 miles limit zones to safeguard residential nature and reduce accidents. FC2/AG/182 Pauline Lawton Feels that increase in traffic will be dangerous (in (duplicate of particular on A327/Reading Road). 438) FC2/AG/185 Alan Norman Improvements to road infrastructure would damage rural character of land and endanger school children, horse riders and other current road users in the area. FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys New bus service will increase noise impacts and danger. FC2/AG/190 Mike Preston Additional traffic will have knock-on effects on road safety. FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe Increase in traffic will make it dangerous to cross the road, result in delays and cut residents off from neighbours. FC2/AG/198 Philippa Varcoe It will not be safe to cross the road.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 97 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/203 Emma & Mark Wootton Dangers of additional traffic to pedestrians along “The Street” in Eversley with parents and children walking to school and pre-school has not been (see above for summary, WBC response thought through (only recently the speed limit was and recommendations on this issue) reduced to 30mph). FC2/AG/205 Karen Hathaway Whole area will see significant rise in vehicles and subsequently accidents. FC2/AG/206 George Moudiotis Development will bring danger to school children. FC2/AG/207 Angela Spencer Concerned about additional traffic this development will create on the A327 through The Street in Eversley (both construction and residents traffic). It is already difficult to turn onto the A327 and additional traffic will make it more dangerous. FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to bus connection at the end of Gerring (FC2/IDC/17) Road which will increase traffic and provide hazard to existing residents, especially children. FC2/AG/216 Mrs Dee Varcoe Traffic on A327 is already huge problem and residents’ safety is at risk. FC2/AG/221 Justin Stokes Increase in construction traffic and residents’ traffic will make Eversley more dangerous in particular for children walking to school. Cycling to Reading station to commute into London is already dangerous as A327 and surrounding infrastructure cannot cope with volume of traffic and adding this development will make it more dangerous. FC2/AG/227 Lindsay Partridge Roads are already badly congested and dangerous to cross. Roundabout by the shops and garage is dangerous. FC2/AG/228 Lindsey Bailey Fleet Hill, while classed a B road, has now become a major thoroughfare. It is scene to many accidents (high speeds). FC2/AG/229 Leone Brown Residents will be in danger when walking along the roads (no or only narrow footpaths in places). Crossing the roads will be increasingly dangerous. Particular concern is safety of children walking to

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 98 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

school. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love The increase in traffic will impact residents of Eversley who will be unable to walk safely through village due to narrow roads and no room to create (see above for summary, WBC response footpaths or cycle lanes. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/233 Janet & Michael Area will become a no-go area for pedestrians and Hewland cyclists. FC2/AG/237 Jacqueline Joyce New development will increase traffic and make things worse for children’s safety. FC2/AG/238 Mr Williams Poperinghe Way and estate is already dangerous because of a blind bend to the right. FC2/AG/241 John Cullen Nine Mile Ride is very dangerous for children walking to school, and will become worse with increased traffic. FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes Any development around Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive will pose a severe threat to the safety of children, caused by construction traffic and traffic from the development. FC2/AG/258 D. W Hamilton Frequent accidents on Park Lane. Despite restrictions being placed on the road, there are continued accidents. Any attempts to straighten or widen the lane would destroy the unique and historic character The use of Park Lane by horse riders has diminished since an accident in which a horse was killed. Clearly the closure of Park Lane to through traffic would be welcomed by the horse riding fraternity. FC2/AG/260 Charles Blackham ‘The Street’ in Eversley is bordered on both sides by Grade II listed properties, and is narrow in several places; vehicles have to mount the pavement, which is a risk to pedestrians. FC2/AG/261 Kate Burnett Have campaigned over the last 2 years to try and make the walk to School through Eversely centre and the Street safer. Traffic is already busy and the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 99 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

new development will make it very unsafe. FC2/AG/263 James Lewis The increase in traffic on the A327 will make the road very dangerous. (see above for summary, WBC response There is an issue of congestion as this is the main and recommendations on this issue) arterial road to the A30, M3 and Fleet Station. The A327 through Eversley cannot sustain this volume of traffic or the construction traffic. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara Danger to children due to an increase in traffic and Brown lack of safe playing areas. FC2/AG/282 Sophie Becker How will the increase in traffic on None Mile Ride support the safety of the large number of children walking to school along this road? FC2/AG/285 Michael Slater The Street in Eversley is very dangerous for pedestrians. Speed of travel, narrow roads. Unsuitable route for Lorries. The A327 cannot cope with the additional traffic that will result from this scheme. FC2/AG/296 Clive Stoneham Frequent accidents on the A327 at the junction with Park Lane. FC2/AG/304 Sean Green The effect of the development on the traffic flow to rural villages will be devastating and dangerous to the numerous school children who walk daily to the local Charles Kingsley School. The B3272 is not designed to cope with the additional traffic that will be generated. Any development around Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive would pose a real a severe threat to the safety to children, caused by construction traffic. FC2/AG/305 Lorraine Bek The effect of the development on the traffic flow to rural villages will be devastating and dangerous to the numerous school children who walk daily to the local Charles Kingsley School. The B3272 is not designed to cope with the additional traffic that will be generated. Any development around Sheerlands Road and

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 100 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Tyler Drive would pose a real a severe threat to the safety to children, caused by construction traffic. FC2/AG/306 Andy Scott Traffic levels on the A327 are already very high and (see above for summary, WBC response the development will increase it dramatically. The and recommendations on this issue) Conservation Area of The Street in Eversley is already very dangerous for pedestrians and will only get worse with additional traffic. FC2/AG/310 Chris Milligan Concerns for pedestrians, especially children with the increased volume of traffic. Already raised concerns with the council about the path alongside the A327, and this situation will not improve with more development. FC2/AG/311 Chris Heyliger Modest improvement to the bridge below the Bull is (FC2/IDC/35) welcomed to improve safety. FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard WBC and Police have been unable to satisfy residents participating in the local Neighbourhood Action Group that the safety of vulnerable road users is being prioritised or even considered. FC2/AG/319 Simon C. Maylam Difficult to exit from The Street onto the A327 in Eversley during rush hour. The footpath outside of our property on The Street Eversley and adjacent property (Bonney’s Yard) is extremely narrow and is already dangerous for pedestrians to walk along the footpath. FC2/AG/320 Gemma Paxton The increase in traffic along the A327 is a horrifying prospect. It will impact on road safety and grade listed cottage. Walking along this route is extremely dangerous, and is the route taken to school with children. Trying to cross the A327 can take up to 5 mins with the current weight of traffic. On the Street, alone, in the last 2 years two brick garden walls have been knocked down after being hit by cars. Who is next? Entering and exiting the Drive from the road is a challenging daily task. Concerned that increased

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 101 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

traffic flow will restrict entering and exiting home will only be possible at certain times of the day. FC2/AG/321 David Sands The carriageway fronting property on Nine Mile Ride (B3430) is 6m wide. Direct Vehicular access is (see above for summary, WBC response continuous to all the residences, which gives little and recommendations on this issue) control of pedestrian movement, which includes school children from the nearby school and those being picked up along Nine Mile Ride. The carriageway width does not allow for right turning vehicular storage and bus bays required for the safe and free flow of traffic, or refuge islands for pedestrians. There is a 30mph speed limit, but would suggest the percentile speed is 75%. FC2/AG/327 Simeon Pines Fearful that a serious accident to a pedestrian will become even more likely in Nine Mile Ride will become even more likely when construction traffic begins. Nine Mile Ride is subject to frequent burst water mains and other faults, these problems will only be worse with additional wear and tear. FC2/AG/329 Miss P. Hunter Increased traffic on A327 will be dangerous for children and the elderly. How will residents be able to conduct their daily lives in and out of the village or walk safely through it? FC2/AG/331 Miss Linden Almond The increase in traffic will increase pollution and cause potential gridlock in the area, which will pose a real threat to safety. FC2/AG/332 Ms Celia Matthews No consideration given to how residents can safely walk their children to school along ‘The Street’. Pavements are already narrow and not continuous along the route. High percentage of drivers already speed, what safety measure could be imposed to restrict the limit in light of the fact it is a designated lorry route? FC2/AG/335 David Batup People heading for the A33 use the rat run down

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 102 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Warbrook Lane where a lot of school children and Horses and cyclists are. More traffic here will result in more accidents. A327 is already dangerous for cyclists FC2/AG/336 Dr Mike Matthews The B3348 is already an accident black spot FC2/AG/337 John and Kirsty The A327 is already at breaking point and is (see above for summary, WBC response Hayward becoming dangerous and too busy. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/338 Tony Whyte Roads and pavements in Eversley are very narrow in places. Impossible for vehicle to pass eachother safely. Very dangerous for children walking along these areas. FC2/AG/339 David Bell on behalf of The junction of the Bramshill Road and the B3310 FC2/STST/11 Heckfield Parish on the outskirts of Heckfield is already an accident Council black spot. FC2/AG/341 Liz Scott ‘The Street’ is a hazardous stretch of road for pedestrians. More traffic will degrade conditions for pedestrians and cyclist further. FC2/AG/345 Kate Whyte The roads in the village are very narrow and with extra traffic it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident. FC2/AG/350 Paul Lethbridge Concerns about Park Lane. Narrow and sharp bend as it passes Shepperlands farm, and there have been serious accidents here. FC2/AG/351 Nigel Weeks Barkham Road is already very dangerous and is not designed for the current level of traffic. Many children use these routes often by bicycle, fear for their safety if roads become any busier. FC2/AG/355 Hatty Masser A327 has no pedestrian crossings, and in some places no pavement as it is too narrow. Walking daughters to school, have to push their buggy in the road, into oncoming traffic. FC2/AG/358 Susan Philips Concerned about the impact the development will have on the Coombes Primary School, the roads are already very busy in this area. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter Any development around Gerring Road, the ‘old’

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 103 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Sheerlands Road, Tyler Drive and Barker Close are quiet areas traffic wise. They provide a safe haven for children to play. Any development here will pose a real and severe threat to the safety of children caused by general increased traffic and construction traffic. FC2/AG/363 Darren Rutter No way of stopping people who are travelling to fast. Increase in traffic will make the problem worse and (see above for summary, WBC response more dangerous. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/365 Roger and Sarah Murfitt Concerned for children safety when travelling to school. Extremely hazardous crossing near the roundabout at Windsor Ride/Barkham Road and even more so at the California Crossroads on Nine Mile Ride. Cannot see how this area can be improved to cope with additional traffic. FC2/AG/369 Jeff Hollis Safety and environmental concerns, particularly at California Crossroads, which is heavily used by young children attending the local schools. If proposals to extend Nine Mile Ride go ahead, it will present a further danger to children. FC2/AG/370 Penny Arlon Increase in traffic along the A327 will be dangerous to children. FC2/AG/374 Carline Lavelle Increase in traffic will cause danger to residents crossing the road to use amenities in the centre of Eversley. FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith Traffic in Arborfield will be detrimental to quality of life enjoyed by Arborfield residents currently and will compromise the safety of young. FC2/AG/379 Andrew Collins The increase in HGV traffic due to construction will affect the safety of the A327 through The Street in Eversley. Dangerous for children to walk to school. FC2/AG/387 Catherine Drew Any development around Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive would pose a real and sever threat to the safety of all the children who currently play around Gerring Road and Tyler Drive.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 104 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Increased risk to safety of those currently living in the area from increased traffic including heavy construction vehicles and proposed re-routing of the (see above for summary, WBC response 144 bus route to go along currently unsuitable roads and recommendations on this issue) such as Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive. FC2/AG/392 Kerry Yates Main road in Eversley is already very busy and additional traffic will put children in the village at more risk. FC2/AG/396 David and Louise The street is already a safety concern without the Dunne addition of the additional traffic as a result of the development. FC2/AG/399 Poppy Lawrence Concerned that the increase in traffic will make walking to school more dangerous. Particularly along the ‘The Street’ in Eversley. FC2/AG/405 Jeff and Jane Thomas The increased volume of traffic in Eversley will have a negative impact on road safety, particularly pedestrian safety. FC2/AG/405 Daniel Craddock A327 should be downgraded to a B or C road. Problems with speeding on this road; it is a main route for pedestrians so is dangerous. FC2/AG/410 Stephanie Weaver Widening of roads to accommodate new bus route would mean that buses and other traffic would be travelling on what are currently cul-de-sac and/or small roads. This will increase danger to children FC2/AG/413 Dawn Maylam The A327 is a dangerous road. FC2/AG/417 William Gilmore The Development would have an extremely devastating effect on the village of Eversley. Would be subjected to high increase in traffic and impact personal safety, homes and the local environment. FC2/AG/418 Mr and Mrs Robert De The council has a responsibility to implement the Meyer safest and most efficient scheme regardless of cost. A bypass is the only credible solution. FC2/AG/424 Mrs Brunhilde Williams Resident of Finchampstead – speed limits in the area are not observed. Pavements are not wide enough or do not exist.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 105 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/426 Elizabeth Cannon The huge increase in traffic that the plan includes will be detrimental to the safety of children. Ongoing (see above for summary, WBC response development with the heavy machinery and and recommendations on this issue) dangerous sites will stop children being able to play outside. How does WBC propose to maintain the safety of children and ensure they are able to play outside? FC2/AG/429 Francis and Audrey Consideration should be given to the fact that the Moore children of Finchampstead will not be able to get tot school safely. FC2/AG/431 Julia Shepherd The proposal to the bus route down Bramshill Close in Bramshill would be a hazard as it is a narrow road and not suitable for buses. FC2/AG/445L Andy South Feels that the development would cause a dangerous increase in traffic in the local area which would make the older and younger residents vulnerable when out and about and crossing roads. FC2/AG/446L Jane South Increase in traffic problems and potential accidents with children crossing the road to get to school/shops etc. There are no speed cameras in Eversley to sloe down lorries etc. FC2/AG/447L Mr & Mrs Colin Williams The increase in traffic will have a detrimental effect on the potential safety of local pedestrians and especially children going to school. FC2/AG/450L Tim Smith It will be impossible to cross the road safely or cycle to school (A327) How can children walk along an exceptionally busy road that at points does not have a pavement. Where there is pavement, frequently see lorries mounting the kerb to pass as the road is so narrow. Theme 4: DESIGN - Topics: Design / Historic buildings/existing buildings / Density / Place names / Car parking / Street hierarchy Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Design FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Development will change rural character of Summary Eversley. Concerns relate to the design of the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 106 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/64 Graham Bell Questions the quality of place making and provision proposed development at Arborfield that of services/facilities. will have a negative impact on the FC2/AG/66 David Valentine Mixed housing designs are not in character with the existing rural character. area. The management of design quality FC2/AG/136 Brian and Carole Le Development sounds reasonably attractive in terms should be monitored by an established Page of design and amenities in the district centre. design board. FC2/AG/151 Ed Sampson & Nicola Concerns that without specific provisions in the Alder on behalf of design (e.g. churches, room for faith groups, WBC Response Parish Church of St community facilities, burial space) it will be difficult James, Finchampstead to meet the spiritual needs of the parishioners. The ARBSPD seeks to guide developers FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of There needs to be obligation on developer to to reflect diversity and distinction within the Arborfield Working provide details within the framework and to meet their masterplans and development Party WBC’s objectives. WBC should take a wider role schemes. The SPD identifies three broad within the life of the development or form a trust character typologies that should guide made up of local interest groups to perform this role. schemes in helping to reinforce the Disability requirements only pay lip services to legal settlement structure. These typologies requirement but with no detail this is meaningless. are intended to inform the design of the Avoidance of out of context design is critical and we built form, streets and spaces and expect not to see designs such as those that have landscape treatment of the built areas of been used as in publications as they are out of the SDL, which is highlighted in the table keeping with history and character of area. on pages 44-45. Public Art is out of character and laughable when so much other detail is missing. The SPD also sets out guidance in FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan What provision has been made for allotments and paragraphs 3b(i) to 3b(iii) to demonstrate local burial facilities in SDL? how buildings should be designed to FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Several times it was announced that Area B would ensure architectural and design not be developed and that there would be a excellence. The built form should significant buffer of at least 60m between the positively respond to and draw nearest development and the existing housing references from the many fine buildings abutting Area B. Neither of these announcements and rich townscape that is a strong has been reflected in the plans. Plans are too characteristic of the Borough. In addition vague. There needs to be a substantial buffer to the Wokingham Borough Design Guide between the existing and proposed developments. 2007, development proposals should also FC2/AG/189 Mike Boys Previous statements said that Area B would not be refer to any Village Design Statements. developed and that there would be a significant It is also a key design principle of the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 107 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

buffer of at least 60m between the nearest SPD that high quality materials should development and the existing housing abutting Area firmly establish the character and identity B. Neither of these announcements has been of the SDL, both in respect of the public reflected in the plans. Plans are too vague. There realm and the built form of buildings and needs to be a substantial buffer between the structures. Landmark buildings should existing and proposed developments. also be designed and located to FC2/AG/196 Les Roland, Chairman Agrees with Mr Steve Bacon (FC2/AG/218, emphasise the role and status of a (FC2/NW/12, of Froghall Drive FC2/IDC/18) and the Wokingham Society. particular building or place. Landmark FC2/SW/35, In other documentation it is stated that design buildings should include those with a FC2/SM4/42, should be to reduce the average private special architectural character, those FC2/IDC/12) consumption of water per head to near to 100 litres incorporating distinctive features and per day; this will not be possible unless those with special functions. considerable extra expenditure on the recycling of grey water is provided. Houses could be The design guidance set out in the SPD encouraged to install tanks to store rainwater to be will function as a key material used for gardening. consideration in later stages of the Some of the typical houses shown in all four SDLs masterplanning process and will inform are virtual monstrosities and should not be allowed later design and planning stages. in our area. Documents refer to mews that are out of character Paragraph 6.5.6 sets out the aspiration and represent high density housing with minimum for a Delivery Board Structure that act as garden area and front doors straight on to the a primary point of liaison between the street. Hopes that streets will not look like those on respective parties with the principal aim page 61. of taking forward the guidance in this FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer There should be stipulations that the developers document into detailed design and Deering build is compassionate to the surrounding area, in planning applications. keeping with the style and standard of houses; that houses are not crammed in. People want Recommendations reasonable sized gardens, not to be overlooked by other houses and have trees and green land and No recommended change. parks around their houses. FC2/AG/217 Ken & Mary Lane The quality of the housing and general layout of the site looks promising as long as the criteria adopted in the initial proposals are not watered down by developers at a later stage.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 108 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/222 Mary Ferry Overcrowded nature of the plans implies that sustainability and self-sufficiency is not taken seriously. People should have at least 20 foot depth of frontage and more to the rear, especially the smaller properties where residents are more likely to rely on garden produce. FC2/AG/235 Geoff & Karen Hartnell Development must be in keeping with local surroundings. FC2/AG/279 Robert Newman All forms of micro generation should be included, such as solar panels and solar waste heaters on all (see above for summary, WBC response houses. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/314 Finchampstead Parish The SPD should recognise that the building Council character is made up by red brick and tile. FC2/AG/330 F A Scott The Village Design Statement should be mentioned more in the SPD. It should at the least be cited in section 6 as something developers must take into account. FC2/AG/354 Wynn and Helen Avoid specifying housing and cramped floor areas. Kenrick Modern housing design parameters have been too small in comparison with earlier standards. Support the plan to provide fibre optic and other modern communications and to make housing energy efficient. FC2/AG/372 Simon Millett on behalf Generally supportive of measures to introduce of Sports England sporting facilities.

Suggest amendment to replace Fields in Trust: Planning & Design for Outdoor Sport and Play with Sport England guidance.

FC2/AG/373 Alison Ward on behalf Faith and community provision have still not been (FC2/IDC/54, of Arborfield & Newland picked up by the SPD. FC2/ENV/7) Parish Council Concern that master planning is being conducted in the continued absence of transport modelling. FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium suggests that the land use budget that

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 109 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Landowner Consortium informed the master plan assumptions should be shown. It objects to the residential provision as no (see above for summary, WBC response explanation has been given to the revisions that and recommendations on this issue) place more dwellings to the south and less to the north. Greater opportunities should be shown in the master plan for more residential developable areas and reduced public open space provision e.g. housing along edges of proposed green corridors. The Consortium also highlights that the SDL boundary needs to reflect MOD ownership.

FC2/AG/385 Ashley Wright The development must be sympathetic to local surroundings. Having a modern designed housing estate in the middle of a rural location will destroy the local area. Consideration needs to be given to the fact that the majority of houses in the local area are red brick with slate tile roofs, this should be the theme of the development, and not a modern disjointed scheme like Kennet island in Reading. FC2/AG/429 Francis and Audrey Provision should be made for churches to be built Moore on the new development site FC2/AG/441 unknown Lighting should be minimal and where essential be designed to keep light pollution in the surrounding countryside to a minimum. Clarification is needed on the proposal for wind turbines adjoining Hogwood and their impact on the area. Para 3.2.1 stipulates there to be physical connections to new and exiting facilities, this needs clarification. A clear policy should be drawn up to keep advertising at an agreed level. The legality and appropriateness of the signs which have appeared at the junction of Church Road, Farley Hill and the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 110 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

A327 should be looked at as soon as possible. Historic buildings/existing buildings FC2/AG/62 Terry Heffernan Development fails to protect historic environments Summary (Eversley is largely a conservation area). The scale of the proposed development FC2/AG/69 Tony Hogarty Eversley is a conservation area that is already will adversely affect the historic context of compromised by traffic which will get worse. the area. Important historic buildings FC2/AG/72 Ann Haddrill WBC would be failing in their responsibility to should be protected from the protect historic environment if the development of development. such proportion is permitted without addressing the effects it would have on the conservation area of English Heritage’s comments overall The Street. point to a need to reinforce elements of FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison Langley House, 19th century farmhouse on Langley the SPD to ensure thorough and Common Road on the edge of the garrison should adequate protection of the historic be protected and retained. features and buildings within the site. FC2/AG/84 Nigel Stoate The development fails to protect the historic environment. WBC Response FC2/AG/87 Brian Scott Eversley as a historic conservation area needs to be protected. Listed buildings and Scheduled Ancient FC2/AG/90 Mrs J. F. Gubby The Street in Eversley is in a Conservation Area Monuments are protected by legislation and has to abide by certain rules. and the ARBSPD reflects this in its FC2/AG/92 Mark & Julia Historic environment is not protected by drastically design guidance. McDonnell increasing the traffic through a conservation area without consultation. The ARBSPD also seeks retention of FC2/AG/320 Gemma Paxton Impossible to care for our listed building with HGV’s non-listed buildings. Many other regularly causing the house to shake. The impact of buildings associated with the Garrison more daily HGV traffic is a huge concern. We are and School of Electrical and Mechanical required by law to upkeep the house but one of the Engineers could also fulfil useful main factors affecting the house is traffic and is out community functions, such as the sports of our hands. complex and gymnasium located on FC2/AG/134 Matt Lawrence The Street in Eversley is a Conservation and under Nuffield Road. Additionally, there are direct threat of this development. several distinctive buildings and structures which may offer potential for FC2/AG/142 Kathryn Curran Increase of traffic will affect the environment and increase pollution which may have lasting affect on conversion to other uses or provide a conservation area. local landmark that can contribute to the th character of the SDL. FC2/AG/153 Graham Drewett Langley House, 19 century farmhouse on Langley Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 111 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Common Road on the edge of garrison should be protected and retained. The SPD recommends that an FC2/AG/155 Ian Hill The proposed development will have adverse assessment will be required as to the impacts upon conservation area. suitability of buildings for retention in FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of The Military Museum should be preserved and terms of the contribution they make to the the Arborfield Working buildings such as the stables be included as part of character of the area; structural condition; Party this. Development must stop in an agreeable economic cost and viability of conversion; distance from any important building and and location relative to key conservation area. Consideration needs to be given neighbourhoods and potential to Garrison church, too. development parcels within the SDL. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Both Eversley Village and Arborfield Cross are in Conservation Areas and the Bull is not the only Recommendation Grade 11 (2?) listed building in either Arborfield Cross or Eversley Village. Confirm Figure 2.2 (Constraints plan) Have archaeological considerations of the site been recognises the location of listed taken into account? buildings. In addition the SPD should Has the reuse of significant MoD buildings been make clear reference to the need to considered? comply with the provisions of PPS5, FC2/AG/183 Steve Betts The building of this development will increase HGVs and should highlight the importance of along A327 (single carriage) causing further the setting of listed buildings and damage to foundations and structure of buildings in features, as well as the buildings and “The Street” in Eversley. features themselves. FC2/AG/187 Jackie Wright Development will hugely increase HGVs along the single carriageway road (A327) which will cause further damage to foundations and structures of buildings in “The Street” in Eversley. FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe Heavy traffic on the A327/Reading Road and resulting vibrations causes damage to existing buildings. Plan ignores impact on conservation area in Eversley (e.g. The Street is narrow and cannot take more HGVs or general traffic, it is already a bottleneck). FC2/AG/198 Philippa Varcoe Existing HGVs make buildings along road shake and crack. FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer Existing historic buildings should be kept and used

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 112 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Deering as much as possible (e.g. museum, rugby pitches, (see above for summary, WBC response Poperinghe pre-school and community centre and and recommendations on this issue) car parks. FC2/AG/446L Jane South Eversley is one of the few traditional village scenes with cricket ground, local shop, church, pub etc it would be a shame for this to be blighted. A new development should never be seen in its entirety and the bigger picture should always be examined carefully. FC2/AG/319 Simon C. Maylam Own a Grade II listed property, and vibrations from passing traffic have already meant repairs have meant repairs are necessary. 15 years of development would see a dramatic increase in HGV passing the house, and increasing vibrations and the need for repairs and renovations. Happy for the council to visit the property to see the problems envisaged from the development. FC2/AG/205 Karen Hathaway Development will impact conservation area in Eversley. FC2/AG/216 Mrs Dee Varcoe Traffic on A327 is already huge problem and resulting vibrations can cause damage to properties (incl. 100+ year old cottage). This could also devalue property. FC2/AG/229 Leone Brown No account has been taken of the affect of noise, pollution and vibration from increased traffic on the conservation area of The Street and Eversley Cross both in general environmental terms and specific damage to listed buildings. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love The increase in traffic will possibly cause damage to housing through vibrations. FC2/AG/244 Richard Love The Street is a conservation area and must be protected from future increases in noise and pollution both form increased traffic from construction vehicles and future residents of the new housing.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 113 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/279 Robert Newman Langley House should be protected and if possible returned to use as a residence. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/291 Roger Huggan Langley House should be protected and retained. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/293 Brigitte Huggan Langley House should be protected and retained. FC2/AG/258 D. W Hamilton - There are a number of listed buildings within the vicinity of Park Lane, notably Shepperlands Farm, Shepperlands Cottage, West Court, Lea Farm and Banisters. Restriction of access combined wit the proposed SANG would help preserve and enhance the visual amenity and ambience of these buildings and the adjoining green space. - The route of the Roman road from to Staines crosses Park Lane. Within the new SANG a short stretch of the Roman road could be excavated so it could be viewed. - According to the research by the Finchampstead Society there are some sections of hedgerow in Park lane estimated to have a longevity of 700 – 900 years FC2/AG/277 David Simpson, - The development will unacceptably affect Hampshire County the amenities within The Street, Eversley Councillor and as it is a conservation area it should be protected in the public interest.

FC2/AG/307 David Wright Langley House should be protected at all costs and (FC2/IDC/33) preserved. FC2/AG/308 Jennifer Wright Langley House should be protected at all costs and (FC2/IDC/34) preserved. FC2/AG/429 Francis and Audrey The development will ruin the rural character of the Moore villages of Finchampstead, Barkham, Winnersh, Eversley and Shinfield. It will cause a fall in property

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 114 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

values, and the nature of the Wokingham as a market town will be damaged. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock - Eversley is of historic importance and a designated conservation area. Traffic will (see above for summary, WBC response mean that the historic environment is no and recommendations on this issue) longer protected. - Eversley should be considered as it is closer than Arborfield Cross which has been considered in relation to improvements to the A327. FC2/AG/320 Gemma Paxton The Street is a recognised conservation area. If the Arborfield SDL is to go ahead it can only do so responsibly by putting a by-pass in place. FC2/AG/330 F A Scott - Langley House and its associated buildings should be considered for retention, not just for their own merit but to soften the visual impact of that corner of the SDL. - Ballieul sergeants mess is proposed for retention. Two more deserving buildings are the Sandhurst Block and the Hazebrouck Officers Mess. - If the Water tower is to be retained to supply water to the SDL it will be necessary to retain the low level supply tank between the water tower and Langley House. IF not then who will maintain the structure? FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence (PPS 5) Eversley residents consider the prospective massive increase in traffic through the village as a threat to properties and the historic environment. FC2/AG/337 John and Kirsty Eversley has historical importance and is a Hayward conservation area, and this has not been considered. The buildings, green fields and allotments need to be preserved to maintain the conservation area. FC2/AG/355 Hatty Masser Eversley Street is in a Conservation Area including

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 115 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

a large number of historic listed and locally listed buildings. Many of these have already been damaged by the heavy traffic using the A327, and any increase in traffic, especially construction traffic will cause irreparable damage. FC2/AG/374 Carline Lavelle Without the bypass the construction traffic will cause damage to existing buildings. (see above for summary, WBC response and recommendations on this issue)

FC2/AG/378 Colin Ridout Eversley is a conservation area and should not be exposed to such a large increase in traffic. FC2/AG/379 Andrew Collins HGV’s during construction will have a detrimental effect on the historic buildings in the conservation area. FC2/AG/395 Steve Williams on The SPD does not indicate that the impact of the behalf of English proposed development on the setting and character Heritage of heritage assets has been undertaken. It is further pointed out that the illustrative figures do not reflect the actual areas around each heritage asset that represents their areas of sensitivity. The contributions that heritage assets could make to the green infrastructure have been neglected. EH is particularly concerned about development areas encompassing the Infirmary Stables SAM. FC2/AG/405 Daniel Craddock Conservation area in Eversley will be damaged and not protected as planning policies dictate they should be. Vibrations from traffic will cause damage to buildings. FC2/AG/413 Dawn Maylam Sad that although that the historic listed nature of the street is protected by its conservation area status it is insufficient to protect it for future generations. FC2/AG/66 David Valentine Area will take on a whole new character to the detriment to the present semi-rural pleasant village community. Construction works will impact

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 116 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

residential amenities. Car parking FC2/AG/64 Graham Bell Fears that new development will be crammed Summary without parking spaces or garages. The new development at ARBSDL must FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Parking must reflect the rural nature of the location. include adequate parking provision.

WBC Response

A key design principle of the ARBSPD is that vehicle and cycle parking should be well planned and designed to ensure that it does not have a detrimental impact on the amenity and character of the SDL.

As part of this a comprehensive strategy for car parking should be prepared by developers, which clearly sets out how provision will be made across the scheme for residential, visitor, employment and shopper parking. Paragraph 3e(i) sets out a range of design options to accommodate residential parking with a presumption against rear parking courts except for apartment buildings, in order to maximise the level of privacy and security for dwellings. Whilst figure 4.3 and the table on page 45 indicate options for residential parking in relation to street types and block layout.

Greater detail will be subject to later stages of the design and planning process, a process that is ongoing with the Council Officers and stakeholders, and will inform later documents such as

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 117 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Design and Access Statements, Development Briefs and Design Codes. The standard of car parking to be applied will be a detailed consideration through a planning application.

Recommendation

No recommended change.

FC2/AG/264 Stephen and Christina WBC must ensure that sufficient parking per home Haigh is available; realistically this means 2 spaces per home. In village centres in particular additional parking will be needed and sufficient visitor parking in the residential areas is important too. FC2/AG/302 Liam Flanagan-Todd What Provisions have been made for parking at Wokingham Station and Crowthorne Station?

FC2/AG354 Wynn and Helen Ensure that there are sufficient car park spaces. Kenrick Recent developments have been inadequate. FC2/AG/452L Edgar Studer More parking needed Place names FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Naming of streets must be within the wider context Summary the Arborfield Working of the name of this development which should be a Place names should reflect wider context. Party new parish. Recommended place names include Hazebrouck and Ballieul.

WBC Response Paragraph 3g(i) of the SPD has been amended to reflect a broader approach to the determination of place names.

Recommendations No change recommended FC2/AG/330 F A Scott Two names that should be remembered when

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 118 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

during the naming of streets and place in the SDL are the two main barracks to be developed; (see above for summary, WBC response Hazebrouck and Ballieul, but to be done with and recommendations on this issue) sensitivity. The name of the whole SDL needs to be changes to recognise that very little of it is in Arborfield, and to recognise the word Garrison will have a deterrent effect on prospective residents. Street hierarchy FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Hierarchy of streets, particularly primary streets, do Summary the Arborfield Working not consider the wider environment and the main Hierarchy of streets, particularly primary Party directions of travel for work and leisure. streets, do not consider the wider environment and the main directions of travel for work and leisure.

WBC Response The ARBSPD sets out guidance within Design Principle 6a that seeks to promote easy and efficient movement within the layout and design of the SDL, whilst balancing high levels of residential amenity and creating an attractive environment. This will be achieved through a hierarchy of streets and routes which respond to different travel needs. A basic street hierarchy is provided on pages 62 that should be read by developers when creating their masterplans.

The SPD set out that there should be three primary streets within the SDL and that the street network should promote good connections with the existing community to ensure a good degree of integration. This includes pedestrian and

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 119 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

cycle routes as well as vehicular streets. However, greater detail will be subject to later stages of the design and planning process.

Recommendations No recommended change. Theme 5: CRIME Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte Objection to increase in crime caused by Summary development in Area B. New development will increase the FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Objection to increase in crime caused by likelihood of crime and anti-social development in Area B. behaviour with particular concern for any FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Objection to increase in crime caused by impacts on neighbourhoods near Area B. development in Area B. FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Opposed to development of Area B as it would WBC Response result in increased crime. Design guidance in general is limited in FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton Development risks increasing anti-social behaviour the amount of influence it can have on and crime. the levels of crime in any particular area. FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Development in Area B would increase crime rate. However, the ARBSPD does recognise FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Concerned about increase in crime caused by the role that design can play in helping to development in Area B. reduce the opportunities for crimes to FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Concerned about increase in crime caused by occur. development in Area B. FC2/AG/61 Mellissa Goswell Objection to increase in crime. The SPD recommends that FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Objection to increase in crime rate caused by neighbourhoods should be organised development in Area B. through a robust and traditional pattern of streets and blocks that enable more FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Objection to increased crime rate that would be caused by development in Area B. active streets and opportunities for natural surveillance. They allow for the FC2/AG/130 Mrs J Harrison Concerned about increase in crime. creation of private rear gardens and a FC2/AG/131 Mr R.L. Harrison Concerned about increase in crime. variety of ways to accommodate car FC2/AG/169 Tara Bickers How will police who is announcing thousands of parking on-plot. cuts police this new development? FC2/AG/183 Steve Betts If development remains vacant it will be a haven for Traditional blocks will ensure streets are anti-social behaviour and a burden on taxpayers Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 120 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

and the police. fronted and enclosed by buildings, FC2/AG/236 Dean Chamberlain These sorts of developments will bring a higher looking out onto the public realm as level of crime and traffic and a lower sense of illustrated in figure 4.4. The SPD also community spirit. recommends that safe neighbourhoods should be achieved through the careful consideration and application of the principles outlined in urban design best practice documents and Secure by Design.

Policy CP3(b) of the CS will apply to development. This requires development to be functional, accessible, safe, secure and adaptable.

Recommendations

No recommended change.

FC2/AG/270 George and Sara Would see an increase in crime in the area. Brown FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad Where is there mention of crime prevention and emergency services in this development proposal? An increase in population will bring high crime rates and a greater strain on existing emergency services. FC2/AG/304 Sean Green Object to the increased crime rate that would be caused by any development in Area B. FC2/AG/305 Lorraine Bek Object to the increased crime rate that would be caused by any development in Area B. FC2/AG/325 Peter Ayling Object to the increased crime rates that would undoubtedly arise from any large scale development FC2/AG/410 Stephanie Weaver Object tot the increased crime rate that would come from the development. FC2/AG/435 A. J. Cockrill Policing and law enforcement is already stretched. Will experience difficulties with the extra demands

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 121 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

placed upon them by such a huge development. Crime incidents will inevitably increases in the surrounding areas. Theme 6: ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORT - Topics: Public Transport / Sustainable Transport / Bus Stops / Cycle paths and footpaths / Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Public Transport FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Summary Drive to busses which would require road widening An improvement to existing public and result in increased risk to children, noise and air transport provision is required that should pollution. also provide access to the new proposed FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler secondary school. Drive to busses which would require road widening and result in increased risk to children, noise and air Car patronage is very high in the local pollution. area and will unlikely change. FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive to busses which would require road widening However, due to safety concerns and and result in increased risk to children, noise and air capacity issues, some respondents pollution. believe that the proposed bus route FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Lack of adequate public transport. through Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive and FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Baird Road will increase risks of Drive for busses which would require road widening accidents. The SPD should redefine the and enlargement of junctions and put safety of proposed bus route. children at risk. FC2/AG/30 Andrew Clint Suggestion to provide free, regular bus transport to WBC Response Wokingham and Reading to reduce traffic. FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Reducing the need to travel by car Drive to busses which would require works to both through improving public transport is an roads and junction of Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive important element of the overall strategy and Baird Road as it would also increase risk to for ARBSPD, which reaffirms children and cause noise and air pollution close to commitments in the Core Strategy para the route. 7.13. FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive to busses which would require works to both In relation to public transport provision roads and junction of Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive paragraph 3.1.5 of the SPD identifies Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 122 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

and Baird Road as it would also increase risk to efficient and convenient public transport children and cause noise and air pollution close to as a key aim of encouraging alternative the route. modes of travel for Arborfield. Design FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler principle 2a(ii) also emphasises public Drive to busses which would require works to both transport movement within and between roads and junction of Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive neighbourhoods that is easily accessible and Baird Road as it would also increase risk to within short walking distances. Design children and cause noise and air pollution close to Principle 6c(i) emphasises the the route. importance of engaging early on with bus FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Nearest rail stations are at Fleet, Winchfield and operators to secure enhanced provision. Wokingham. Services already overloaded with no parking spaces or train seats available. The Given the high dependence on the car development would devastate the routes for existing within the locality, the importance of residents. making public transport as convenient as FC2/AG/65 Theo d’Orgee Lack of bus services, poor access to Wokingham, possible for existing and new users is a rail station access should be considered. key initiative recognised by the SPD. To FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat Objection to redirection of buses along Bramshill enhance convenience and hence Close, Whitehall Drive and the branch of increase use, the potential routing of the Sheerlands Road that becomes Tyler Drive, bus is illustrated by figure 4.7 to link removing the existing blockades. The selected within and between different roads are unsuitable under the definitions of a bus neighbourhoods. This also helps satisfy route in the SDL documentation (no through roads the requirement for locating bus stops would be turned into a rat run). It would be better to within 400m walking distances of new remove blockade on Baird Road between Penrose and existing dwellings. However, safety Park and the current Army Housing and provide a issues will also need to be balanced with circular bus route around the perimeter of the the need for more sustainable modes of existing settlement. At the very least the route transport and will be tackled in later should not include the branch of Sheerlands Road stages of the design process. and should make use of the existing bus stops on the green around the junction of Baird Road and Recommendation Sheerlands Road as with limited space between the end properties on Sheerlands Road and the No recommended change. indicated protected area of trees the road could not be brought to the stated standard for a main route in the SDL while Baird Road and Sheerlands Road are

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 123 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

already built to a suitable standard to take buses. FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler (see above for summary, WBC response Drive to busses as it would require road widening and recommendations on this issue) and work to junction and increase traffic on currently cul-de-sacs and/or small roads. FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Objection to opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive to busses as they would need widening and increase traffic in currently quiet streets. FC2/AG/117 Ashley Hall There is no provision for the considerable strain that would be placed on the rail network (already no seats on services to London). FC2/AG/118 Fenella Hall There is no provision for the considerable strain that would be placed on the rail network (already no seats on services to London). FC2/AG/139 Ariane Droogmans The area is served by a poor bus network with very few hours of service so the main mode of transport will be by cars. FC2/AG/145 Elizabeth Peat Rerouting of the 144 bus route to run past end of Gerring Road would combined with increased traffic would pose a real risk to safety of children living in this street. FC2/AG/154 Rick Wilson The proposed bus lane down Bramshill Close is not viable without extensive road work. This will cause huge disruption for residents. How will the proposed bus lane down Bramshill Close be implemented and its use restricted? FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Public transport is currently poor and should be the Arborfield Working improved. Party FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Bus route down Sheerlands Road is completely inappropriate when Baird Road is much more suitable. FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Objection to opening up no through roads to provide bus route (Sheerlands Road). FC2/AG/196 Les Roland, Chairman Agrees with Mr Steve Bacon (FC2/AG/218,

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 124 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(FC2/NW/12, of Froghall Drive FC2/IDC/18) and the Wokingham Society. FC2/SW/35, Also current bus services are not used much. Car FC2/SM4/42, ownership is high and likely to remain high and (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/IDC/12) therefore design need to take this into account. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to bus connection at the end of Gerring (FC2/IDC/17) Road which will increase traffic and provide hazard to existing residents, especially children. FC2/AG/218 Steve Bacon Only a tiny proportion of residents use bus service (FC2/IDC/18) to Reading or Wokingham (due to fare structure but also because the A327 lacks bus lanes outside central Reading). It is difficult where bus lanes could be provided in future. Due to fare structure, only a small percentage of people will use bus; claims that 15% or even 20% will use bus services are inflated. FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth Claims that an excellent public transport system is planned but at the same time the park and ride is being taken away. FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes The ‘opportunity’ to open up Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Road to buses is not correct. Roads cannot accommodate them. Opening up this road as a bus route uses suitably sized roads and is not close to any existing properties. FC2/AG/270 George and Sara No increase in public transport to help prevent the Brown mass use of private vehicles. FC2/AG/273 Sajjad Abbasi Object to the planned public transport route, and bus stops on doorstep which will be accommodated by losing green space. FC2/AG/275 Hina Abbasi Object to the planned public transport route, and bus stops on doorstep which will be accommodated by losing green space. FC2/AG/277 David Simpson, Demand for good public transport to reduce carbon Hampshire County emissions, there is no good public transport but an Councillor over reliance upon thee car and is contrary to all Government policy. Key planning objective is to ensure that jobs,

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 125 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Own figures suggest 4500 vehicle movements per (see above for summary, WBC response day through Eversley. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/284 Mrs K Tipton Object to the proposal of Sheerlands Road becoming a bus route and through road. FC2/AG/302 Liam Flanagan-Todd Increase in population will have an impact on public transport system. What provision has been made for the increase in traffic into Wokingham? FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad Wokingham Railway station is due for redevelopment, but the plans are yet to be signed off. The parking will be inadequate. What are the plans to improve the transport network at this station? FC2/AG/304 Sean Green Object to the opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive to Buses. This would require both roads to be widened and the junction of Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive and Baird Road to be enlarged. FC2/AG/305 Lorraine Bek Object to the opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive to Buses. This would require both roads to be widened and the junction of Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive and Baird Road to be enlarged. FC2/AG/314 Finchampstead Parish SPD should make references to sustainable modes Council of travel to the new high school. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock WBC has an unrealistic view about how people will get to the development using public transport. Public transport links are terrible and there appears to be no provision of public transport south on the A327 to Farnborough and beyond. Transport links at Wokingham are already at capacity. FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins It seems the re-routing of the 144 bus route will mean it will go along unsuitable roads such as Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive which again increases traffic levels. Children often play around this area it backs off the grass pitch area.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 126 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/323 Peter McSweeny Essential that a frequent regular and affordable (FC2/IDC/39) public transport facility is provided and guaranteed for 25 years, funded by the developer, not the (see above for summary, WBC response District Council. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence Is there no alternative site for development closer to an existing railway station? Where will residents be able to park if they choose to travel by train from their nearest station at Wokingham? Have studies been dome to look into increased provision of trains/carriages? (PPS1) (PPG13) what public transport for the new households is being planned? FC2/AG/339 David Bell on behalf of Can it be assumed that all new schools in the SPD FC2/STST/11 Heckfield Parish for which properties in Swallowfield parish will be in Council their catchment will be serviced by public transport? What improved public transport is envisaged for the area, and will it include direct bus services to Wokingham and Basingstoke? FC2/AG/366 Cllr Philip Todd Commitment to public transport provision needs to be made more explicit in the SPD. FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith There has been a misrepresentation about the use of Sheerlands Road for buses. Buses do nothing but turn around in the junction of Sheerlands Road and Baird Road. It is not an existing bus route, and reference to using it as such must be discontinued. FC2/AG/452L Edgar Studer Develop public transport Bus/railway. Better entrance to Wokingham Railway station. Sustainable transport FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Sufficient space should be made available for a light Summary the Arborfield Working rail stop at the centre. In the short and medium term The ARBSDL should make provision for Party this could be used for park and ride schemes. sustainable modes of transport. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan There is little opportunity to provide cycle ways and facilities for those with reduced mobility. Developer WBC Response funding needs to be provided for this. See response to public transport above. What are proposed measures to improve

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 127 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

accessibility by non car modes along the A327, Recommendations B3030, B3349, B3430 including works to Barkham No recommended change. Bridge? FC2/AG/423 Mr D Bradley WBC is a joint signatory to an agreement to provide sustainable transport through the Blackwater Valley Network. Whilst sensible in directing HGV’s on routes linking the M3 and M4 it appears to have been ignored.

Cycle paths and footpaths FC2/AG/196 Les Roland, Chairman Agrees with Mr Steve Bacon (FC2/AG/218, Summary of Froghall Drive FC2/IDC/18). Initiatives to improve provision generally FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach Nine Mile Road should not be a primary access welcomed however, there is limited route because the road is not wide enough to build information on how new safe cycle and a cycle lane or wide footpaths. Cycling into pedestrian links will be created within the adjoining areas such as the California Country Park ARBSDL. or Finchampstead would be dangerous. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Safe walking and cycling routes are mentioned but WBC Response the Arborfield Working not planned or costed for. Paragraph 1e(i) of the SPD has been Party amended to include public rights of way: FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Cycle routes across the site linking to National "A system of local recreational routes Cycle Network is welcome but what happens should cross the SDL and make provision towards Reading or Farnborough (A327 will have for walking and cycling. Where possible, increase in traffic). these routes should seek to enhance FC2/AG/218 Steve Bacon While it is certainly possible that cycling and walking existing SUSTRANS routes and connect (FC2/IDC/18) can be encouraged within the SDL, it is difficult to to existing and new public rights of way see how cycling and walking will be comfortable so as to afford access beyond the SDL means of transport outside of the SDL. Where is boundaries." there room on the existing routes to install segregated cycle-lanes and footpaths? The detailed design of the new cycle and pedestrian linkages is not within the scope of the ARBSDL however; more detailed design work will be part of planning applications.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 128 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Recommendations No recommended change. FC2/AG/323 Peter McSweeny There appears to be no opportunity for a safe cycle (FC2/IDC/39) route to a train station FC2/AG/407 Martin & Kate Robinson No apparent facilities planned for bike routes Theme 7: INFRASTRUCTURE : Topics - Services/ Satellite dishes / Highways Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response General Infrastructure FC2/AG/11 Margaret Walker Inadequate infrastructure. Summary FC2/AG/12 Ray Walker Inadequate infrastructure. The existing infrastructure is incapable of FC2/AG/13 Michael van Oostrum Inadequate infrastructure. accommodating the proposed scale of FC2/AG/18 Barbara Crawford No need for new schools, shops, bus station and development in terms of flood risk 3,500 new homes in this area. mitigation, highways, sewage/drainage, FC2/AG/22 Peter & Barbara Objection due to inadequate infrastructure. and public transport. Blundell FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Infrastructure is already unable to support recent Concerns over the deliverability of new major development (e.g. Arborfield Garrison). infrastructure, which respondents stress Negative impact on sewage/drainage system. should be front loaded as part of the FC2/AG/26 Col J M Gaff Existing drainage is inadequate. Presumably overall delivery of the scheme. development will have an independent sewerage system. WBC Response FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Opposed to development of Area B due to Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy states inadequate infrastructure. that planning permission will not be FC2/AG/29 Elaine Teresa Howard Concerned about flooding and drainage problems in granted unless appropriate arrangements the area. for the improvement of and provision of FC2/AG/36 Steve Honour Concern regarding drainage infrastructure, services have been made. All future planning applications must be in FC2/AG/40 Katherine Taylor-Jones Does not understand need to build in current economic climate. Inadequate infrastructure, conformity with the provisions set out in transportation or services to support development. the Core Strategy and Infrastructure SPD. FC2/AG/47 Mike Saunders Concerned that no consideration has been given to

the infrastructure considerations in Hampshire.

Writer is opposed to new houses and new roads. The ARBSPD seeks a comprehensive FC2/AG/50 Mr. & Mrs Trevithick Current infrastructure cannot sustain development approach that addresses the needs of of that size. Improvements to infrastructure need to Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 129 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

be in place before commencement of work Wokingham residents in terms of (including Barkham Bridge, Wokingham level community services and infrastructure crossing, flooding drainage). requirements. The mechanisms for FC2/AG/55 R G Services (UK) Ltd Objection due to lack of infrastructure in and around achieving these issues are set out by the Arborfield and Wokingham. Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions FC2/AG/62 Terry Heffernan Planning process is severely flawed as it fails to SPD. Table 1 of the IDC SPD recognises consider or make provisions for impact on local this and acknowledges the possibility of environment and infrastructure that is already upgrading. struggling to cope. FC2/AG/69 Tony Hogarty Development is in an unsuitable location with The Arborfield SPD emphasises the need insufficient infrastructure. for either an overarching infrastructure FC2/AG/75 Elisabeth Andreae Impact on surrounding infrastructure will be outline planning application or enormous. Infrastructure Delivery Plan to FC2/AG/77 Mr & Mrs Brooks Objection as area cannot cope with new demonstrate how the SDL will deliver the development at Garrison. infrastructure requirements laid down in FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison Infrastructure and amenities are now at capacity. the Infrastructure Delivery SPD and FC2/AG/87 Brian Scott The infrastructure will not support a development of Policies CP18-21 and Appendix 7 of the this size. Core Strategy. Developers are required FC2/AG/90 Mrs J. F. Gubby There is not enough infrastructure to cope with to take a coordinated approach to the current houses. delivery of necessary infrastructure, FC2/AG/92 Mark & Julia Understanding of need for housing but this has to facilities and services. Particular regard McDonnell come with appropriate infrastructure. should be had to resolving issues relating FC2/AG/94 Teresa Mozley Should the new town not be built in an area where to sewage works with Thames Water (a statutory consultee) before development the infrastructure (roads, schools, shops etc) is adequate to support it? on site can proceed.

FC2/AG/102 Barry Edmonds Strain on existing infrastructure will cause further Thames Water supports the production of diminution of the quality of life in Eversley. the SDL SPD and strongly supports FC2/AG/112 Ian McBride Scale of development too great for area as it will reference to Core Strategy Policy CP4 swamp the existing infrastructure (roads, medical that states that planning permission will facilities etc). not be granted unless appropriate FC2/AG/352 Rob Walter When on a plan for new sports facilities are we infrastructure is agreed for major going to see new, modern indoor as well as outdoor development. floodlit facilities for tennis? All the plans I ever see are for football and cricket. There are enough The SPDs will inform the business cases pitches for these outdoor sports and no indoor and will assist in ensuring viability, Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 130 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

courts for sport that has 500000+ nationwide phasing and deliverability. players every week in Wokingham. FC2/AG/126 Anne Petts Uncertainty about the capacity of local sewage Recommendation: (and other system must be resolved (either upgrade of The ARBSDL should consider the use of SPDs) Arborfield sewage works or a new sewage trigger points for the provision of treatment works are required). infrastructure or the payment of FC2/AG/144 David George Land WBC lacked foresight in considering the impact of a contributions In line with paragraph 6.16 development on surrounding infrastructure. What and 6.17 of the Infrastructure Delivery provisions have been made for road systems (in and Contributions SPD. particular through Eversley and A327), drainage, services etc? FC2/AG/152 A.P. Jackson The proposed development will create major problems in the local area due to the increased demands it will place on already overstretched infrastructure. FC2/AG/153 Graham Drewett Decision needed if a major upgrade of Arborfield sewage works or new sewage treatment works is required. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of The SDL has very limited IT and power the Arborfield Working infrastructure. Party Existing sewerage system is already at capacity. Existing facilities on site (e.g. early years provision and sports facilities) should be reused and augmented. FC2/AG/165 David G Land What provision has been made for surrounding road systems, drainage, etc? FC2/AG/168 Dave Hogg Existing infrastructure cannot cope with this over- development (capacity of roads, Mill Lane has flood issues). FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Thames water and the Sewage Works should have been consulted. How long will it take to determine whether the sewage works need a major upgrade or new sewage treatment works are needed? The infrastructure supporting the existing housing was mostly constructed outside the authority of

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 131 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

WBC who along with the utility services is statutory undertaker. They are not in general up to the current standard. Will this be upgraded and who will (see above for summary, WBC response pay for this? and recommendations on this issue) Biggest weakness is the likely inability of developer funding to deliver the infrastructure listed in CS Appendix 7 and the highways are the most critical part of sustainability of the SDL. FC2/AG/176 Spencer King Full and proper infrastructure survey is needed. FC2/AG/181 Mrs Marion Desai Concerned that any proposed development does (FC2/ICD/10) not add to the existing lack of infrastructure. FC2/AG/187 Jackie Wright The problems to the infrastructure and environment will be borne mainly by Hampshire residents and in particular those living in Eversley. FC2/AG/192 Ken Spice Objection as existing infrastructure will not be able to cope. FC2/AG/196 Les Roland, Chairman Agrees with Mr Steve Bacon (FC2/AG/218, (FC2/NW/12, of Froghall Drive FC2/IDC/18) and the Wokingham Society. FC2/SW/35, There is little mentioned about these. Have utility FC2/SM4/42, companies been consulted? FC2/IDC/12) FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan There appears to be no financial calculation and without that it is impossible to establish if the MoD/developer will deliver all required infrastructure which would make CP19 unsound. Highlights lack of evidence base. FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer Concern that houses are built first and infrastructure Deering is left to last with the risk of money running out. FC2/AG/209 Joan Morley Does Sewage Treatment plant at Arborfield need (FC1/ICD/13) upgrading – this requires advance work. FC2/AG/210 Steve Ollerhead Does Sewage Treatment plant at Arborfield need (FC1/ICD/14) upgrading – this requires advance work. FC2/AG/212 Olivia & Peter Thornton Utilities (gas, water etc) overstretched. FC2/AG/213 Neil & Carol Davison New housing should not be allowed at least until (FC2/IDC/16) roads, schools and general amenities are brought to

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 132 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

a satisfactory and realistic level. FC2/AG/219 Susan Ramsden The Wokingham/Finchampstead infrastructure cannot cope with a development of this size. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth How is the sewage system to be improved that is and recommendations on this issue) already at capacity? FC2/AG/224 D.R. Jones How is area to cope with additional development (FC2/IDC/19) and strain on water and sewage systems? FC2/AG/235 Geoff & Karen Hartnell The current infrastructure barely copes with the current population level and the development will place an intolerable burden on it. FC2/AG/243 Stephen and Cheryl The existing infrastructure in Wokingham, Clark Finchampstead, Eversley, Winnersh or Arborfield that can take any additional housing and its associated traffic. FC2/AG/244 Richard Love Government policy states that developments should have current facilities and infrastructure to accommodate future housing. However the plans show that 3 schools, shops and a bus depot are to be constructed in addition to the houses which meant the plans are clearly too big and the site is not suitable. FC2/AG/247 Sue and Geoff Ash Concerned that unless funding is provided to significantly upgrade the local infrastructure (highways, water supply, wastewater disposal etc) there will be a considerable strain on existing resources and a marked deterioration on local communities and rural life. FC2/AG/253 Jane Stoneham The local infrastructure is already inadequate and cannot support the kind of additional volumes proposed. FC2/AG/266 Dr. Michael Shaw The roads in the area are busy enough as it is. The schools, medical services and other supporting services cannot sustain the development. FC2/AG/267 Phil and Liz Wise Worried that the facilities that will be built in the area are not sufficient to cope with the volume of houses

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 133 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

planned. It would make more sense to choose a site nearer to a town where some of these facilities already exist. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/269 Katy Stanlake Do not need another Woodley or Earley style and recommendations on this issue) development in the area. Have village centres and retail areas aplenty. Building another bus station, petrol station and supermarket would not enhance the area whatsoever. Why would you build a bus station in the middle of a green field? FC2/AG/270 George and Sara The local services such as doctors, dentists cannot Brown cope with the increase in population. FC2/AG/276 Claire Harris The infrastructure cannot support the development it will change the feel of the community. FC2/AG/282 Sophie Becker Development should be built where the infrastructure to support it already exists. FC2/AG/277 David Simpson, PPS3 ‘good access to jobs, key services and Hampshire County infrastructure’ unless you build infrastructure then it Councillor does not exist or is overcrowded. Need a new road a minimum.

FC2/AG/278 Toby Aling on behalf of The council is concerned that the further work (FC2/STAT/9 Hampshire County outlined in the core strategy and highlighted in the Council Inspectors report with regard to Strategic Transport Improvements for the development at Arborfield, has not been completed to support the SPD documents out for consultation. FC2/AG/287 Mrs C. S. Heffernan So much infrastructure is needed that the development is too big. FC2/AG/289 Bernard Hicks Most of the schemes seem to attach little importance to the infrastructure and sustainability. Roads are already overcrowded with people trying to get to work, shops, school etc. This all needs to be addressed before embarking on these housing schemes. Seems to be a lack of enthusiasm from the council

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 134 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

to go into detail about the Access roads and sewerage needed for the Arborfield SDL. FC2/AG/297 Darren Tipton Having looked at the Costings for infrastructure for (see above for summary, WBC response each property in terms of contributions per property, and recommendations on this issue) the numbers published don’t add up. Much more of a contribution will be required from each property than has been accounted for. FC2/AG/311 Chris Heyliger The Barkham road level crossing has been a (FC2/IDC/35) significant traffic problem for over 40 years and there appears to be no plans to improve it. This need to be given top priority before the SDL’s are constructed. Opposed to the suggestion that the bridge below the Bull is widened. It is part of local heritage and it would only make Barkham Road and Bearwood Road a main access route for the SDL. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock WBC has identified the need for a relief road at Arborfield Cross, yet there is no solution identified for Eversley. FC2/AG/316 Jane Pickup Ridiculous to build such a large development without consideration to the surrounding infrastructure. FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard The proposed development is too large for the infrastructure, and money from developers will not proved sufficient funds. FC2/AG/323 Peter McSweeny Unless alternative transport options to the car are (FC2/IDC/39) provided from the outset, then an increase of 7,500 cars in the area is likely and the roads cannot cope. Is there a commitment from the developer to pay for any necessary infrastructure improvements? FC2/AG/330 F A Scott The SPD does not provide any detail of the infrastructure needs of the SDL. No evidence of planning for the Arborfield Relief Road or an assessment for the expansion of the Sewage works, water or electricity.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 135 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/332 Ms Celia Matthews Already experience burst water mains in ‘The Street’ due to volume of traffic and increased weight on drainage. What is the likely impact of further (see above for summary, WBC response volumes of traffic on the current inadequate and recommendations on this issue) infrastructure FC2/AG/338 Tony Whyte Proposing to build a town where there are insufficient roads and transport links. Why not build where there is already the infrastructure in place. FC2/AG344 Derek Oxbrough Educational and Retail infrastructure needs to be in place before housing. The expensive and non green bussing of school children to Embrook is ludicrous. FC2/AG/355 Hatty Masser The infrastructure SPD contains an extremely high level of developer contributions, which is not realistic or achievable. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter There is a huge gap between WBC saying the Arborfield development will only go ahead if the entire infrastructure is guaranteed and what the developers are willing to pay. AG-RAG is opposed to some of the new infrastructure such as the supermarket, petrol station, and secondary school. FC2/AG/371 Patricia Clark Is it a condition that the developers will have to pay the entire cost of the infrastructure? Is there a written guarantee that the developer will be able to pay? FC2/AG/b Alison Ward on behalf No planning application should be approved until (FC2/IDC/54, of Arborfield & Newland on-site and off-site infrastructure provision is fully FC2/ENV/7) Parish Council agreed and completed before the end of the planned period. More clarity and assurance required for shortfalls in infrastructure and how nil detriment will be achieved. SEA states that there is a need to resolve issues regarding sewage works with Thames Water before development on sites can proceed. This should be

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 136 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

kept to by WBC. FC2/AG/375 Hazel Burges Are the developers really going to build ring roads, a (see above for summary, WBC response new sewage plant etc? and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith How will the council be able to fund the volume of infrastructure being proposed in light of such financial poverty across local authorities? If the infrastructure is to be funded by developers, cannot see how they would be able to sell the houses and make profit for themselves. FC2/AG/380 Michael Crabb All infrastructure development including sewerage, sewage treatment and a bypass road around Arborfield Cross should be put in hand, prior to any housing construction and all costs funded by developers. FC2/AG/384 Laurence Heath on Sewage works must be upgraded to accommodate behalf of Barkham new residents. Parish Council FC2/AG/398 Laurence Heath All infrastructure must be delivered in full and there must be a process to address shortfalls in infrastructure in the event that it proves inadequate for the task. Phasing of housing should be coordinated with the timely provision of infrastructure. FC2/AG/401 Toby Perring There seems to be no firm obligation to be imposed on the development in the form of trigger points for infrastructure provision during the 15 year period of the development. FC2/AG/402 Jon Attwood and Family Concerned about school capacities. It is imperative that necessary development takes into account both the facts and figures of road, school and other infrastructure capacities. FC2/AG/405 Daniel Craddock Development will require new infrastructure from scratch. FC2/AG/415 Nick Teall Should the MOD not move out, and development (same as 449) has started on Greenfield land a non viable

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 137 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

community will be left in place lacking the appropriate infrastructure, and the cost of providing (see above for summary, WBC response it will fall to the tax payer. and recommendations on this issue) The pressure on local infrastructure has not been taken into consideration. Concerns about the inability of local infrastructure to address existing needs. Traffic problems on Nine Mile Ride due to work on water and gas are indicative of the scale of problems development would cause. The Infrastructure Delivery and contributions SPD makes reference to ‘improvements to transport capacity along the A327’ at a cost of just £300,000. This seems at odds with much higher figures for the proposed Arborfield bypass and Shinfield relief road. The EiP recommended improvements to the A327, understand this to be legally binding, but cannot see evidence on the masterplan, or documents that have been made available in this consultation. Infrastructure Delivery and contributions SPD assumes significant contributions from the developer without which there will be a significant financial gap between council aspirations and funds available. FC2/AG/427 Catherine and Kevin Totally against the development if the necessary Goodwin infrastructure is not put in place prior or during the development taking place. Over the last 25 years there have been a lot of developments in and around Wokingham and its surrounding villages but what infrastructure ha been put in place? Have had no new schools, doctors, dentists, extra bus services to cope with the extra people now living on these developments. It was promised and hasn’t happened so is this going to be the same for the Arborfield development. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 138 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/433 J.A & V.E Bines Any development must be preceded by adequate improvements to all existing infrastructure to cope (see above for summary, WBC response with the increased pressure. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/437 Mr & Mrs M. L Jackson The present infrastructure is at breaking point and cannot cope with any extra houses or people and their cars. FC2/AG/440 Mrs J.H.P Sharpe The development and its associated infrastructure is short sighted. A new secondary school is going to be needed with the already increasing population in the area. FC2/AG/441 unknown Infrastructure such as a new fire station, two schools pub and supermarket should be within the site and not beyond it. FC2/AG/443 C S Barson Essential that developers provide the necessary infrastructure for and around the Garrison site before building begins, and should be responsible for the cost. FC2/AG/445L Andy South The proposed development does not have a support system of local facilities adjacent to it, so overloading adjacent schools etc would be a great problem. FC2/AG/451L Paul Harris Can the WBC seriously say that they are able to increase the budget for Schools, Police and Healthcare in the community as well as invest significantly in improving the traffic infrastructure in the current climate to support the project? FC2/AG/453L Steve Bacon Additional comments to FC2/AG218) Recommends that the council studies the London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy document, and formulates a response. Services FC2/AG/39 Simon Quainton Objection to the supermarket and provision of new Summary schools due to associated traffic. Concerns about the capacity of existing FC2/AG/73 John Carter Concern that area cannot sustain such a huge services to cope with the proposed development in respect of water supply (annual development. This relates to electricity,

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 139 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

hose pipe bans), power (many power cuts annually gas, internet, waste, water supply, in winter), jobs (where are the new residents sewage, emergency services, health working) and waste disposal. services, drainage etc. In particular the FC2/AG/78 Mrs R Henley WBC needs to decide whether a major upgrade of latter is perceived as a major concern as (FC2/IDC/2) Arborfield sewage works /new sewage treatment the area is prone to flooding and the works is required. existing drainage system does not seem FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison WBC needs decision on upgrade of Arborfield to be able to cope with this. sewage works or new sewage treatment works. FC2/AG/86 Faith Scott WBC has failed to consider impact on traffic flow Questions of funding of new or additional through Eversley and how response time of infrastructure and services are raised. Emergency Teams will be affected. FC2/AG/112 Ian McBride The current medical facilities within the community WBC Response are already at capacity. Additional facilities need to Please response to general infrastructure be provided. above. FC2/AG/124 Mark Jones Supporting services will unlikely be extended enough to maintain law and order and response Recommendations time from other emergency services. The ARBSDL should consider the use of FC2/AG/129 Julie Kentish Barnes How will water supply for development be met given trigger points for the provision of that it is within a water stress area? infrastructure or the payment of FC2/AG/148 Matthew Payne Local services are already suffering and are contributions In line with paragraph 6.16 increasingly stretched. Additional homes will add to and 6.17 of the Infrastructure Delivery crowding and not improve anyone’s lives. and Contributions SPD. FC2/AG/164 Linda M V Carter Concerned about proposed development as the area cannot sustain it in respect of water supply, road infrastructure, power, health services, jobs, police resource, impacts from construction traffic, loss of green space and waste disposal challenges. FC2/AG/165 David G Land What provision has been made for surrounding services etc? FC2/AG/187 Jackie Wright Local amenities will be stretched beyond breaking point and the offer of a few shops and schools will do little to mend the situation. FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer Concern that houses are built first and serves are Deering left to last with the risk of money running out. FC2/AG/224 D.R. Jones How is area to cope with additional development Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 140 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(FC2/IDC/19) and strain on doctors and schools? FC2/AG/239 Helen Lewis Objection due to lack of facilities in local area to deal with additional housing. FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes Existing problems with the foul drainage in the area. Does WBC agree that the current sewer systems (see above for summary, WBC response would be able to cope with any additional discharge and recommendations on this issue) from the new development? FC2/AG/258 D. W Hamilton Could electric pylons with the SDL be removed and the cables moved underground? As the SDL is effectively Greenfield and almost entirely flat would this not be less expensive than it might otherwise be? It would also improve the visual amenity of the development, improve health and safety and further the high standard of design and amenity objective of the SDL. FC2/AG/271 Patrick & Alison Turley Thames water 4 years ago advised that the sewage works at Arborfield would need major upgrade or a new system. Inadequate water pressure is an existing problem at the top of Barkham hill. These matters need to be given top priority as the wording in the infrastructure SPD appears to be inconclusive on this issue. FC2/AG/272 C. Barratt The issue of the capacity of the sewage treatments must be resolved. Thames water 4 years ago advised that the sewage works at Arborfield would need major upgrade or a new system. FC2/AG/284 Mrs K Tipton What financial reserves does WBC have in place for new sewage works for the new 3500 houses? The current system cannot support the increase in housing. FC2/AG/291 Roger Huggan WBC needs to decide whether a major upgrade of Arborfield sewage works or new sewage treatment works is required. FC2/AG/293 Brigitte Huggan WBC needs to decide whether a major upgrade of Arborfield sewage works or new sewage treatment

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 141 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

works is required. FC2/AG/307 David Wright The Council needs to decide if whether a major (FC2/IDC/33) upgrade of Arborfield sewage work is needed (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/308 Jennifer Wright The Council needs to decide if whether a major and recommendations on this issue) (FC2/IDC/34) upgrade of Arborfield sewage work is needed FC2/AG/311 Chris Heyliger The sewage works at Arborfield need a major (FC2/IDC/35) upgrade if not the provision of new sewage treatment works (this could take up to 8 years, and so needs to be given high priority. FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard Proposed development is too large, for sewerage, schooling and roads. FC2/AG/323 Peter McSweeny Concerned that the existing waste water facilities (FC2/IDC/39) that serve Barkham and Arborfield will not be able to cope with the increase in residential development. Is there a commitment from the developer to pay for any necessary infrastructure improvements? Will Thames Water customers have to pay for any lack of capacity that manifests later or will developers’ funds be held in a contingency reserve for a reasonable period? FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence Has WBC consulted with South East Water and Thames to find out if their Water Resource management Plan for the next 25 years can meet the projected demand for water placed on the region by the new development? What is WBC doing to ensure the increased need for abstraction for their development does not compromise local Sites of Special Scientific Interest? FC2/AG/334 David and Margaret Understand it will take years to out a new sewer Edwards system in, and the one at Combes in Arborfield is inadequate. FC2/AG/343 Craig Osborne WBC needs to decide whether a major upgrade of Arborfield sewage works or a new sewage treatment works is required.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 142 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG344 Derek Oxbrough Sewage infrastructure needs to be upgraded for additional housing, and must be done before any building is started. Should be done for the full (see above for summary, WBC response amount of houses not the initial 750. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/348 Celia Adams on behalf There are existing problems with the pumping of Swallowfield Parish station in Swallowfield. Anything which might make Council the situation worse needs to be considered and in this connection, major development is Shinfield and Arborfield may well do this. Parish council would like assurance that Thames water will be required to undertake a study to provide the reassurances the Parish Council is seeking. FC2/AG/354 Wynn and Helen There needs to be adequate and timely provision of Kenrick utilities of power water and sewage FC2/AG/359 Robert King Current Water/sewage infrastructure will not be able to cope with the demands placed upon it by the scale of development. Thames water’s main which runs along the Barkham Road bursts regularly. The treatment works in Wood Lane Barkham does not have the capacity to deal with the effluent that an additional 3500 homes in Arborfield would produce. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter WBC has failed to properly consider sewage disposal. The existing sewer works in Arborfield is already at capacity the lead time to extend the existing facility assuming space is available to do so or to build a new treatment works could be up to several years, what will happen in the mean time? FC2/AG/375 Hazel Burges How will the present sewage system cope with more sewage, when will a new plant be built? FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith Believe that the existing sewage treatment plant is almost at capacity, yet not aware of any concrete plans tp improve the sewage facilities in Arborfield. How to WBC intend to deal with the additional waste, with timelines and costs for each option? How will lorries access sewage network, and how

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 143 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

they will enter/exit Arborfield? FC2/AG/381 Robert A. Rowe WBC needs to make a decision now as to what is required, given the timescale for new or upgraded (see above for summary, WBC response facilities. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/383 Cristina Marinoni WBC need to decide without further delay whether a major upgrade of Arborfield sewage works or a new sewage treatment works is required. FC2/AG/385 Ashley Wright Concerned that according to Thames Water reports commissioned by WBC and prepared by Jacobs in 2007 Arborfield Garrison will need a new water treatment plant as the only sustainable option. It is the understanding that this would take 8 – 10 years to build and complete. How can development start without this provision? FC2/AG/389 Laura Heyliger Understand that Thames water advised that the sewer works needed a major upgrade, and that a new sewage treatment works could take up to 8 years from inception to complete. This matter should therefore be given high priority. FC2/AGG/416 Rob Rowe on behalf of According to the WBC Strategic Flood Risk Barkham Village Assessment (section 4.6.4) published in July 2007, Residents Association the council was advised by Thames Water that the sewage works at Arborfield will need a major upgrade, if not the provision of new works, with a lead time of 8 – 10years. This is a critical requirement for the phasing of the development and the resolution of this issue should be given the highest priority. FC2/AG/420 M Barrie The police, ambulance service, fire service, council collection service are all going to be stretched, and what about the water, electricity, gas and sewers. The development should not go ahead. FC2/AG/422 Mr M Henley WBC needs to decide whether a major upgrade of Arborfield sewage works or a new sewage treatment works is required.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 144 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/424 Mrs Brunhilde Williams Outdated main sewage systems. FC2/AG/427 Catherine and Kevin - Are the local sewage works going to be Goodwin enlarged and improved? - Can the water and electricity supplies cope? (see above for summary, WBC response - Are there internet facilities on offer to new and recommendations on this issue) residents? FC2?AG/452L Edgar Studer The existing infrastructure/services are outdated. Gas, electricity, water, waste. Satellite dishes FC2/AG/279 Robert Newman All properties must be wired up with fibre optics to Summary maximise home working and reduce car journeys, All properties must be wired up with fibre and reducing the need for Satellite dishes. optics to maximise home working and reduce car journeys, and reducing the need for Satellite dishes.

WBC Response The SPD seeks a comprehensive approach that takes on the needs of Wokingham residents in terms of community services and infrastructure requirements.

Recommendations No recommended change Highways FC2/AG/2 Jim Rudd Additions to some of the plans are new and imply Summary improvements to Arborfield Cross Junction; this was Impact on existing highway network is a not consulted on but solely the by-pass was major concern, raise concerns about mentioned in Consultation Documents (para. 2.4.9). highway infrastructure in the area that The by-pass must be constructed beyond 750 would not be able to cope with the homes, preferably before development commences, additional traffic from the proposed as otherwise Arborfield Cross Village would suffer development. from unacceptable traffic with or without improvements to the junction. Mr Rudd wishes to be In particular the Park Lane, A327 and

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 145 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

notified of adoption of SPDs. B3272. General support is expressed for FC2/AG/6 Frank Rawlings Support of Arborfield Cross Junction/New By-pass the new bypass with many seeking an (roundabout was improvement; traffic lights would early delivery of the scheme to help impede traffic flow; problem is road width not alleviate pressures from Arborfield Cross. junction). By-pass/road improvements are only Whilst others question if this is really sensible option to funnel traffic. going to solve the problem. “Gravel Extraction” is no serious alternative. The increase in traffic will also have FC2/AG/7 Tim Cox Concern that clause A7.7 in the second paragraph significant impacts upon highway safety; suggests that there could be other solutions to a series of black spots such as the A327, Arborfield’s traffic problems (e.g. road widening, bus Barkham Bridge, The Street through lanes, signals at junctions). Eversley, level crossing etc are already There should be no further development along the regarded as dangerous and a risk for A327 before Arborfield without the provision of a by- pedestrians and cyclists, as well as pass. motorists. Suggested amendment to wording of SPD to delete any wording that would suggest that any solution Given the high levels of car ownership other than a by-pass could ever be acceptable on and usage within the Borough, and travel the grounds of road safety, visual amenity, village patterns throughout the area which identity, equity with Swallowfield and common impact on trunk roads including the M4, sense. further information about traffic impact FC2/AG/8 Paul Pardon No provision has been made to cater for enormous and demand management is highlighted volume of additional road traffic. by the Highways Agency and Hampshire FC2/AG/9 Ali Payne Very concerned about the effect on the roads. County Council in particular. Park Lane is not suitable to take increase in traffic; junction of Park Lane/A327 is a black spot with WBC Response several fatalities there; already heavy traffic; road The modelling evidence submitted to the infrastructure should be discussed first not later. EIP supports the level of development FC2/AG/13 Michael van Oostrum Extra traffic and additional construction traffic would and the infrastructure measures at the cause grave problems to Eversley and would affect four separate SDLs. As set out in quality of life negatively. Appendix 7 Adopted Core Strategy (A7.7 FC2/AG/14 Julie Bardsley Park Lane is not suitable for increase in traffic; – A7.9) and delivery infrastructure junction with A327 Reading Road is black spot for requirements. accidents with fatalities. Traffic calming is needed already. Residents are naturally keen to seek FC2/AG/15 Don Whyte Concern about development without adequate reassurance about the timing of infrastructure delivery. In particular the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 146 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

investment in transport routes towards proposed “Arborfield bypass” receives Reading/Wokingham/Bracknell/Basingstoke. support, but it is considered important that this is phased appropriately.

Highway modelling has now been completed and will be reported in September. This will assist in the further discussions about appropriate relief measures for Arborfield.

Recommendation: The Council note that the Wokingham Core Strategy Appendix 5 makes provision for monitoring. This ensures the Council will monitor and where necessary review the adopted SPD and supporting SA/SEA/HRA documents (as necessary) over its anticipated 15 year lifespan in relation to key issues that arise to ensure it provides the optimum guidance based on the best information available at that time, and taking into account any development and infrastructure as it occurs, in order to achieve the best possible outcome from the Development Management process. FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins Concern about development without adequate investment in transport routes towards Reading/Wokingham/Bracknell/Basingstoke. FC2/AG/146 Chris Swale General increase acceptable but concerns about (relating to impacts on Scholl Road (loss of countryside, road additional 100 safety, loss of separation, character). houses in 8 villages including Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 147 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Barkham) FC2/AG/17 Simon Corbett Proposed development would cause disruption to his business in terms of traffic and affect amenity of area. Lack of investment in transport routes towards (see above for summary, WBC response Reading/Wokingham/Bracknell/Basingstoke. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/18 Barbara Crawford A327 and B3272 are busy already and additional traffic (construction traffic cause vibration to buildings, noise, dirt and dust. The Street in Eversley is narrow and without a bypass it will be unpleasant for residents. FC2/AG/332 Ms Celia Matthews Effect of the increased volume of traffic on existing buildings, their foundations and values. FC2/AG/19 Jean Britland A327 is already busy and new development will increase traffic further. SPD makes only limited reference to A327, especially traffic approaching from the south. A327 is unable to cope with current, never mind additional traffic. By-pass should be constructed. FC2/AG/20 David Britland Adverse increase in traffic, in particular construction traffic. Hardly any reference to A327 in document and no mention of congestion through Eversley. No mention of how to deal with problems in southerly direction (bypass would not solve these). Commuting into Hogwood Estate will be increase considerably in both directions. FC2/AG/21 William Mouat Objection due to increase in traffic on the A372 and B3272 which is already high. It is already difficult to get out of Warbrook Lane due to volume of traffic and drivers exceeding speed limit. FC2/AG/22 Peter & Barbara Objection due to inadequate roads and Blundell infrastructure. FC2/AG/23 Derek Barnby Concerned about impact of new bypass on Farley Hill as it would ruin the environment of Farley Hill and surrounding neighbourhoods. FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Concerns about increase in traffic.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 148 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/25 Neil Rickard Development would increase traffic on already congested roads (A327, B3272) as well as impacting M3, M4 and shipping centres in Reading (see above for summary, WBC response and Camberley. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/26 Col J M Gaff No provision has been made for extra traffic and damage caused by road drains, gullies which can add to flood risk associated with Eversley. FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Opposed to development of Area B due increase in traffic on the A327. FC2/AG/29 Elaine Teresa Howard Concerned about traffic on B3272. FC2/AG/30 Andrew Clint Concerned about impact of increased traffic on roads such as A327 and road from Wokingham. No support of bypass. FC2/AG/31 P.A. Barton on behalf Development will result in increase in traffic and of existing roads are inadequate and current road AG-RAG works have resulted in congestion in the area. AG-RAG would like to review traffic management/improvement scheme covering traffic improvements for today’s level, 2,000 and 7,000 additional vehicles. FC2/AG/32 Virginia Sutherland A327 has no capacity for further traffic; situation will be worsened by proposed development. No room for road changes in conservation area towards the A30. FC2/AG/33 Ian Sutherland A327 has no capacity for further traffic; situation will be worsened by proposed development. No room for road changes in conservation area towards the A30. FC2/AG/35 Rita Carr A327 especially through Arborfield and Eversley has no capacity for further traffic. How will additional traffic be accommodated? FC2/AG/36 Steve Honour Concern about upgrading of Park Lane which will lead to increase in traffic. Residents were not informed about this. Information regarding upgrade should be provided. Traffic calming measures

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 149 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

should be considered along Park Lane towards the junction with the A327 Reading Road. FC2/AG/37 Martina Neubert & Concerns about unacceptable levels of additional Stephen Saunders traffic. While the attempt to create local employment (see above for summary, WBC response at Hogwood Lane Industrial Estate is applauded, and recommendations on this issue) this will create additional traffic. 15 years of traffic chaos is not acceptable. FC2/AG/38 Beth Quainton Main concern is traffic, particularly the A327 and the B3272 (bridge at The Tally Ho might have capacity issues?). There must be alternative provisions and roads bypassing Eversley. FC2/AG/39 Simon Quainton Roads are already too busy, in particular the A327 into Eversley and local roads into Finchampstead. FC2/AG/40 Katherine Taylor-Jones Park Lane is unsuitable for further traffic and it is currently untenable and should not be used. FC2/AG/41 Kevin Li Investment in transport routes towards Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell and Basingstoke would be needed. FC2/AG/42 Neil Bidston Concerned about the development without adequate investment in transport towards Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell, Basingstoke. FC2/AG/43 Patricia Bedale Road network is already struggling to cope with traffic. Traffic throughout construction and afterwards will generate unacceptable increase in volume of traffic through Eversley FC2/AG/44 Barry Shakespeare Concerned about inadequate investment in transport for routes towards Reading/ Wokingham/ Bracknell/ Basingstoke. FC2/AG/45 Matthew Shakespeare Concerned about inadequate investment in transport for routes towards Reading/ Wokingham/ Bracknell/ Basingstoke. FC2/AG/46 Pete Tidey Eversley has already big traffic problems. HGV traffic running along pavements used by parents, children and older people. Particular problem is the southern end of The Street, a narrow section of the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 150 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

A327 in a conservation area. In addition to existing gravel lorries the commuter traffic will go through Eversley. FC2/AG/47 Mike Saunders Suggestion to build a new road to link development with A33. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/48 Mrs J.C.M. Asteraki External road network will be inadequate to carry and recommendations on this issue) traffic to Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell and Fleet/Farnborough. FC2/AG/49 Mr J.D. Asteraki External road network will be inadequate to carry traffic to Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell and Fleet/Farnborough. FC2/AG/50 Mr. & Mrs Trevithick Bypass is a must. Plans for bypass should be in place before development starts. Other improvements are unacceptable as traffic would still go through the village. Improvements to infrastructure need to be in place before commencement of work (including Barkham Bridge, Wokingham level crossing, flooding drainage). FC2/AG/51 Sheena Reid Concerned about increase in traffic (construction and future residents) as area already suffers from congestion. Eversley Street is already busy and unsafe. Park Lane is dangerous with sharp bends and poor visibility and an increase in traffic would increase dangers; it should be made into a “no through road” for ALL construction traffic and “access only” to avoid becoming a short cut. FC/AG/52 Margaret Hartley Traffic is already a problem in Eversley village. Construction traffic will make life unbearable for residents. The amount of traffic resulting from the development would destroy whole area and roads in surrounding areas are not suitable for extra traffic. FC2/AG/53 Tracy Reis Infrastructure already struggles to support weight of traffic and sand & gravel construction lorries and development will further impact on an already struggling and over crowded road system.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 151 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott No traffic assessment has been undertaken as part of this plan but current assumptions are out of date. (see above for summary, WBC response Current traffic needs to be measured. and recommendations on this issue) Construction traffic will devastate Eversley life as the village has to carry all traffic from the south. FC2/AG/56 Andrea Long Busy road through Eversley and additional traffic will wreak havoc. Bridge on outskirts of village is single lane and would collapse under additional traffic. FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey Road infrastructure in area is feeble and additional cars are not needed. Roads are already clogged with traffic. FC2/AG/60 Jacqueline Hogarty A327 through Eversley is already at capacity and a massive increase in traffic, in particular construction traffic, would be detrimental. FC2/AG/61 Mellissa Goswell Objection to increase in traffic. FC2/AG/62 Terry Heffernan Local villages along the A327 and Eversley in particular suffer from high traffic volume. Pinch point in Eversley Cross is Eversley Street (parts are without pavement, road is so narrow that lorries mount verges when passing each other). Impacts of traffic should be considered. FC2/AG/63 Derek Hazell Objection to development of 3,500 dwellings in an already heavily overpopulated area that will swamp surroundings with traffic. Investment in transport for routes towards Reading, Camberley, Aldershot and Basingstoke needed. FC2/AG/64 Graham Bell Concerns about increase in traffic from construction works and future residents. Would like to see plans for improvements of traffic links to M3 and M4. Assumption that there would be changes to in planning to increase capacity. FC2/AG/65 Theo d’Orgee Concerned over size and scope of development that will cause total gridlock for all access roads to Reading. FC2/AG/66 David Valentine No tangible solutions to how small area with limited

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 152 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

access roads will handle the movement of traffic from development. FC2/AG/67 Andrea Lake on behalf Concerned about additional traffic as roads in area (see above for summary, WBC response of Lake Family cannot cope with existing traffic (bottleneck near and recommendations on this issue) Tally Ho, the old bridge, yew tree, railway crossing). Road to Hogwood Industrial Estate is far to narrow already for HGV traffic. Rat runs of small single track lanes (e.g. Park Lane, Commonfield Lane). FC2/AG/68 Mrs W. Hall External road network entirely inadequate to carry the traffic from the development to Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell and Fleet/Farnborough. FC2/AG/69 Tony Hogarty Area cannot sustain extra traffic and people. FC2/AG/70 T R B Andreae Consideration should be given to the effect on the access infrastructure in Hampshire. FC2/AG/71 Chris Franklin Currently morning and evening traffic is very heavy along main feeder road to this development especially in The Street in Eversley and through Arborfield Village. What are the plans to increase road capacity to cope with extra traffic? Construction traffic is also concern as The Street is very narrow and already suffering from heavy traffic (reference to recent campaign of local primary school to reduce speed of traffic. What are the plans to alleviate extra traffic? FC2/AG/72 Ann Haddrill WDC cannot permit a development in excess of 3,500 homes without making a bypass for The Street, Eversley. FC2/AG/73 John Carter Concern that road infrastructure cannot sustain development of 3,500 dwellings as A327 is already congested and has endless road works on it. Construction traffic through the narrow streets of Eversley and Arborfield Villages. FC2/AG/74 Carole Roake Amount of traffic going through Eversley would be unthinkable. FC2/AG/75 Elisabeth Andreae Even 52 years ago there was talk of a bypass but

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 153 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

now that would be inadequate; getting out now, at rush hour, is almost impossible, going south. The acute corner by the Tally Ho and the small bridge are already at break point. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/78 Mrs R Henley A bypass is essential to avoid major congestion at and recommendations on this issue) (FC2/IDC/2) Arborfield Cross and residential roads through Barkham becoming main access roads for SDL. Barkham Road not suitable as key ‘corridor’ into Wokingham. School Road cannot carry more through traffic, especially past schools. Level crossing mini-roundabout should be replaced by traffic light scheme synchronised with opening and closing of level crossing. Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham. North-west gateway to new ‘village’ should not be in Langley Common Road at junction where Biggs Lane joins; Gateway should be Bramshill Hunt roundabout on A327 (using northern end of Baird Road service road). Lack of direct access from north of the SDL to A327 increases likelihood of Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, Bearwood Road and School Road becoming main access roads for the SDL. Discourage use of Langley Common Road by making it a T-Junction off Biggs Lane. FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat The attempt to reduce “rat running” from Nine Mile (and M4 SDL) Ride has significant negative impacts in that it makes access to the Hogwood Industrial Estate much more difficult with traffic to and from this area needing to either travel through the centre of the new housing or along one of the existing unsuitable roads which would again pass through dense housing before reaching the A327. Location of Industrial Estate unsuitable; it should have direct access onto the A327. Other traffic black-spots

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 154 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

would be made worse from both the Arborfield SDL and the South of the M4 SDL. Not only bypasses for Arborfield but also for Finchampstead and Eversley are required. FC2/AG/80 Peter Doyle Concerned about increase in traffic through The Street in Eversley. Existing level of traffic is (see above for summary, WBC response unacceptable. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison Arborfield Cross Bypass is essential to avoid congestion at Arborfield Cross and to avoid residential roads through Barkham from becoming main access to SDL. Cost for bypass should fall on developer not ratepayer. Widening of Barkham Bridge is strongly opposed as it would turn it into a major access route to SDL. Level crossing (Barkham Road not suitable as key ‘corridor’ into Wokingham as little possibility of widening at critical points, School Road should not carry more through traffic especially past schools, level crossing mini- roundabout should be replaced by traffic light scheme synchronised with opening and closing of level crossing, construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham). North west gateway to new village should not be in Langley Common Road at junction where Biggs Lane joins; Gateway should be Bramshill Hunt roundabout on A327; Lack of direct access from north of the SDL to A327 increases likelihood of Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, Bearwood Road and School Road becoming main access to SDL; Discourage use of Langley Common Road by making a T junction off Biggs Lane. FC2/AG/82 Tove B Godfrey Failure to consider traffic impacts on Eversley which is against Government Policy. Increase of traffic through Eversley, especially construction traffic will

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 155 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

create more dust, pollution and noise. FC2/AG/84 Nigel Stoate There is insufficient road infrastructure in the area to support the development which makes it unsafe for (see above for summary, WBC response people to move about. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/85 Ginette Moffatt Investment in transport routes towards Reading/Wokingham/Bracknell/Basingstoke needed. FC2/AG/86 Faith Scott Concerns regarding increased traffic through Eversley. WBC has failed to consider impact on Eversley. What strategies will be implemented to stop construction traffic from using the New Mill Road/Ford/New Mill Lane route as a “rat run” when the A327 becomes gridlocked as a result of increased traffic? A327 is already very busy and with the proposed increase in traffic Lower Common will be virtually isolated. FC2/AG/87 Brian Scott The Street is totally incapable of taking the size and numbers of lorries that will be necessary to pass through and Lower Common will become an isolated community. FC2/AG/88 A.W. Gubby It seems that not consideration has been given to the increased traffic and its impacts on the already saturated A327 (especially HGVs). Problems occur particularly on bridge over Backwater River and on the bend near the bridge. FC2/AG/89 Seal Family Roads in and around Arborfield and surrounding villages cannot cope at present so additional traffic would cause gridlock. Request to see improvements to Arborfield Cross before any construction works starts. Lack of proposed route for Arborfield Relief Road means that it is impossible to understand the wider impacts (must be consulted upon). The direction of this road is critical in terms of catering for traffic towards Reading, Winnersh, Wokingham and through Eversley, Camberley, Basingstoke etc.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 156 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Doubt is being voiced in improvements to junctions as experience on other occasions has been shambolic and resulted in expensive redesigning and reconstruction of junctions. FC2/AG/90 Mrs J. F. Gubby Would it be prudent to renew the idea of Eversley Street By-pass to deal with traffic? Traffic also (see above for summary, WBC response comes to a standstill when two lorries pass each and recommendations on this issue) other either on the bend or over the bridge. FC2/AG/91 Peter Doyle There has been a measurable increase in the amount of traffic flowing through Eversley Cross and development will increase traffic further. FC2/AG/92 Mark & Julia Little regard has been given to the traffic impact on McDonnell the A327 which is already at full capacity and goes through a number of conservation areas including Eversley. Bypass is needed to take traffic to the A30. FC2/AG/93 Laura Donnelly Little consideration has been given to extra traffic using A327 which is already at capacity. Increase in traffic will have adverse impacts on residents (noise etc). Impact of traffic on Eversley should be assessed. FC2/AG/94 Teresa Mozley Traffic is already a problem through Eversley (e.g. speed, volume, size of lorries, no pavements, narrow roads). FC2/AG/95 Angela & Malcolm Mc Concerned with heavy traffic during rush hours (and Dade along Barkham Road and within Wokingham Town Infrastructure Centre. Traffic hot spot is also level crossing. SPD) Improvements to roads are needed to cater for additional traffic. FC2/AG/96 Brendon & Alison Watt Development will have significant impact on traffic in Eversley. FC2/AG/97 W H Vestey Huge increase in traffic will destroy quality of life for existing residents. Major concerns are Barkham Bridge and level crossing by Wokingham station. The proposed relief road to run up Oxford Road will

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 157 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

do nothing for majority of traffic that is heading towards Wokingham town centre. Therefore there should be no development until a long term plan for surrounding transport and road infrastructure is published and has been consulted upon. FC2/AG/98 Alison Saunders The Street in Eversley is already at capacity (bridge and The Street being too narrow). There will be an (see above for summary, WBC response increase in traffic onto A30 from A327 which is and recommendations on this issue) already a bottle neck with lengthy queues at peak times. FC2/AG/100 Bev Hutchings Increase in traffic from up to 7,000 additional cars a day would increase pollution, noise and disturbance to unacceptable levels. Question raised how vibration would affect her house. Increased volume of traffic would seriously affect local amenities (incl. local shop, school) and could result in drop of house prices. FC2/AG/101 John Spencer Additional cars will cause intolerable extra traffic on local roads and traffic chaos in the rush hours (e.g. A327). FC2/AG/102 Barry Edmonds Increase in traffic will cause further diminution of quality of life of existing residents. The B3272 will become submerged in the additional traffic. FC2/AG/103 Mrs V.L. Sinfield The surrounding infrastructure will not be able to cope with the volume of traffic movements. FC2/AG/104 David Long Inadequate road infrastructure (e.g. single lane bridge along A327 and B3349 and no attempt made to address these issues). FC2/AG/105 Robert Briggs Existing roads cannot cope with huge amount of traffic as it is, let alone additional traffic. FC2/AG/106 Mr M C Woodman Concerns about lack of investment in transport for routes towards Reading/ Wokingham/ Bracknell/Basingstoke. A327 that seems to be the only road into development is very busy and already cause of number of fatal accidents.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 158 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/107 Mrs J Woodman Concerns about lack of investment in transport for routes towards Reading/ Wokingham/ Bracknell/Basingstoke. A327 that seems to be the (see above for summary, WBC response only road into development is very busy and already and recommendations on this issue) cause of number of fatal accidents. FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Concerned that 3,500 homes are building without adequate investment in transport routes towards Reading/ Wokingham/Bracknell/Basingstoke. FC2/AG/110 John Goodman The C24 between Eversley and Heckfield has already become a bypass. Any further traffic on the A327 will drive more to take the C24 instead. FC2/AG/111 Oliver Jones Bypass is essential. “Upgrading” of Arborfield Cross roundabout on a cut price basis is not good enough. Relief road should start at the south end of the East Shinfield bypass where it joins the A327 and angle across the farmland to the west of the Garrison development. The landowner and the developer should carry costs of bypass. FC2/AG/112 Ian McBride Existing roads are already subjected to congested levels of traffic which would worsen. Nine Mile Road, Finchampstead Road, Barkham Ride, Park Lane, Biggs Lane are already operating over capacity. Further increases will result in grid lock. FC2/AG/113 M J Green Traffic will head via Eversley not along the A327 but also the B3272 and the minor country lanes creating rat runs to get to the M3 and London in order to avoid bottlenecks at Yately and the junction A327/A30. FC2/AG/114 John Hicks Current roads are already very busy. How will area cope with increase in traffic? Has any provision been made to extent car park at Wokingham Station? FC2/AG/116 Christine Green Roads cannot cope with additional traffic. FC2/AG/117 Ashley Hall Objection as existing road network would be entirely inadequate to carry the additional traffic, particular

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 159 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

to Reading and Wokingham and surrounding areas. FC2/AG/118 Fenella Hall Objection as existing road network would be entirely inadequate to carry the additional traffic, particular (see above for summary, WBC response to Reading and Wokingham and surrounding areas. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/119 Alan Maxwell Roads in the area are already at capacity. Nine Mile Road is not suitable to become a main road. The current commercial traffic to Hogwood Estates is totally unsuited to the road system. FC2/AG/120 Kerry Chalmers Increase in traffic will be unbearable. The roads in surrounding area cannot cope with any further traffic congestion. FC2/AG/121 Else Hicks Roads are already busy. How would increase in traffic be catered for? What happened to bypass idea? Water pipes in the road have been damaged by traffic besides shaking of the house with heavy lorries. FC2/AG/122 Ann Tidey Surrounding roads are not suitable to support development of this size. There will be considerable increase in traffic and disrupting through Eversley and other villages and no provision or consideration has been given. A327 and B3272 are not suitable for transportation of Sand and gravel. FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach Despite traffic congestion being a primary concern, no viable solutions have been put forward by WBC to mitigate access constraints except a possible by- pass, the route of which has not even been determined. Proposed infrastructure is not adequately to address problem where new residents will work and how they will get there. Doubling of Hogwood Industrial Estate could potentially generate significantly more traffic than at present. The proposed by-pass may help commuters to reach Reading but Nine Mile Ride is not suitable as a commuter route from the SDL to Bracknell (e.g. residential character, used by

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 160 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

cyclists and horse riders). California Crossroads is already a bottle neck but is not even mentioned in document. Another constraint is the narrow bridge along the a327 into Eversley and Eversley Village itself (conservation area). A solution is needed now

FC2/AG/124 Mark Jones Duration and extent of access road works will result in massive impacts such as disruption to roads, (see above for summary, WBC response pollution, noise and road wear. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/125 Jon Tupman Roads, especially during rush hour and on Bearwood and Barkham roads, are already congested. It needs to be ensured that the road infrastructure is able to cope with extra cars. FC2/AG/126 Anne Petts Traffic on Bearwood Road is busy enough. Bypass (and other should be built before 750 homes are built. Risk that SPDs) costs for bypass will fall to taxpayer. Proposed widening of Barkham Bridge will only encourage more traffic to use Barkham Road and Bearwood Road. No plans to improve level crossing on Barkham Road side of Wokingham station. Lack of direct access from north of the SDL to A327 which will increase likelihood of Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, School Road and Bearwood Road becoming main access roads for SDL. Large scale development without adequate transport infrastructure is unacceptable. FC2/AG/129 Julie Kentish Barnes Huge impact of traffic through Eversley and surrounding areas and unsuitability of road network should have been considered. FC2/AG/130 Mrs J Harrison Concerns about extra traffic as local roads, including the A327 through Eversley, are not built for such volumes or type of traffic. FC2/AG/131 Mr R.L. Harrison Concerns about extra traffic as local roads, including the A327 through Eversley, are not built for such volumes or type of traffic.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 161 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/132 Fred Trigg Arborfield bypass is essential to avoid major (FC2/IDC/6) congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads (see above for summary, WBC response through Barkham, in particular Langley Common and recommendations on this issue) Road, Barkham Road and School Road; these roads should not become main access roads for the SDL. Strongly opposed to widening of Barkham Bridge as it would make it a major access route to the SDL and increase its use as a commuter route to School Road and Langley Common Road. Installation of traffic lights at the existing bridge would be welcome as would a mini-roundabout at the School Road/Langley Common Road junction. Access to the SDL should be from A327 and not from Langley Common Road. The existing Bramshill Hunt roundabout should be used as main gateway. FC2/AG/133 David Henderson Recent traffic recording in Eversley during the day resulted in a recorded 1,300 vehicle movements between 5 – 6pm and 6 – 7pm. Development would increase the volume of traffic further and Eversley would be choked to a standstill. Even worse is the prospect of large lorries carrying spoil and supplies to and from the new development. Thought must be given to a better road infrastructure. FC2/AG/134 Matt Lawrence Traffic calming measures and traffic reduction required along A327. The road is inadequate for the size and volume of traffic (e.g. adverse impacts upon building structures due to traffic). A proper road strategy is needed and the traffic impact needs to be considered, especially for the A327 through Eversley. An alternative to increasing traffic in Eversley has to be found for the benefit of existing and future residents. FC2/AG/135 Geoff Whitfield Traffic and congestion has increased dramatically over past 20 years. In peak times it is difficult to get out of the driveway onto Nine Mile Ride. How will

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 162 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

infrastructure cope with size of proposed development? FC2/AG/136 Brian and Carole Le Measures to improve transport capacity only talk Page about widening the A327. The plans should be clear (see above for summary, WBC response about what is proposed to specifically alleviate the and recommendations on this issue) burden of additional traffic on A327 and elsewhere (A327 is very busy, congested, dangerous). FC2/AG/137 Mr & Mrs P Coles The road infrastructure, especially Nine Mile Ride is not wholly unsuitable but already unable to cope with current level of traffic let alone the additional traffic from the development. FC2/AG/139 Ariane Droogmans The roads cannot cope with amount of traffic this development will generate both during construction and after occupancy. Roads are of poor quality. FC2/AG/141 Dr Gail Milligan There are already traffic issues in Arborfield and surroundings that will only get worse with proposed development. No guarantee of a bypass and even if this does go ahead this will not improve traffic routes to other areas such as Wokingham, with Barkham bridge being of particular concern. FC2/AG/142 Kathryn Curran A327 and The Street through Eversley are already at capacity. Increase in traffic will cause congestion and delays. FC2/AG/143 John Hartle WBC appears to have failed to give due consideration to effect on traffic passing through Eversley (both construction traffic and commuting). A327 is already extremely heavy (in excess of 600 vehicles per hour in each direction at peak times). FC2/AG/144 David George Land WBC lacked foresight in considering the impact of a development on surrounding infrastructure. What provisions have been made for road systems (in particular through Eversley and A327), drainage, services etc? A327 is at maximum capacity already. FC2/AG/145 Elizabeth Peat Objection to increase in traffic, in particular from extended Hogwood Lane Industrial Area through

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 163 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

residential area towards A327. Existing traffic blackspots such as Barkham Bridge would be made worse and the proposed bypass would not alleviate increased traffic through dense housing. FC2/AG/146 Chris Swale No objection in principle to Arborfield Garrison development but concerned about traffic along (see above for summary, WBC response School Road which is already busy. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/147 Kath James Objection as infrastructure is unable to cope with traffic at the moment let along thousands of extra cars. Narrow bridge in Barkham and junctions of Barkham Road/Barkham Street and Barkham Road/Bearwood Road are bottlenecks. Widening of bridge would merely increase speed of traffic but make no difference to other two bottlenecks. What are proposals for Winnersh Cross Roads level crossing? FC2/AG/148 Matthew Payne Traffic through Wokingham and from Shinfield area through to the M4 and Read9ing has already increased significantly and proposed development will make situation worse. FC2/AG/149 Mike & Pat Watters Objection to increase in traffic as existing traffic on A327 is already enormous with vehicles passing every 3 seconds way above the speed limit. FC2/AG/150 Mrs E Wilson Objection to opening up of the Close where she lives to allow traffic including busses to pass, thereby increasing traffic and pollution. FC2/AG/152 A.P. Jackson The village of Eversley is already subject to higher volume of traffic, in particular HGVs and the narrow road cannot cope with the increased traffic. No adequate route to the south is proposed to cope with transit traffic connecting to the M3 or Camberley or Guildford. The extended construction period of the development will cause damage to village and endanger the community. FC2/AG/153 Graham Drewett Arborfield Cross Bypass: essential to avoid major

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 164 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads through Barkham becoming main access to SDL; cost of bypass should fall to developer. (see above for summary, WBC response Barkham Road not suitable as key ‘corridor’ into and recommendations on this issue) Wokingham; School Road should not carry more through traffic (especially past schools); level crossing mini-roundabout should be replaced by traffic lights (synchronised with opening and closing of level crossing). Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham; north-west gateway to new development should not be in Langley Common Road at junction where Biggs Lane joins but Bramshill Hunt roundabout at A327 (using northern end of Baird Road); lack of direct access from north of SDL to A327 increases likelihood of Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, Bearwood Road and School Road becoming main access roads for the SDL; Discourage use of Langley Common Road by making a T junction off Biggs Lane. FC2/AG/154 Rick Wilson Traffic system around garrison cannot handle the proposed volume of traffic (construction and private). FC2/AG/155 Ian Hill The roads in Eversley struggle already to cope with the volume of traffic and there are no plans for upgrades. Another concern is the extent of construction traffic passing through Eversley over the plan period. FC2/AG/156 Grace & Ernie Sackey Development of this size would mean constant traffic and hold ups over 15 years which would be detrimental to existing residents. Bridge at Eversley and the bend following are not wide enough to cope with 2 large vehicles passing safely. Creation of employment at Hogwood Lane Industrial Estate would create even more traffic.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 165 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/157 Roz Dommett The development is too large and the local roads are already overloaded with traffic. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/158 Mr & Mrs Helliwell The development could result in an additional 7,000 and recommendations on this issue) cars using the roads in the area. FC2/AG/159 Simon Hall Objection on grounds of inadequate plans for improvements to the road infrastructure to accommodate the extra traffic. The existing roads are already inadequate. FC2/AG/161 Angela Phillips Impact of development on traffic on Nine Mile Ride would be unacceptable. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Road infrastructure in area is at capacity. the Arborfield Working Lack of proposed route for Arborfield Relief Road Party means that it is currently impossible to understand the wider impact of the traffic flow and its suitability for existing and proposed roads. Ownership of streets is not covered and no financial provision for bringing them up to adoption standards has been made. Impact of construction traffic needs to be assessed as well as HGVs movement due to aggregate extraction of 3 million tonnes. FC2/AG/163 Elizabeth Wood Great concern about increase in traffic and its impacts on Eversley. The A327 is already busy and over-crowded and congestion on this and other roads would become a nightmare if proposals go ahead. It appears that no provisions have been made to cope with extra traffic. FC2/AG/164 Linda M V Carter Concerned about proposed development as the area cannot sustain it in respect of road infrastructure and impacts from construction traffic. FC2/AG/165 David G Land What provision has been made for surrounding road systems? In particular the A327 through Eversley is already at maximum capacity and unfit of further traffic, especially HGV’s, as it passes through Eversley village.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 166 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/166 Mrs H.N. Smith Major concern is volume of heavy traffic that will be channelled through Eversley in addition to existing (see above for summary, WBC response traffic and the impact of such traffic on the existing and recommendations on this issue) villages (e.g. school, shop, listed buildings). FC2/AG/167 S.M. Allison on behalf Bramshill Parish experienced huge increase in of Bramshill Parish commuter traffic on the C24. Failure to deter HGVs Council from using this road (within SSSI). The Arborfield development would need the co-operation of Reading University to provide and “Eastern relief road” which may subsequently not be forthcoming. The current road system is totally inadequate fur ay further development and any road expansion would be difficult. FC2/AG/168 Dave Hogg Existing infrastructure cannot cope with this over- development (Barkham Road and Bearwood Road are already congested). FC2/AG/169 Tara Bickers Objection as development will increase traffic with catastrophic effects on surrounding area (e.g. New Mill Lane and The Street, Eversley). New Mill Lane will become a cut through. There was a traffic survey conducted in The Street on 14th July but this does not reflect true volume of traffic due to holidays. FC2/AG/170 Lawrence Smith, Town Development will potentially increase in traffic (FC2/STAT/4) Clerk, Yateley Town through Yateley on the B3272 (A327) if mitigation Council measures are not put in place. Encouraging traffic from development along Nine Mile Ride rather than directly on to the A327 may only end up with south- eastern bound traffic going through Finchampstead rather than Eversley en route to Camberley and the M3. WBC should work with Hampshire County Council to make Yateley a less attractive through route. FC2/AG/171 Victoria Brookling A327 is already congested with heavy traffic (commuter and HGVs) and it is critical that the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 167 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

bypass is built at the threshold of 750 houses to alleviate the already unacceptable congestion and properly integrate the new development. “Improvements to Arborfield Cross Junction” are totally new but unacceptable –they will not address the high level of traffic on the A327. FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan No consideration has been given to the impact of (FC2/IDC/8) traffic travelling through Eversley and other places (see above for summary, WBC response and no decision has been taken on whether a and recommendations on this issue) bypass is needed for Arborfield Cross’s conservation area. Costs and modelling should have been part of this document. Opening up Sheerlands would be disaster for residents who park their car on the road. Opening up Baird Road would be more logical. What happens to Sheerlands Road toward A327? FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan The site is poorly serviced by a road network that is over capacity at peak times. The highway provision is not supported by evidence. Reference is made to the Draft Minerals and Waste development plan that proposes extraction of 3 million tons of minerals from an area each side of the Loddon bridge no the A327 which will have significant impact on road but does not seem to have been taken into account in the highways consideration in CP19. It seems illogical and unenforceable and costly to close Commonfield Lane to cars. FC2/AG/174 Lee & Emma Painter Development will increase traffic along Langley Common Road that is already very busy. Speed is a big concern already and should be addressed rather than added to.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 168 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/175 Helen De Meyer Proposed changed wording from “bypass if more than 750 were built” to “improvements to Arborfield (see above for summary, WBC response Cross junction or new bypass required beyond 750 and recommendations on this issue) homes”. Improvements to junction are simply not viable as existing roads are substandard. A bypass should be built at the earliest opportunity and a safe and efficient traffic management scheme to be put in place. FC2/AG/176 Spencer King Concerned about inappropriate use of low classified road and impact of traffic (Nine Mile Ride is not a classified A or B road and is unable to accommodate increase and size of traffic; alternative routes should be investigated; increased traffic will cause significant disruption to the California Crossroads area; road from Wokingham Station along Wellington Road, Finchampstead Road and Sandhurst Road is heavily congested during peak hours already. FC2/AG/177 Fiona Dixon The development will increase traffic on A327 through Eversley that is already a busy road and no provisions have been made to combat the impacts. FC2/AG/178 Bert Smit Existing congestion in area is already a great worry. The proposed development will be commuter community which will increase traffic significantly and making matters worse at existing bottlenecks such as Nine Mile ride in direction of Finchampstead, Barkham Road (and single land bridge) towards Wokingham and A327 through Arborfield Village. FC/AG/179 Mrs A J Green Increase in traffic both during construction and once completed will cause grid lock along Nine Mile Ride and Finchampstead Road. A recent survey done by councillors outside 409 Finchampstead Road concluded that any development in this area would have a detrimental impact due to increased traffic. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 169 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/180 Geraldine Clarke There has been no provision to improve the road structure or to provide another route. The current (see above for summary, WBC response roads are above capacity now and it is not possible and recommendations on this issue) to widen the road through Eversley. FC2/AG/181 Mrs Marion Desai A suitable bypass is essential now before any (FC2/ICD/10) housing development takes place and costs should be borne by developers. Barkham Road, Langley Common Road and Bearwood Road are already very busy. FC2/AG/182 Pauline Lawton A327/Reading Road already very busy and (duplicate of additional traffic would make this worse. But no 438) plans for a new road have been made. There has been talk of a bypass but this has been put on hold? FC2/AG/183 Steve Betts A327 will become major carrier of traffic between the development and M3. It is already difficult to turn out of Warbrook Lane, Eversley onto the A327. Proposed development will exacerbate this problem greatly. No adequate access to the development to the south leaving no option than overloading the already inadequate A327. Commuters have already turned St Neots Road into a rat run past a school during current rush hours to avoid A327 and this overdevelopment will make this situation worse. The building of this development will increase HGVs along A327 (single carriage). FC2/AG/184 Nick Sharman Objection as current road structure is inadequate. FC2/AG/185 Alan Norman Current road infrastructure is wholly inadequate to cope with the current levels of traffic. Major improvements to existing road network would be needed for such a large development. FC2/AG/186 Martin Bloomfield Despite a statement in the Arborfield Plan (page 18) (FC2/SW/34) that the SDLs once delivered would achieve a nil detriment scenario in 2026, this seems disingenuous as North Finchampstead would without be affected by both the garrison and the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 170 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

South Wokingham developments. The effects can be mitigated to a small degree but essentially the proposed changes would require such substantial changes to the existing road infrastructure that they would alter the look and feel of the area to an enormous extent. Wokingham’s track record on implementing traffic alleviation methods is poor (e.g. bus service from Finchampstead to Wokingham station no longer exists). A cycle lane which ran from Wokingham town centre to Finchampstead and on to Crowthorne and even linked to Nine Mile Ride cycle route from Bracknell would be forward thinking and reduce traffic. FC2/AG/187 Jackie Wright The A327 will become a major carrier of traffic. It is already extremely difficult to turn out of Warbrook (see above for summary, WBC response Lane, Eversley and the proposed development will and recommendations on this issue) make this worse. There is no adequate access for new houses to the south leaving residents no option than to overload the already inadequate A327. Development will hugely increase HGVs along this single carriageway road. FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Concerned about opening up Sheerlands Road. Is it necessary to alter the road layout when there is already a road in existence a matter of meters away? How will extra traffic be accommodated by already congested surrounding roads? Bypass is just another promise. Recent survey has shown that there is a car passing every 1.2 seconds already. FC2/AG/190 Mike Preston Existing roads are barely coping now. Wokingham is a huge traffic bottle neck and the rush-hour has hugely detrimental effects on area. Extra traffic will be nightmare. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Financial provision seems insufficient for the the Arborfield Working proposed road network and non-car transport Party enhancements. The infrastructural provision in

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 171 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

terms of cost must be fully evidence-based in order to be viable. Gypsy and traveller accommodation – already sufficient land in use. FC2/AG/192 Ken Spice Objection to increasing road traffic. The B3430 is already at times saturated almost end to end and HGVs make existing houses shake. FC2/AG/194 Josephine Day Objection due to increase in traffic (7,000 cars) and roads will not be able to cope. It is more and more (see above for summary, WBC response difficult to get onto Finchampstead Road out of and recommendations on this issue) private driveway. FC2/AG/195 Caroline Atkinson The surrounding roads cannot sustain additional traffic from proposed development. FC2/AG/196 Les Roland, Chairman Agrees with Mr Steve Bacon (FC2/AG/218, (FC2/NW/12, of Froghall Drive FC2/IDC/18) and the Wokingham Society. FC2/SW/35, Until the SDR and NDR are built and a full Ashridge FC2/SM4/42, interchange there will be no reduction in traffic but it FC2/IDC/12) seems that these will not be built until 2016. Pages 25 & 29 do not show easily how the major roads in the SDL connect to roads outside the area (e.g. NW and SE). Existing roads are already overcrowded so what is planned to prevent gridlock? FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe The A327 is already heavily congested and is unfit for purpose with current traffic volumes. Increase in traffic, especially HGVs will increase which will impact quality of life of residents (e.g. loss of sleep, health). FC2/AG/199 Alison Owen & Neil Roads around Arborfield & surrounding villages Stubbs cannot cope with the huge amount of construction traffic and additional cars once the houses are built. FC2/AG/201 Maxine Smale Concerns about traffic congestion in area that will be made worse by development. Road improvements are needed before building work commences (clause in agreement).

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 172 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer Arborfield is a small village that cannot cope with Deering plus 7000 cars on its roads. FC2/AG/203 Emma & Mark Wootton It does not seem that traffic impact upon Eversley has been fully considered. Road infrastructure is not sufficient to support proposed development. FC2/AG/204 Clare Sharp Road structure in the area cannot handle a development of this size. FC2/AG/205 Karen Hathaway A327 is already suffering under the flow of traffic. Road is too narrow and not even pavement on (see above for summary, WBC response either side. Finding a safe place to cross road is and recommendations on this issue) already difficult and could be near impossible with additional vehicles. FC2/AG/207 Angela Spencer Concerned about additional traffic this development will create on the A327 through The Street in Eversley (both construction and residents traffic). It is already difficult to turn onto the A327. Does WBD propose to make funding available to provide traffic lights or a roundabout at the junction of Warbrook Lane and The Street? FC2/AG/209 Joan Morley Bypass is essential to avoid major congestion on (FC1/ICD/13) existing roads through Barkham and it must be built before the houses. WBC must commit to build bypass and ensure costs are carried by developers. Barkham bridge is a traffic calming measure; widening it would encourage a heavier flow of traffic, making it a major access road for the SDL. Barkham road is not suitable as a key “corridor” into Wokingham. School Road should not carry more through traffic as it is already dangerous for pedestrians to cross. 15+ years of construction traffic should not be allowed on residential roads through Barkham. Use of Langley Common Road should be discouraged by making it a T-junction off Biggs Lane. FC2/AG/210 Steve Ollerhead Bypass is essential to avoid major congestion on

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 173 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(FC1/ICD/14) existing roads through Barkham and it must be built before the houses. WBC must commit to build bypass and ensure costs are carried by developers. Barkham bridge is a traffic calming measure; widening it would encourage a heavier flow of traffic, making it a major access road for the SDL. Barkham road is not suitable as a key “corridor” into Wokingham. School Road should not carry more through traffic as it is already dangerous for pedestrians to cross. 15+ years of construction traffic should not be allowed on residential roads through Barkham. Use of Langley Common Road should be discouraged by making it a T-junction off Biggs Lane. FC2/AG/211 John Cheston on Objection as there has been no proper evaluation of (FC2/STAT/5) behalf of Hart District the traffic impacts of the development on the road (see above for summary, WBC response Council network in Hart that is immediately adjacent to the and recommendations on this issue) district. While transport improvements are proposed to mitigate the impact of the development, these relate solely to northbound routes from the site to Wokingham, Bracknell, Reading and Winnersh whereas the development will inevitably generate an increase in traffic movements in Hart where roads are already at or close to capacity. The Council is concerned that the development could result in significantly increased traffic flows through Eversely by vehicles heading for the M3 via the A327, A30 and A331. Hart District Council would be prepared to reconsider its position if the development could be made conditional upon highway infrastructure and/or public transport improvements in Hart being implemented. FC2/AG/212 Olivia & Peter Thornton Roads grid locked, access to M4, M3 become difficult, roads to towns and motorways are unable to take traffic, Eversley Street and Conservation

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 174 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

area, total wrecking of village life. FC2/AG/213 Neil & Carol Davison A “new estate” with all the incumbent vehicles would (FC2/IDC/16) cause havoc between the Bramshill Hunt roundabout, Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, Bearwood Road and all the way to the rail crossing at Wokingham. A bypass is not just essential; it should be made pre-requisite that any developer should carry the costs as well as any other costs related to ameliorating the leap in traffic and securing the necessary land to facilitate improvements. Barkham roads are already at capacity. FC2/AG/214 Edward Dixon Development will place intolerable strain on road network. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/216 Mrs Dee Varcoe Traffic on A327 is already huge problem. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/217 Ken & Mary Lane Main concern is the amount of traffic that will be created by development as roads in area are at capacity at peak times. Particular trouble spots are The School Road/Langley Common Road junction, the skew bridge on Langely Common Road, roundabouts at the Bull at Barkham and Coppid Hill. The suggestion of widening the bridge will increase traffic flows but there will still be other bottle necks. Traffic lights might only exasperate the problem of traffic tail backs. There are also problems at the level crossing at the station in Wokingham. Public transport is unlikely to solve these problems. All the measures to alleviate traffic are likely to urbanise the whole area. FC2/AG/218 Steve Bacon Objection due to near-impossibility of alleviating the (FC2/IDC/18) road congestion surrounding the Garrison on all sides, bearing in mind that even the proposed Arborfield bypass will terminate in the north at the congested A327 in Shinfield Rise and in the south by the narrow A327 through Eversley.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 175 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Roads are already at capacity and they cannot be bypassed or relieved to any significant extent. Traffic from 5,000 houses will simply exacerbate the situation. (see above for summary, WBC response Woosehill Planning Inspector’s recommendation and recommendations on this issue) from 1974 stated that housing developments affecting traffic on the Barkham Road should be avoided because the road was already considered to be “at capacity” on account of the Station Level Crossing. Yet the Garrison SDL was proposed despite this limitation. If planned Link Road does ahead, effectively preserving the Station Level Crossing, then WBC may face a legal challenge. Replacement of the Station Level Crossing by nearby bridge will only remove worst bottle neck on Barkham Road, it will still suffer congestion at its various road junctions even if the bridge over was widened. The road limitations ought to rule out any large- scale housing development at the Garrison SDL. FC2/AG/219 Susan Ramsden Roads around Arborfield and Finchampstead would be brought to gridlock by construction traffic and the increased number of cars once the housing is constructed. FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth Traffic is already overloaded, especially Barkham Bridge. Is there a traffic survey planned for in the near future? FC2/AG/224 D.R. Jones The roads at peak times are already at breaking (FC2/IDC/19) point with almost gridlock in places so how is the area to accommodate the additional traffic of a further +7000 cars? Alterations to Barkham Bridge and a bypass for Arborfield will be the end of the area and the taxpayer has to pay for it. FC2/AG/225 Timothy J Wileman Roads cannot cope with the massive amount of construction traffic and additional cars the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 176 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

development would lead to. FC2/AG/226 Claire Wileman Existing roads are not strong enough to deal with MoD, current residents and construction traffic at the same time. Therefore development should only (see above for summary, WBC response start once MoD has left. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/227 Lindsay Partridge Roads are already badly congested. Nine Mile Ride is a rat run and cars travel too fast. Development will cause bottle neck to Finchampstead village which is already a nightmare. FC2/AG/228 Lindsey Bailey Over past 20 years traffic in Finchampstead has significantly increased. Fleet Hill, while classed a B road, has now become a major thoroughfare. Junction of Fleet Hill and the A327 is also incredible busy and it is difficult to exit Fleet Hill even during quiet periods. Development will cause major problems on roads. FC2/AG/229 Leone Brown WBC has failed to take account of impact or take any mitigating measures to minimise the traffic impact on Eversley. FC2/AG/230 Jason Edwards Traffic in Eversley is now becoming too much for the roads which would be made worse by development. The A30/A327 junction is at full capacity now. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love Local infrastructure is already insufficient for volume of traffic which flows along the A327 and the B3272 and this development will cause impact from both construction traffic and future residents. The increase in traffic will impact residents of Eversley who will be unable to walk safely through village due to narrow roads and no room to create footpaths or cycle lanes. FC2/AG/232 Mr Surinder Bhangu on M4 corridor between jct 10 and 11 is currently (FC2/STAT/8, behalf of Highways congested and is “unable to cope without flow and FC2/NW/15, Agency demand management measures” as in the future FC2/SW/38, will become “unable to cope with demand”. FC2/SM4/45, Without the modelling evidence base at present the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 177 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/ICD/20) HA is not in a position to comment on the proposed infrastructure. Demand management measures need to be (see above for summary, WBC response clarified for each of the SDLs as no specific and recommendations on this issue) measures have been specified. Off-site highway works require clarification as no specific proposals have been outlined. The impact on the Ashbridge interchange on the SRN needs to be modelled within the evidence base. Details of the Junction 11 Park and Ride impact will need to be modelled with the evidence base. On the basis that an evidence base has not been provided, the HA must submit a representation that the plan is unsound as it is “not founded on a robust and credible evidence base”. It is therefore considered that at present the SPD is not robust. FC2/AG/233 Janet & Michael Increase in traffic, during and after construction on Hewland the small roads will be unbearable. FC2/AG/234 Mr L Carr How is the A327 to cope with extra traffic given that it is already very busy? FC2/AG/235 Geoff & Karen Hartnell Roads around the area will not be able to cope with construction traffic. FC2/AG/236 Dean Chamberlain Why this proposal if millions were spent at Grazley/Mereoak and to revise the Junction 11 of the M4 and provide a dual carriageway? FC2/AG/237 Jacqueline Joyce Traffic is already massive problem in Eversley and things will be made worse by new development. FC2/AG/238 Mr Williams The existing roads could not cope with additional traffic, residential and construction. FC2/AG/239 Helen Lewis Objection to increase in traffic on already busy A327 FC2/AG/241 John Cullen - Primary access route seems to be via Nine Mile Ride. This does not make sense as the majority of the traffic is unlikely to be heading to Finchampstead.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 178 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

- The existing road infrastructure in Finchampstead is insufficient to take the traffic if the primary route out of the SDL to (see above for summary, WBC response Wokingham is Nine Mile Ride. and recommendations on this issue) - Already queues at peak times on Nine Mile Ride and Finchampstead Road. - The existing road infrastructure through Arborfield is and Shinfield towards reading is unlikely to be capable of handling existing traffic from Finchampstead/Eversley. FC2/AG/242 David Evans No significant road building measures are proposed in the plan so the current inadequate road system will just have to take the additional traffic. Extra traffic down Barkham road is going to further increase the frustration of trying to cross Wokingham level crossing from the south. FC2/AG/243 Stephen and Cheryl To travel towards reading and the M4 at 8am Clark Monday to Friday, traffic queues back across the river Loddon almost to Arborfield. From Winnersh cross roads jams are back to Sindlesham. FC2/AG/244 Richard Love The volume of traffic through Eversley is already passing through the village is immense FC2/AG/245 Ken Ramsden The roads around Arborfield and Finchampstead would be brought to gridlock by the construction traffic and the increased number of cars once the housing is constructed. FC2/AG/246 Alison Worley Object to the proposal o the main traffic thoroughfare being placed in the middle of the existing residential area. If it is to be built it should be placed in area C. FC2/AG/247 Sue and Geoff Ash - The development plan shows the arterial route of the site to be from the A327 to Nine Mile Road. The flow of traffic on to the A327 will add to severe traffic congestion already experienced in Eversley/Arborfield and

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 179 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Shinfield at peak times. - People living in rural village will be affected by the heavy construction traffic. (see above for summary, WBC response and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/248 JP Watson Lack of any sensible plan to improve road access to the proposed development. Believe that before any new development is permitted a properly considered Road Transport Plan must be approved and implemented by WBC which eliminates the known choke points of Arborfield village, the bridge over the River Blackwater at Eversley and most important the single track bridge over the stream in the vicinity of the Bull at Barkham. FC2/AG/249 Gill Purchase - Local roads in and around Arborfield are already severely congested at peak times and when there has been either an accident or roads closed, due to flooding the area becomes grid locked. - Before development plans are put forward, a robust programme of road improvements and a bypass needs to be in place first. FC2/AG/250 Mrs S Hill - Essential that a bypass around Arborfield Cross is completed before 750 new houses are built. The entire cost including acquiring the land should fall to developers. - Welcome the suggestion of traffic lights on the Barkham Bridge. - The masterplan does not seem to envisage any improvement to the access to the site via Langley Common Road. Unrestricted access to Langley Common Road would be highly unsatisfactory and put more pressure on residential roads in Barkham. - The northern gateway to the site should be

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 180 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

the Bramshill Hunt roundabout on the A327. - Barkham road is not suitable as a key corridor into Wokingham as it is a residential road with little possibility of widening at (see above for summary, WBC response critical points. and recommendations on this issue) - There appear to be no plans to improve the level crossing on the Barkham Road side of Wokingham station. Replace the level crossing with a bridge. - Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham and restricted to using the A327. FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes How can WBC feel that improvements to the Arborfield Cross junctions will alleviate the huge increase in traffic flows? FC2/AG/252 Mike Stoneham Concerned about the huge increase in traffic levels on the A327, which cannot cope with any further traffic. FC2/AG/253 Jane Stoneham Concerned about the impact building of this volume will have in the short to medium term, Supply lorries will cause a big increase on the A327 and other local roads. Concerned about the saleability of property and the impact on future. FC2/AG/254 Kerry Moody Already existing issues with the amount of traffic using all the surrounding roads where the houses will be built. Finchampstead Road and Nine Mile Ride in particular are extremely busy. The amount of traffic generated by the development would mean that road system would not cope. FC2/AG/256 K. L. Williams - The increase in traffic on the A327 will be intolerable. There is no pavement or cycle lane outside of property, and it will be impossible to cross the road or visit neighbours. - The increase in construction traffic on the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 181 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

A327 will make things worse. The increase in traffic will also increase the noise, (see above for summary, WBC response vibrations and disturbance to way of life. and recommendations on this issue)

FC2/AG/258 D. W Hamilton - Concerned about the impact of the development on Park Lane. It seems that it is earmarked to carry additional traffic. This seems unfair and unbalanced and not consistent with the aims of the SANG nor the objectives of the adjoining area of special landscape interest. - If the traffic in Park lane was restricted to access only, the lane would again become an attractive link for walkers and facilitate interconnection of the Finchampstead network of footpaths both inter se and also with the network of footpaths in the Blackwater Valley. - Alternative routes to Park Lane when there were road works were found. There is no record of any increased traffic flow on alternative routed giving rise to undue concern or aggravation. - Park Lane should be converted to a lane with restricted access status. - No need for Park Lane to become a strategic highway as it appears to be envisaged by the SDL. - Nine Mile Ride which follows the perimeter of the SDL is already bordered by industrial development, is a much wider road than Park Lane, copes with heavy commercial traffic and has more space for widening on wither side. FC2/AG/259 John and Susan Watt - The current road system through Arborfield

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 182 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

is badly maintained and barely able to cope with the current levels of traffic. - Park Lane between Hogwood and Arborfield is in a very poor state of repair. It (see above for summary, WBC response is a country lane not an access for an and recommendations on this issue) industrial area. - The additional construction traffic will make Nine Mile Ride a nightmare. The increased traffic along Nine Mile Ride will make the school crossings very dangerous. - No acceptable plans seem to be available for relieving the traffic bottleneck at the railway crossings, - Do not believe that it is possible to make the Nine Mile Ride more suitable for heavy traffic and 15 years of construction traffic will make it a nightmare for residents. FC2/AG/260 Charles Blackham - Already high levels of traffic through Eversely , particularly along ‘The Street’ - Increased traffic and additional congestion during construction will have a detrimental effect on the quality of life and village environment within Eversley. FC2/AG/261 Kate Burnett No consideration has been given to the impact of the development on the village of Eversley which will see a big increase in traffic from the development and during construction. FC2/AG/262 Jamie Arlon Traffic on the A327 is already a problem. Object to the increase in traffic through what is a very small rural village in Eversley and the damage it will cause to homes. FC2/AG/263 James Lewis The increase in traffic will be devastating on villages such as Eversley because the A327 runs through the middle of the village. FC2/AG/264 Stephen and Christina - No assurances about how local roads will

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 183 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Haigh adequately cope with potentially another 7000 cars. The development is just too large to for the current road system. It will (see above for summary, WBC response result in gridlock from Reading to Bracknell and recommendations on this issue) during rush hour and significantly impact on quality of life for all living in Arborfield, Finchampstead, Barkham , Shinfield and Wokingham as a whole - Concerned about the access by car from Tyler Drive/Barker Close to Baird Rd. To reach properties on Tyler Drive and Barker Close, forced to drive in a spiral almost doubling back on oneself. Would be much more convenient for Tyler Drive to access Baird Road directly via a T-Junction. FC2/AG/265 Lacey Steed - A Bypass is essential to avoid major congestion at Arborfield Cross and all the residential roads through the village. The road structure that goes through the village will not cope with the extra traffic that will be generated. It is essential to build the bypass before 750 houses are built. - The cost of building the bypass including acquiring land should fall on developers, not ratepayers. - WBC needs to commit to build a bypass now rather than continue to procrastinate. FC2/AG/267 Phil and Liz Wise The strain and pressure on the local road network during the construction phase will cause a huge increase in the volume of traffic. The current road network is unsuitable to cope with the strain and pressure of increased traffic. FC2/AG/268 Zoe Evans - The new development will increase traffic congestion in Wokingham and throughout the area.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 184 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

- Concerned that White Horse Lane will be transformed by the increased traffic as it represents a short cut between Arborfield and Camberley. It is a single track lane in part and busier than is safe at peak times. Any increase in traffic on the lane will present safety issues which will need to be addressed.

FC2/AG/269 Katy Stanlake Difficulty exiting drive onto Nine Mile Ride due to the level of traffic. Once Nine Mile Ride is extended this (see above for summary, WBC response will make things worse. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/270 George and Sara The surrounding roads cannot cope with the Brown increase in traffic; this will also make pollution higher. FC2/AG/271 Patrick & Alison Turley - Without any lack of direct access from north of the SDL to the A327 there will be considerable increase in the flow of traffic along Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, School Road and Bearwood Road. - During construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham. - Cost of the Arborfield bypass should be borne by the developers. - The bypass is critical to the whole project and needs to be finalised as soon as possible. - The Barkham road level crossing needs to be given top priority for improvement before the SDLs are constructed. - Opposed to the suggestion that the Barkham Bridge is widened, as it will make Barkham Road a main access route to the SDL.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 185 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/272 C. Barratt - The bypass around Arborfield Cross needs to be completed before 750 new houses are built. - Time for completing the bypass is 4 – 5 (see above for summary, WBC response years, yet a location has not yet been and recommendations on this issue) determined. - Who will pay for the cost of acquiring the land? - Opposed to the widening of Barkham Bridge, but support the use of traffic lights. - Concerned that residential roads will be used as main arteries to reach the SDL. Barkham road is not suitable as a key corridor into Wokingham it is a residential road with little possibility of widening at critical points for a bus priority lane or cycle track. - School Road should not carry more through traffic. - No plans to improve the level crossing on the Barkham Road side of Wokingham station. Traffic lights synching with the opening and closing of the level crossing should be added. - Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads. - The northern gateway to the new settlement ought to be the Bramshill Hunt Roundabout on the A327. FC2/AG/276 Claire Harris Traffic will be increased to an unacceptable level.

FC2/AG/277 David Simpson, - Clearly a material consideration is the A327 Hampshire County through Eversley that was overlooked in the Councillor LDF, proved by the fact that you mention a bypass for Arborfield but not Eversley. - A bypass for Eversley is necessary and Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 186 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

suggested main link road across to the A33. - A road to the A329 should also be put in as well as this will allow access to the M4 via (see above for summary, WBC response the A329m and all the surrounding roads and recommendations on this issue) will have less pressure upon them. - A nil detriment by 2026 scenario relating to impact of transport is not realistic with the current inadequate mitigation measures proposed. - Traffic modelling not available until later in the year, how can you accept this plan without breaking PPS1 para 19. fail to provide up to date information FC2/AG/278 Toby Aling on behalf of - Concerned about impact on A327 to M3 (FC2/STAT/9 Hampshire County junction 4a and other junctions including Council B3272 and A30

- Allocations in SE Plan and CS were based on understanding that impacts on the road network would be fully assessed as part of master planning process. This assessment work has not been completed to support the Arborfield and Infrastructure SPD documents

- The Wokingham Strategic Transport Model is being developed but this is not yet available and without this the impact of development cannot be assessed or mitigation identified.

- Most recent evidence is 2007/08 but this does not shoe impact on Hampshire roads particularly A327 and B3272 and only assumed 2500 dwellings at Arborfield and had a base year of 2006; the outputs are Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 187 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

out of date and the consultation is premature; HCC wish to agree the scope of modelling to include cross-border impacts, (see above for summary, WBC response mitigation and funding mechanisms and recommendations on this issue)

- OBJECT as current evidence base is not sufficiently robust to ensure that the development proposals can be adequately mitigated

- Without this evidence it is unclear whether there will be a detrimental impact on safety and operation of Hampshire’s roads or amenity of its communities; therefore do not consider the plans for development or mitigation are fully justified FC2/AG/279 Robert Newman - The Arborfield bypass must be built and fully funded by the developers, including land purchase, and opened prior to the 751st house being marketed. - The Bridge Cottages ‘bottle neck’ should remain as a pinch point. - WBC must stop running away and face up to the issue of the level crossing at Wokingham Station.

FC2/AG/280 Colonel A H Millington The surrounding access roads will certainly present a problem for the new development. The roads are currently are small and busy. FC2/AG/281 Chris Carter Traffic on the A327 is already very busy. Difficulty leaving property in Farley Hill. Traffic at peak times is particularly bad. Scheme should be moved to an area that is less congested. FC2/AG/282 Sophie Becker Local roads are not capable of coping with an increase in volume of traffic. Eversley is already

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 188 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

bursting under the huge pressure of lorries and heavy traffic. - Nine Mile Ride does not meet the criteria outlined in the SPD. The Reading Road would be better suited to support the increase in traffic with the already existing carriageways. Will the 30mph limit on Nine Mile Ride stay? FC2/AG/283 Simone Ayres Concerns about proposals and their effect on Nine Mile Ride. How will increase in traffic be dealt with? (see above for summary, WBC response Reading Road would be better suited to support and recommendations on this issue) such traffic. FC2/AG/286 Russell Johnston There is no planned additional road provision heading East, and the Nine Mile Ride will become gridlocked. Aside from congestion the quality of life for residents along the main routes will be significantly affected. FC2/AG/287 Mrs C. S. Heffernan Concerned about the increase in traffic through Eversley. Bypass would be good but doesn’t believe it will happen soon. Impact of the construction traffic through the village. Lorries travelling through the village are already a problem. FC2/AG/288 L Simms There are no plans for improving the road structure leading to Arborfield from the M4, and between Arborfield and Wokingham. The building of the supermarket will bring lots of lorries and the roads are not up to the strain of them. FC2/AG/289 Bernard Hicks Would like to see plans that indicate required access and by pass roads and the obligation to provide these before the house building begins. FC2/AG/290 Nick Powell Traffic in Eversley is already a problem. It will be impossible to get thousands of cars onto the roads. The traffic causes vibrations to property.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 189 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Concerned about the impact of construction traffic along the A327. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/291 Roger Huggan Arborfield Cross bypass is essential toavoid major and recommendations on this issue) congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads through Barkham becoming main access roads for the SDL. Vital to complete the building of the Arborfield bypass before 750 houses are built Cost of building bypass including land acquisition should fall on developers, not ratepayers. Traffic lights on the Barkham Bridge would be welcomed Opposed to the widening of the bridge. Barkham Road not suitable as key corridor into Wokingham School Road should not carry more through traffic Level crossing mini roundabout should be replaced by traffic light scheme synchronized with the opening and closing of the crossing Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads. North West gateway to the new village should not be in Langley Common Road at Junction Where Biggs lane joins. Lack of direct access from north of the SDL to A327 increases likelihood of Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, Bearwood Road and School Road becoming main access roads for the SDL. Discourage use of Langley Road by making a T junction off Biggs Lane. FC2/AG/292 Oliver and Kathyrn The development will cause a significant increase in Webster traffic through Farley Hill. The small road will come under further pressure as traffic tries to find alternative routes pushing more and more vehicles onto the single carriageway roads of Church Lane,

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 190 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Bunces Shaw, Priest Hill and Castle Road/Hill which are completely inappropriate. Feel that stringent traffic control measures will (see above for summary, WBC response needed to prevent the creation of ‘rat runs’ through and recommendations on this issue) the village , and they should be in place before the development starts. Arborfield bypass. Concerned as to whether the start location of the Arborfield bypass will be Parsons Farm. Are parts of the route still to be agreed? Whatever final routing is agreed it could potentially run very close to a number of properties in the village (Farley Hill) leading to increased noise levels which will further destroy the character of the area. FC2/AG/293 Brigitte Huggan Arborfield Cross bypass is essential to avoid major congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads through Barkham becoming main access roads for the SDL. Vital to complete the building of the Arborfield bypass before 750 houses are built Cost of building bypass including land acquisition should fall on developers, not ratepayers. Traffic lights on the Barkham Bridge would be welcomed Opposed to the widening of the bridge. Barkham Road not suitable as key corridor into Wokingham School Road should not carry more through traffic Level crossing mini roundabout should be replaced by traffic light scheme synchronized with the opening and closing of the crossing Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads. North West gateway to the new village should not be in Langley Common Road at Junction Where Biggs lane joins. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 191 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Lack of direct access from north of the SDL to A327 increases likelihood of Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, Bearwood Road and School Road (see above for summary, WBC response becoming main access roads for the SDL. and recommendations on this issue) Discourage use of Langley Road by making a T junction off Biggs Lane. FC2/AG/294 Andrjez and Olga The A327 is already inadequate for the levels of Borowy traffic it carries. Property already suffers form vibrations and noise of passing traffic. This will increase significantly with the development and the construction phase. WBC has made no provision for road improvements for this. FC2/AG/296 Clive Stoneham Already concerned about the volumes of traffic on the A327. Make it very difficult to exit drive in the mornings. Significant improvements need to be made to the roads to enable them to cope with the volumes of traffic. FC2/AG/297 Darren Tipton Strongly object to the possibility of Sheerlands Road becoming a main Through road which would carry traffic to and from the proposed new schools and supermarket in the District centre. This is a very quiet area and the development would significantly increase the levels of traffic and pollution and decrease safety. FC2/AG/298 Richard McBrien Roads cannot take any more traffic associated with the development. Against the widening of Barkham bridge Opposed to traffic lights as they are unnecessary so long as the bridge is not altered. Very concerned about increased traffic via Bearwood road to the M4. Essential that northerly routing to the M4 J11 is developed and must be started as soon as possible. FC2/AG/299 Caroline Blackham The A327 is already crumbling and totally

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 192 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

overloaded with completely inappropriate traffic for village roads passing listed properties in a conservation area. (see above for summary, WBC response No thought has been given to the village of Eversley and recommendations on this issue) – why does Eversley not qualify for a relief road? FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown Will the proposed new bypass allow walking her child to school completely away from the A327? FC2/AG/302 Liam Flanagan-Todd The development will see an increase in traffic movements on the A327 south of Reading to the M3, directly through Eversley, adding to the already high volume of traffic FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad What are the plans for wider infrastructure across the Wokingham, Reading and adjoining districts/counties? The existing infrastructure cannot cope with the volume of traffic today. What are the plans for the single track bridges at Barkham, Sindlesham Mill, Swallowfield and the level crossing at Wokingham Railway Station? FC2/AG/304 Sean Green The proposed development cannot be supported by the existing road infrastructure. opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive to buses, as they would require roads to be widened, increased danger to children as well as increased noise and pollution. FC2/AG/305 Lorraine Bek The proposed development cannot be supported by the existing road infrastructure. opening up of Whitehall Drive and Tyler Drive to buses, as they would require roads to be widened, increased danger to children as well as increased noise and pollution. FC2/AG/306 Andy Scott No account has been taken for handling he increase on local traffic, especially south through Finchampstead/Eversley FC2/AG/307 David Wright The Arborfield Cross Bypass – it is essential that (FC2/IDC/33) major congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 193 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

roads through Barkham is avoided by way of a bypass. The cost of building a bypass including acquiring (see above for summary, WBC response land should fall on developers and not ratepayers. and recommendations on this issue) The Barkham Road is not suitable as a key corridor into Wokingham as it is a residential Road. Object to the widening of the Barkham Road Bridge as it makes Barkham Road a major route for the SDL. The gateway should be the Bramshill Hunt Roundabout using the northern end of Baird Road Service Road. Construction traffic should be prohibited using residential roads through Barkham. FC2/AG/308 Jennifer Wright The Arborfield Cross Bypass – it is essential that (FC2/IDC/34) major congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads through Barkham is avoided by way of a bypass. The cost of building a bypass including acquiring land should fall on developers and not ratepayers. The Barkham Road is not suitable as a key corridor into Wokingham as it is a residential Road. Object to the widening of the Barkham Road Bridge as it makes Barkham Road a major route for the SDL. The gateway should be the Bramshill Hunt Roundabout using the northern end of Baird Road Service Road. FC2/AG/310 Chris Milligan Existing traffic issues in Arborfield will only get worse with the proposed development. No guarantee of an Arborfield Bypass but even if it does it will not improve traffic routes to other areas such as Wokingham, with Barkham bridge being a particular concern. FC2/AG/311 Chris Heyliger Without any direct access from north of the SDL to

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 194 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(FC2/IDC/35) the A327 there will be a considerable increase in the flow of traffic along Langley Common Road, School Road and Bearwood Road as they will become the main access to the SDL.. (see above for summary, WBC response Essential that construction and completion of an and recommendations on this issue) Arborfield Cross bypass be completed by the time 750 homes at Arborfield Garrison are built. Understands that a Relief Road is the preferred option of the borough, but it does not appear that any firm commitment has yet been made. This is critical to the whole project and needs to be finalised as soon as possible. Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham and should be restricted to using the A327 and the Arborfield Cross Bypass, once built. FC2/AG/312 Richard and Angie Seal Concerned about the additional traffic flows that will be generated. If solutions are not found it will have a massive impact on people’s enjoyment of the area. strongly object to the development until a bypass is delivered. FC2/AG/313 Alison D Haywood The traffic and environmental impact during construction would be huge. The road through Eversley and the bridge over the River Blackwater were not designed for the volume/type of traffic. Has a traffic impact assessment been conducted? If so are the results available for public viewing. After construction is complete the volume of private and commercial traffic using the A327 through Eversley would be inappropriate for a road of its size, and for the junction with eh B3348. Would it be possible to build a road linking Arborfield and the A327 beyond the Charles Kingsley School roundabout, to avoid the residential areas?

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 195 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC/AG/314 Finchampstead Parish Nine Mile Ride should be designed to slow down Council traffic and the table in section 62 should address the following: Maximum permissible speeds of 30mph within the (see above for summary, WBC response SDL; and recommendations on this issue) 20mph for areas close to neighbourhood and district centres; Toucan crossings to be placed at all community facilities and main cycling and walking routes. Speed limits should be indicated more clearly within the design in particular for the table on page 62 to include: Primary streets – 30mph; Secondary streets – 30mph; Tertiary streets – 20mph;and, Mew lanes – 10 mph. FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock Traffic modelling has not been used to suggest traffic mitigations in Eversley. The outcome of future modelling is not due until August so how can this influence the SDL now? please do not suggest traffic going south down the A327 will be out of the scope of this consultation, and that the EIP was found to be sound. Traffic modelling for Eversley needs to be considered properly now. Roads in Eversley are narrow and in some places there is no footpath. The roads are not wide enough to accommodate more traffic. need to find a relief road for Eversley in the same way as for Arborfield Cross. FC2/AG/316 Jane Pickup No consideration has been given to the volume of traffic that will use local roads surrounding the development, particularly the A327 which runs through The Street in Eversley. This road is already insufficient, and it is impossible at times for 2

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 196 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

vehicles to pass by each other. The bridge over the Blackwater is very narrow and (see above for summary, WBC response unsuitable for the traffic the development will and recommendations on this issue) generate. Proposal should be rejected until improvements are made to the local routes connecting to the major roads (M4 & M3) FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins Arborfield already struggle with traffic in every direction. Tailbacks in peak hours at Barkham Bridge, Wokingham Railway Crossing, Sindlesham Bridge and the bridge in Eversley near the Talley Ho Pub. - can see no evidence that a full traffic survey has been done. FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard - Mole road will have increased traffic as a result of the development. Conflict with non vehicular traffic using the byways which intersect with the B3030. - The finance plan or the proposed by-pass seems unrealistic, and can expect a huge increase in traffic before there is money available for a by-pass. - Langley Common Road is unsuited to the huge increase in traffic, and the bottle neck at Wokingham Station. - The road system in Eversley will not cope with the increased traffic from the development. FC2/AG/319 Simon C. Maylam Size of the development will result in an unreasonable increase in traffic which will use the A327 in both directions from Arborfield, this is already a busy road. FC2/AG/320 Gemma Paxton The increase in traffic along the A327 is a horrifying prospect. It will impact on road safety and grade listed cottage.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 197 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/321 David Sands - Concerned about the scale of the (FC2/AG/321) development. It is likely to generate an additional 28000 vehicles during peak (see above for summary, WBC response times, and an estimated 25% can be and recommendations on this issue) assumed to use Nine Mile Ride, which would put a strain on the free and safe movement of traffic in Finchampstead. - - Additional traffic would destroy the character of the area, generating further pollution and noise detriment to residents. FC2/AG/322 Daniel Boys Already experience congestion at peak times on the A327, and the possibility of a further 5 – thousand cars will result in more noise and congestion. The A327 through Shinfield is already too congested without the addition of more vehicles. Traffic jams at Loddon Bridge and Arborfield Cross, A bypass will not resolve the problem FC2/AG/323 Peter McSweeny Unless alternative transport options to the car are (FC2/IDC/39) provided from the outset, an increase of 7,500 cars in the area is likely and the roads cannot cope. Langley Common Road, Barkham Roadand Bearwood Road will provide key access routes and will not be satisfactory. Unless a significant traffic increase can be prevented then highway improvements will be needed to prevent commuting congestion at Arborfield Cross and Barkham Bridge and the level crossing at Wokingham Station. FC2/AG/324 Mr and Mrs Appleton The existing roads around Arborfield and surrounding villages simply cannot cope with the huge amount of construction traffic and additional cars. The queue to California Crossroads which can go past Kiln ride in the mornings will become worse. FC2/AG/325 Peter Ayling Local roads and infrastructure are already under strain and could not cope with construction traffic or

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 198 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

traffic generated by the new development. The proposed expansion of Hogwood Lane industrial (see above for summary, WBC response Estate will only add to the volume of traffic. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/326 Jenny Thaw Surrounding roads particularly in Eversley are very busy. Suspect the impact on Eversley residents will be more than those in Wokingham, with the routes to the M3 and towns accessible via the A30. FC2/AG/327 Simeon Pines Concerned that Nine Mile Ride will become a major route into the development, and will be unable to cope with the thousands of extra movements. Ludicrous to think that Nine Mile Ride, California Crossroads and other roads around the development will be able to cope with the inevitable rise in traffic. FC2/AG/328 George Thaw Surrounding roads particularly in Eversley are very busy. Suspect the impact on Eversley residents will be more than those in Wokingham, with the routes to the M3 and towns accessible via the A30. FC2/AG/329 Miss P. Hunter Why must construction traffic come through Eversley village? Already have to endure the daily traffic and vibrations, and noise, pollution and excessive speeds. Not much distance between Miss Hunters property and the main A327 goes against the Human Rights Act of 1998. Access is already difficult and will become more so. A327 is already at capacity. There is no scope for widening the road to add cycle lanes or a pavement. FC2/AG/330 F A Scott Langley Common Road and Barkham Road (B3349) are unsuitable for primary use. Langley Road would require considerable reconstruction. Barkham road lacks the capacity to carry an increase in traffic. Inappropriate for the Biggs lane Spine road to exit

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 199 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

onto Langley Common Road. Would have a knock on effect on School Road and Bearwood Road. The northern end of the SDL should be designed to (see above for summary, WBC response encourage traffic flow onto the A327 and the and recommendations on this issue) Arborfield Relief Road. Could be achieved by closing the junction between Langley Common Road and the SDL Spine, directing all traffic to the Bramshill roundabout via Baird Road. No attention has been given to the possibility of re- linking Bramshill Close, Whitehall Drive and re- straightening Sheerlands Road. It is essential that there is an Arborfield Relief Road. There should be no exit onto Langley Common Road or onto Bramshill Roundabout. FC2/AG/331 Miss Linden Almond The A327 is already heavily congested and dangerous and causes subsidence and pollution problems for houses and trees along it. no provision has been made for construction traffic, and the impact it will have as it passes through Reading Road through Finchampstead and Eversley. FC2/AG/332 Ms Celia Matthews Traffic on ‘The Street’ is already a considerable problem, and any more traffic cannot be accommodated. What provision has been made to cover the cost of resurfacing ‘The Street’ as the new development will have a major impact on road durability? FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence Strongly object to the proposal to use the A327 as the main arterial North/South route for the development. Increase in traffic will make life impossible and treacherous for residents living in Eversley. What are the plans for well designed traffic management measures for Eversley? FC2/AG/334 David and Margaret Concerned about the scale of development with no

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 200 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Edwards by pass planned in the near future. Traffic on Reading Road is at a stand still in the mornings, and the bridge at Barkham is another restriction. (see above for summary, WBC response and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/335 David Batup Volume of additional domestic, commercial and building traffic on the A327 would make it a nightmare for those trying to use it. Road is already at its limit during rush ours. FC2/AG/336 Dr Mike Matthews ‘The Street’, the narrow bridge over the River Blackwater and the junction with the B3348 are already overloaded and are not adequate for additional volumes of traffic, during construction and once built. - Additional traffic on the B3348 will make it extremely difficult to exit house, already a problem at peak hours. FC2/AG/337 John and Kirsty Concerned about the impact so many new houses Hayward will have on the increase in traffic along the A327 and Warbrook Lane, which is constantly used as a cut through to the Bramshill Road. impact on Eversley has not been considered. HGV’s coming through Eversley will make the road hellish. FC2/AG/339 David Bell on behalf of Already have significant traffic through Heckfield, FC2/STST/11 Heckfield Parish including heavy goods vehicles and private cars on Council roads which were not designed to deal with the volume of traffic. There are houses both sides of the Bramshill Road and the B3310, residents often complain about the volume of passing traffic which impedes access to properties. FC2/AG/340 Saskia Heath ‘The Street’ in Eversley has huge vehicles travelling at speed through it and a huge amount of domestic vehicles. It cannot cope and has been detrimental to the street scene of a pretty area. FC2/AG/341 Liz Scott Development will lead too increase in traffic on the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 201 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

A327 and smaller roads such as Nine Mile Ride. Will particularly be a problem through ‘The Street’ in Eversley. FC2/AG/342 Helen and Phil Howes A327 cannot cope with more traffic. Already too (see above for summary, WBC response busy and have trouble exiting property into the road, and recommendations on this issue) Will lead to more accidents. FC2/AG/343 Craig Osborne A bypass will be essential to avoid congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads through Barkham becoming main access roads to the SDL. It must be completed before 750 homes are built. Traffic calming at Barkham Bridge would be welcomed. Opposed to the widening of the bridge. Barkham road not suited a key corridor into Wokingham. School lane should not carry more through traffic Level crossing mini roundabout should be replaced by traffic light scheme synchronized with the opening and closing of level crossing. Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham. North west gateway to new village shouldn’t be in Langley Common Road Lack of direct access from north of the SDL to A327. FC2/AG344 Derek Oxbrough Road infrastructure needs to be drastically improved in advance of any development. Arborfield bypass is essential and should be paid for by developers not ratepayers. The bridge over the Barkham Brook needs to be replaced with one that allows two way traffic at all times, which must be paid for by the developer. Rural roads in areas such as Common Filed Lane should not be upgraded or connected to the new development, to avoid them becoming rat runs. FC2/AG/345 Kate Whyte Roads in and around the Berkshire/Hampshire border cannot cope with anymore traffic.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 202 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/346 Ronan Moran Proposed bypass is essential to avoid congestion at Arborfield Cross. Essential to prevent residential roads especially Bearwood Road and School Road, which have primary schools becoming main access roads for the SDL. Congestion at the level crossing. With the planned development and no bypass Barkham Road will become a major through road for extra traffic. FC2/AG/347 Phillippa Radford Already have to cope with large amounts of lorries on the A327, add in construction traffic and it will ruin the village of Eversley. FC2/AG/348 Celia Adams on behalf What measures will be taken to ensure traffic from of Swallowfield Parish Arborfield heading towards Basingstoke and the Council South West does not use the narrow roads through Farley Hill? Will the Borough look at the state of bridges in this parish that will be cased by rat runners to ensure they are capable of withstanding the increase in traffic. Has the borough considered the implications of the masterplan on Farley Hill School traffic is already a problem here. How will the borough ensure residents in Swallowfield will be able to access the M4 via the B3349 without any additional delays? Concerned about the increased traffic along the A327. Construction traffic should be prevented from using minor roads through local villages, and instead provided with specific routes. Consideration should be given to installing ‘gateways’ to the villages and a speed limit through Farley Hill and Riseley and the Basingstoke Road. Long running campaign to reduce the speed of traffic in the Odiham Road.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 203 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Concerned about the impact of the Arborfield Bypass. Measures such as reducing the speed limit on the road and installing acoustic bunds/fences. How will the borough ensure that the design of the road does not compromise the environment? When the proposed route is decided when will it go out to consultation? FC2/AG/349 Julia Townsend - Rose Development will see an increase in traffic volumes in the surrounding roads which are already under strain. FC2/AG/350 Paul Lethbridge Designation of Park lane as an ‘access only’ road or implementation of lower speed limits and chicane (see above for summary, WBC response based traffic calming measures would discourage its and recommendations on this issue) use as a high speed cut through for commuting traffic and greatly improve the roads safety for people on foot cycle or horse. FC2/AG/351 Nigel Weeks Roads in the area struggle to cope with existing levels of traffic. FC2/AG/353 Stewart Richardson Construction of the bypass is essential to avoid congestion at Arborfield Cross and to avoid the use of residential roads becoming the main access to the SDL. Important that it is built before 750 home are built, and the cost if building it should fall to developers Barkham Bridge – would be beneficial to have traffic calming measures, and oppose the widening of the bridge, which would make Barkham road a major access route for the SDL. Barkham Road not suitable as a key corridor into Wokingham. Speed limit should be reduced to 30mph for the length. Level crossing/mini roundabout on Barkham Road should be replaced by traffic lights. Construction traffic must be prohibited from using the residential roads through Barkham.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 204 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG354 Wynn and Helen Access to the SDL should be designed to Kenrick encourage traffic to use the A327. Construction traffic should be from the A327 and kept away from the Barkham network. Essential that the bypass be built and before 750 homes are built. It should be properly funded by the developers and central government and implemented early. Keep the spine roads passing adjacent but in sight of the village centres unless they are shared surface off the main through route. If additional traffic is allowed down Barkham and Bearwood Roads there will be unacceptable congestion. It makes sense to leave Barkham Bridge as it is and control traffic with lights. The level crossing is insufficient, and additional traffic will cause increased congestion. FC2/AG/355 Hatty Masser The A327 cannot cope with the extra traffic generated by building 3500 extra houses, schools (see above for summary, WBC response and a supermarket. and recommendations on this issue) At Bonney’s Yard, Eversley Bridge and the corner by the Tally Ho pub the road is too narrow for 2 HGV’s to pass. Heavy traffic regularly mounts the pavement. A327 is not a suitable access route for the new development. There are no plans to mitigate traffic around Eversley What are those improvements to the A327 going to be? No details have been provided by the SPD. It is clear that £300,000 will be inadequate for the level of improvements that are necessary. Why has only £300,00 been put aside for this. The recommendations of the EIP are legally binding and the EIP required Wokingham Borough Council Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 205 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

to detail improvements to transport capacity as part of the masterplanning process. This information as lacking in the SPDs. Traffic modelling information being available after the consultation is unacceptable. Where is the evidence that the once delivered the SDL package will achieve a nil detriment scenario in 2026? Website link to traffic modelling that has been used is broken. FC2/AG/356 Dr and Mrs McBurnie Concerned about traffic problems down mainly single track farm roads. (see above for summary, WBC response The proposed bypass if it came south of Arborfield and recommendations on this issue) would ruin rural and countryside areas and destroy wildlife and the environment and cause and increase in traffic. FC2/AG/358 Susan Philips The current roads around Arborfield and the surrounding villages cannot cope with the amount of construction traffic and additional cars that will be on the road. FC2/AG/359 Robert King Effect of the development on local roads, particularly the B3349 Barkham Road. Queuing traffic from the Barkham Brook is already a problem. Essential that improvements be made to Barkham Bridge to increase its capacity and that any measures do not further impede the flow of traffic in the direction of Wokingham. The introduction of traffic lights or narrowing of the bridge would be unacceptable. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter Object to the opening up of Bramshill Close, Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive and the ‘old’ part of Sheerlands Road to busses. To do so would require all 4 roads to be widened and the junction of Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive and Baird Road to be

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 206 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

enlarged and reopened with buses travelling on what are currently cul de sacs. This would increase danger to children and require many mature trees to be felled. Planned roads and transport infrastructure to support the SDL is totally inadequate. The roads between Arborfield and Barkham, Arborfield and Finchampstead, Arborfield and Winnersh, Arborfield and Shinfield and Arborfield and Eversley are already very congested. A comprehensive strategic approach to roads is and public transport is required with funding fully guaranteed in advance of any development. Incomprehensible why WBC has published their latest masterplan without having the results of the traffic survey. The plans to increase the size of Hogwood Industrial Estate are not sustainable from the point of view of the local roads. FC2/AG/363 Darren Rutter The roads in the Garrison area cannot handle the increase in traffic volume. Roads are already in a (see above for summary, WBC response bad condition and will only be in worse condition and recommendations on this issue) with development. FC2/AG/364 Vivien Quinn Eversley already suffers from the number of vehicles that pass through it, and the development will only make this worse, particularly the B3272 and A327. Development should not be approved without mitigation. FC2/AG/365 Roger and Sarah Murfitt Road infrastructure is inadequate to cope with increased traffic. Large traffic queues frequently form along Nine Mile Ride and Finchampstead Road at rush hour. Travel time s would be significantly increased if there were more traffic on the roads. FC2/AG/366 Cllr Philip Todd SPD consultation is premature because traffic

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 207 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

modelling has not been undertaken to understand the likely impacts on highways. Particular concern regarding the A327 that runs through Eversley.

How many homes should trigger highway improvements in this location?

What improvements will be needed for the A327 and how will it affect Eversley?

Appendices attached that interrogate strategic transport model in March 2011 that shows highway capacity restrained at the junctions and by Speed Flow curves allocated to roads and junctions. Observed traffic flows indicate that north flowing traffic on the A327 would be restricted by vehicles turning right – reducing the capacity of the A327.

Trip generation should also account for residents living in Hampshire

FC2/AG/367 Ken & Sue Naish Development will cause a considerable increase in traffic movements through Heckfield. The A327 will (see above for summary, WBC response inevitably be used, and is a minor road which and recommendations on this issue) already carries large numbers of heavy lorries and cars. Road is not designed to cope with the additional traffic that would be generated. FC2/AG/369 Jeff Hollis Concerned about the impact of the development on traffic in the area, particularly along Nine Mile Ride as a residential street. Nine Mile Ride will be unable to sustain additional levels of traffic that will be generated. - Acknowledged on the SPD that there will be a capacity issue along the A327 but there is no indication as to how it will be addressed.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 208 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/370 Penny Arlon Oppose the development proposals. Traffic on the A327 is already a problem, and so object to any increase in traffic. Levels of traffic already having an impact on Victorian home. If any development is made in the Arborfield area, proper investment in transport routes that bypass villages such as Eversley are should be made. FC2/AG/371 Patricia Clark Hugely concerned about the impact of traffic on already bust roads. The traffic modelling figures will (see above for summary, WBC response not correlate to traffic movement in 2011 onwards. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/373 Alison Ward on behalf Concern that master planning is being conducted in (FC2/IDC/54, of Arborfield & Newland the continued absence of transport modelling. FC2/ENV/7) Parish Council Arborfield bypass must be stated as the only acceptable solution to accommodate increased numbers of people – route must be known and plans developed.

Improvements for Barkham Bridge not deemed appropriate and will likely exacerbate problems.

Additional road users relating to the high school should be accommodated in the plans for Arborfield.

FC2/AG/374 Carline Lavelle Building of by-pass for Arborfield must be a mandatory part of the planning and needs to be in place before construction of any type takes place in order to achieve “nil detriment”. Roundabout in Eversley is not suitable to handle the volume of traffic which will cause congestion. FC2/AG/375 Hazel Burges Traffic congestion on or near Barkham Road gets worse every year. Has a survey been done to calculate how the roads will cope if you build

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 209 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

thousands of homes. FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith The existing road network is very difficult to negotiate at peak times, despite talk of by passes and infrastructure improvements; it is unclear how or where any road improvements could be made. How can the A327, Barkham Bridge, Reading Road, Farley Hill be improved due to exiting buildings sited very close to the roadside at each site? additional traffic in Arborfield will be detrimental to quality of life enjoyed by Arborfield residents currently and will compromise the safety of young road users. Can WBC clarify how it will deal with so many additional vehicles, where will the proposed road improvements go? FC2/AG/377 Richard Firth Main concerns relate to traffic on Barkham Road which has been described by the Woosehill (see above for summary, WBC response Inspector 40 years ago as being close to capacity. and recommendations on this issue) There seem to be no plans for dealing with this. Widening the road along most of its length will not ease congestion. Delays at Wokingham Station level crossing are bound to get worse in the absence of a radical solution. Hope that it will be possible to arrange for not all the construction traffic to come to the SDL from the A327. Commonfield Lane is to be a bus transport corridor to Wokingham, Reading etc. Widening is possible there but not in Barkham Street. Can we be told which way these buses will be travelling? FC2/AG/378 Colin Ridout Roads in the area are already heavily congested. No plans have been put in place for improving the roads in the surrounding area. The issue lies with getting access to the Motorways of the M3 and M4.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 210 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Queues of traffic regularly stretch from Reading back to Arborfield, and into Yateley and Sandhurst from the A30. Additional vehicles will cause gridlock, putting additional cost on industry and individuals in the area. - Arborfield, Eversley, Eversley Cross, Barkham and Finchampstead Village roads are completely unsuitable for taking the additional volume of traffic. Eversley in particular, has narrow roads without pavements in some places, dangerous to other road users such as cyclists and pedestrians and school children. FC2/AG/379 Andrew Collins The impact of traffic on The Street in Eversley has not been adequately addressed. (see above for summary, WBC response WBC has failed to consider the real impact on the and recommendations on this issue) A327 south of the proposed development, particularly in The Eversley Street conservation Area. Inclusion of a few cycle lanes and bus service will have no mitigation on construction traffic during the development over a period of 20 years. Consideration should be given as to how construction traffic should be routed in the event of the Hampshire section of the A327 was either downgraded to a B road or marked as non – HGV route. Traffic modelling of the impact of 3500 homes north of Basingstoke, Fleet and the M3 has not been adequately considered. The assumptions in the proposal are made in out of date traffic data. Consultation should be delayed until more recent data is made available. FC2/AG/380 Michael Crabb Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads and site access should be properly routed onto the A327.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 211 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Through traffic should be discouraged on all Barkham roads including Bearwood Road and Barkham Road. Speed limits of 30mph or lower (see above for summary, WBC response should be imposed on the full length of these roads. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/381 Robert A. Rowe A bypass is essential to avoid major congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads through Barkham (Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, Bearwood Road, School Road) as these roads will otherwise become the main access points for the SDL. Essential that the bypass is built before the 750 houses. Barkham Road is unsuitable as the primary link into Wokingham as it is a residential road with little possibility of widening. The local primary and junior schools should not be forced into carrying more traffic on safety grounds. All construction traffic should be prohibited from using any residential roads through Barkham village. Barkham Bridge would benefit from traffic light flow control. To further widen the bridge would be a retrograde step in that it would encourage its use as a major SDL access route. FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium suggests that Nine Mile Ride alignment Landowner Consortium should be changed and moved westwards as shown in the Consortiums TA. FC2/AG/383 Cristina Marinoni Bypass is essential to avoid congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads through Barkham (Langley Common Road, Barkham Road, Bearwood Road, School Road). Must be completed before the 750 homes are built. Cost should fall to developers not ratepayers. Opposed to the widening of the Barkham Bridge and suggest that traffic calming would be essential. Barkham road not suitable as key access into

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 212 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Wokingham. Residential road with little possibility of widening. School road should not carry any more traffic Level crossing mini roundabout should be replaced (see above for summary, WBC response by a traffic light scheme synchronized with opening and recommendations on this issue) of the level crossing. Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham. The North West gateway to the new village should not be in Langley Common Road. Gateway should be Bramshill Hunt roundabout on A327. Lack of direct access from north of the SDL to A327 increases likelihood of Langley Common Road, Barkham Road and School Road becoming main access roads for the SDL. FC2/AG/384 Laurence Heath on Traffic modelling must inform the SPDs and any behalf of Barkham assumptions made now are premature. Parish Council Support the bypass and 750 house trigger.

Capacity issues at Barkham level crossing must be resolved before any development proceeds.

Secondary school is welcome but concerns are raised over travel patterns of pupils.

FC2/AG/385 Ashley Wright Difficult to respond to the consultation as the traffic modelling is out of date and inadequate. How does WBC expect agreement or disagreement if the current consultation is based upon 2004/2005 modelling which does not include any school run traffic? Will there be further consultation now that WBC is revising their traffic modelling?

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 213 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

The SDL document does not reflect the need for the Bypass Does not seem to be a plan or policy about how (see above for summary, WBC response construction plan will be managed. Not acceptable and recommendations on this issue) to have a constant flow of heavy HGV’s moving through the village. A number of listed buildings on the A327 are being damaged by lorries. WBC and the developer need to formulate a safe and sustainable routing system that will not use local b roads or Eversley Road between the Cross roundabout and the Bramshill pub roundabout. FC2/AG/387 Catherine Drew Concerned about the building of 3500 houses without adequate investment in transport routes towards Reading/Wokingham/Bracknell/Basingstoke. FC2/AG/388 Eoin Igoe Concerned about the impact of the house building and associated traffic on local roads given the apparent mitigations in play. Essential to commit immediately to building a bypass around Arborfield Cross to avoid gridlock at rush hour. The roundabouts at Barkham Road/Bearwood and Arborfield Cross are vulnerable to tailbacks. Concerned that School Road will become a busy road. This road is not suitable for significant through traffic. Essential that plans start now to ensure that the Arborfield bypass scheme a direct connection from the SDL to the A327 and further measures to discourage traffic from the SDL using the Barkham Road route to reach major roads or centres. FC2/AG/389 Laura Heyliger Concerned that the necessary Traffic modelling has not been completed by the Borough and as such the necessary traffic assumptions required to make appropriate decisions cannot be backed up with current data.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 214 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Without any direct access from north of the SDL to the A327, there will be considerable increase in the flow of traffic along the Langley Common Road, (see above for summary, WBC response Barkham Road, School Road an d Bearwood Road. and recommendations on this issue) Essential that the bypass be completed before 750 homes are built. The cost of the bypass does not seem to take into account the acquisition of land, and it is important that it is funded by developers not tax payers. Improvements to the railway crossing on Barkham Road needs to be given priority. Opposed to the suggestion that the Barkham Bridge is widened, as it would make Barkham Road and Bearwood Road a moan access route or the SDL Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham and should be restricted to using the A327 and the Arborfield Cross by pass once built. FC2/AG/390 Monica Vecchi Igoe Worried about the amount of extra traffic that will be created down Barkham Road and School Road. No significant traffic should go down School Road where parents and children are crossing the road and dropping off. These roads are not suitable for heavy construction traffic, must be kept to major roads. Arborfield bypass needs to be in place before significant building starts. FC2/AG/391 Nick Philips The increased number of vehicles will have a significant impact on traffic in the area, and lead to bottle necks on the key roads in and out of the area at busy times. FC2/AG/392 Kerry Yates Impact of traffic through the village of Eversley has not been properly considered. It will impede ability to cycle children to school along the main road which is already busy at peak times.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 215 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Urge the council to await the results of traffic data for Eversley before making a decision. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/393 Rod & Judi Hoy Concerned that the road network in Barkham and and recommendations on this issue) the surrounding villages are barely adequate to cope with the traffic at the present time. Road infrastructure needs to be vastly improved. Currently there are long delays caused by traffic build up at the Barkham Bill junction and the level crossing in Wokingham. Amazed at the suggestion that 750 homes can be built before any significant road improvements are made. Feel that WBC must stand firm on insisting that the developers provide a bypass to carry as much traffic as possible away from the development as the roads and junctions are stretched to capacity. FC2/AG/394 Richard Watson The development will primarily be a commuter town as it is situated several miles from Wokingham, other major employment areas and train stations. The relocation of the school and development of a supermarket will create significant additional journeys into and out of the area for non residents. Even taking into account the infrastructure changes recommended in the SPD, the existing road network will not be able to cope. Existing congestion at Sindlesham Road and the approach to Sainsbury’s junction at Winnersh, Mill Road and the single lane bridges at Sindlesham, Barkham Road and the approach to Wokingham and the level crossing. Area surrounding the proposed development is largely composed of rural roads. They were not designed for, and are unable to cope with the current levels of traffic and will not be able to cope with the increase in traffic from a new development, 3 new schools a supermarket and an extension to Hogwood Business Park.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 216 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

The proposed bypass would make the situation worse by drawing more traffic onto the A327 from Reading and onto local roads. The development would have a significant impact on traffic flow through Farley Hill and Swallowfield. (see above for summary, WBC response Narrow road through Farley Hill village is adjoined to and recommendations on this issue) a primary school, which reduce the road to a single lane at certain times of the day. WBC already aware of these issues. FC2/AG/396 David and Louise Concerned about the increase in traffic through Dunne Eversley ‘The Street’ a conservation area. It is not designed or equipped to handle the additional traffic the development would cause. if the bypass was implemented objections to the development could be discounted. If it does not go ahead in advance of Arborfield Garrison as planned then strongly object. FC2/AG/397 Paul Taylor Object to the proposal of the main thoroughfare being placed in the middle of existing residential area. If it is to be built in should be in areas C which will have new housing surrounding it. FC2/AG/398 Laurence Heath The bypass is essential. Concerned that the development will put unreasonable pressure on residential roads in Barkham, Finchampstead and Arborfield. The route of the bypass and the internal network of the SDL should be coordinated in such a way to maximise the use of the new road and to minimise access along residential roads through neighbouring villages. The SPD should give proper guidance about the location of the interchange between the SDL and the A327. The layout of the northern and southern ends of the SDL should encourage as much traffic as possible

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 217 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

to use the relief road and discourage use of Langley Common Road/Barkham Road, Nine Mile Ride and School Road as main access routes. FC2/AG/400 Janet Firth The capacity of the existing road system (see above for summary, WBC response surrounding the SDL and the expected impact of and recommendations on this issue) traffic on them, particularly in Barkham. When Barkham Road and Barkham Street is at full capacity it is almost impossible to turn right out of ones gate already. There should be traffic lights and not a wider road at the bridge over Barkham Brook on Barkham Road. Arborfield bypass should be costed, the line chosen as soon as possible and built before the number of newly built houses in the SDL reaches 1000. FC2/AG/401 Toby Perring Severe infrastructure limitations in the area, which the SPD does not address. The route to Junction 11 and Reading through Arborfield and Shinfield is already jammed with traffic at rush hour, with Arborfield Cross a danger to pedestrians. The route into Wokingham is inadequate because of the single lane bridge at Barkham and the bottleneck of the level crossing T Wokingham railway station. FC2/AG/402 Jon Attwood and Family Incredible that no solid plans are in place for upgrading the road network to accommodate additional traffic to and from the Arborfield Garrison Development. Barkham road is already very busy during rush hour. FC2/AG/403 Sarah Warr Particularly object to the building development in Crowthorne in the Pinewood area. This will substantially increase the traffic problem there is no local railway line and no bus service in the area, therefore forcing more cars onto the roads.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 218 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/404 Olga Hughes Concerned about extra traffic that the development (same as 406) will generate. Area is already suffering from traffic congestion especially during peak times. Statement that development will have nil detriment is not convincing given the use of outdated traffic census reports in the SDL documents. Lack of up-to-date traffic data results in SDL being fundamentally flawed. FC2/AG/405 Jeff and Jane Thomas The development and its construction will cause unacceptable increases in the volume of road traffic (see above for summary, WBC response through Eversley in all directions. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/407 Martin & Kate Robinson Appears that no consideration has been given to what would be a substantial increase in traffic passing through the Village, not just from the new houses but from the 3 new schools a new supermarket and a bus depot. There is little or no room to improve the A327 to cope with additional traffic. FC2/AG/405 Daniel Craddock Traffic is already an issue in Eversley. Very difficult to turn out of driveway onto the A327 at the street section. Narrow road means that HGV’s are often forced to mount the section of pavements that exist. Make no provision within the SDL about how traffic flowing south to the M£ will be achieved. Only refer to the A327 in within Wokingham and not Eversley. Why is there no pan for a relief road for Eversley? FC2/AG/409 Philip Todd Objects to lack of traffic modelling that impedes any (FC2/SM4/98) conclusions that can be drawn. FC2/AG/410 Stephanie Weaver Object to the opening up of Sheerlands Road/Tyler Drive and Whitehall Drive for a possible new bus route and most likely all other traffic including lorries. What plans are in place for the surrounding roads in and out of Arborfield? No firm plans are in place to

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 219 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

alleviate the already congested roads. FC2/AG412 Dianne & Fabio Gallina As residents of Evendons Lane, concerned about the inevitable rise in traffic, and how the infrastructure as it stands will cope. Increasingly aware of the traffic using Edneys Hill and then Evendons Lane as a cut through to central Wokingham and beyond. Concerned that Evendons lane will be included in future redevelopment plans. FC2/AG/413 Dawn Maylam Concerned about the current high volumes of HGV’s along ‘The Street’ in Eversley. Should be taken very (see above for summary, WBC response seriously along with any proposal to further traffic and recommendations on this issue) increases along the A327 The size of the development will result in an unreasonable increase in the amount of traffic which will use the A327 in both directions from Arborfield on what is already an intolerable amount of traffic to the residents of The Street. Difficulty exiting property which is on the A327. The impact HGV’s have on grade II listed property. The vibrations must inevitably be causing damage to the foundations. If more homes are to be built then the bypass must be built. The A327 cannot support anymore traffic. The cost of the bypass must fall to the developers. FC2/AG/414 A C Lewis The CS and subsequent inspectors report reinforces (same as the need for the bypass. The inspector confirmed 448L) that the trigger point of 750 homes being built meant that the by pass should be constructed and fully operational before the 751st house was built and occupied. The SDL does not include any proposals for the bypass and the figure of £9m for construction is totally inadequate. The route and actual Costings must be finalised before the SDL is adopted. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 220 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/415 Nick Teall Have been unable to access the results of the traffic (same as 449) modelling form the Wokingham Council website. The model is likely to seriously underestimate likely (see above for summary, WBC response additional traffic volumes. Do not believe it will be and recommendations on this issue) possible to achieve the stated position of ‘nil detriment scenario in 2026’ FC2/AGG/416 Rob Rowe on behalf of Welcome traffic light controls on the Barkham Barkham Village Bridge. However strongly oppose the widening of Residents Association the bridge, as it would lead to Barkham road becoming a major access route for the SDL. Who will pay for the acquisition of land, environmental mitigation and design consent costs of the Arborfield cross bypass? Urge the council to build a bypass without further delay and to ensure the cost is borne by the developer. The lack of direct access from the north of the SDL to the A327 will only encourage more traffic to use residential roads through Barkham. Langley Common Road is known to have an inadequate substructure to bear weight of HGV’s, and Barkham Road, Bearwood Road and School Road are also unsuitable. Instead of Langley Common Road being the North West ‘gateway’, it should become a ‘T’ junction off Biggs Lane, and Biggs Lane as the ‘spine’ road through the north of the SDL, should directly join the Bramshill Hunt roundabout on the A327 via the northern end of the Baird Road service road. No plans to improve the level crossing on the Barkham Road side of Wokingham station. The existing layout including the mini roundabout should be replaced by a traffic light scheme synchronized with the opening and closing of the level crossing. Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham and restricted to Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 221 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

using the A327 (and bypass once built) FC2/AG/417 William Gilmore Local roads in Eversley do not cope well with heavy goods traffic or at peak times, this would only be (see above for summary, WBC response made worse by development. and recommendations on this issue) The Development would have an extremely devastating effect on the village of Eversley. Would be subjected to high increase in traffic, FC2/AG/418 Mr and Mrs Robert De There has been a change in the wording of the Meyer Arborfield Garrison master plan originally stated that there would be a bypass if more than 750 homes were built, but now it states that there will be improvements to Arborfield cross junction or a new bypass beyond 750 homes. The current roundabout has proved to be inadequate and unsafe, it s not suitable at the heart of a small village. The road structure struggles to cope with current volumes of traffic and cannot cope with extra traffic. The council must look to the future to plan their roads for the long term rather than just try and adapt an already inefficient junction. A bypass needs to be an integral part of the new infrastructure. FC2/AG/420 M Barrie The development would cause disruption to the whole area, especially all the services, the traffic would be gridlocked most of the time, school children and old people will not be able to cross the roads. Finchampstead and Yateley would be used as rat runs, because Eversley could not cope with the volume of traffic. FC2/AG/421 A Barrie Traffic is horrendous at them moment and it will escalate beyond recognition. The council cannot maintain the roads at the moment so how are they going to maintain them in the future. Eversley Village is not made to take HGV’s or heavy traffic. If they cannot get through Eversley then Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 222 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Finchampstead village will become a rat run.

FC2/AG/422 Mr M Henley A bypass will be essential to avoid congestion at Arborfield Cross and residential roads through (see above for summary, WBC response Barkham becoming main access roads to the SDL. and recommendations on this issue) It must be completed before 750 homes are built. Traffic calming at Barkham Bridge would be welcomed. Opposed to the widening of the bridge. Barkham road not suited a key corridor into Wokingham. School lane should not carry more through traffic Level crossing mini roundabout should be replaced by traffic light scheme synchronized with the opening and closing of level crossing. Construction traffic should be prohibited from using residential roads through Barkham. North west gateway to new village should not be in Langley Common Road Lack of direct access from north of the SDL to A327. FC2/AG/423 Mr D Bradley Lack of consideration of the impact on traffic on the A327 through ‘The Street’ in Eversley. This lack of consideration contravenes the General Principles of PPS’s. Without consideration of the impact of increased traffic on the A327 the development is not sustainable. The road is already over burdened today, cannot take an extra burden of construction and residential traffic from 2010 onwards. (provides statistical data and analysis of the problem as an attachment to letter) The SDL masterplan makes no mention of this despite reference under policy CP18 of the adopted CS that a key element is ‘improvements in transport capacity along the A327. Relief could be provided by a road linking the A327 to the A33 a much better road for southbound traffic. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 223 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Eversley residents demand an in depth analysis of both the impact and possible mitigation measure be carried out before the project proceeds.

FC2/AG/424 Mrs Brunhilde Williams The ever increasing volume of traffic including light and heavy goods vehicles is causing great concern. (see above for summary, WBC response Concerned about the heavy goods vehicles driving and recommendations on this issue) across the narrow Eversley Bridge and then trying to handle the immediate left hand bend into Berkshire from Hampshire.

FC2/AG/425 Stephen R Jones It is 4 miles to Wokingham train station but you need to allow 25 minutes to get to town or the station at rush hour. The train station car park is often completely full and there is no parking on any of the local streets. The roads through Shinfield also queue heavily in rush hour and the new road systems have had zero impact on reducing the problem. How does WBC plan to deal with the increase in traffic and the parking problems in Wokingham? FC2/AG/426 Elizabeth Cannon It is 4 miles to Wokingham train station but you need to allow 25 minutes to get to town or the station at rush hour. The train station car park is often completely full and there is no parking on any of the local streets. The roads through Shinfield also queue heavily in rush hour and the new road systems have had zero impact on reducing the problem. How does WBC plan to deal with the increase in traffic and the parking problems in Wokingham? FC2/AG/427 Catherine and Kevin Barkham Bridge will cause traffic to go faster as the Goodwin extra width will enable it. Horse riders and cyclists will be put in much greater danger. Traffic lights are a much safer option.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 224 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

The railway crossing in Wokingham won’t cope with more traffic. Access to the new development is also an issue. Opposite school Road with all the school traffic and traffic going towards Reading seems very unsuitable as it is so well used. The other access site by the Bramshill Hunt roundabout is also very busy and used a lot in all directions. Don’t think local roads can cope with these 2 sites as access points. FC2/AG/429 Francis and Audrey Concerned about the inadequacy of the road Moore system to support construction traffic during the 15 (see above for summary, WBC response year building period. and recommendations on this issue) Nine Mile Ride will be badly affected; it is already heavily loaded with vehicles and is frequently subjected to roadwork. FC2/AG/430 J. W. Fraser Although the Arborfield relief road may solve a problem within Arborfield Cross it will merely exacerbate the existing traffic problems to the Reading and Eversley sides of it. A more co- ordinated plan, involving adjacent authorities, for the large increase in traffic in the surrounding area is required. Not just the north – south traffic flows that need to be considered. Many new residents will need to drive to the East or West in order to get their place of work. Particularly concerned about the current situation in the ‘rush hour’ on the roads through Farley Hill and Swallowfield which is already appalling. FC2/AG/431 Julia Shepherd Roads cannot cope with huge amounts of traffic. FC2/AG/432 Simon Smith Concerned about the effect the development would have on the volume of traffic passing through Eversley, particularity the Street. FC2/AG/434 R. Beer Traffic chaos on the roads in Finchampstead, Nine Mile Ride, Eversley, Barkham, Shinfield and Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 225 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Winnersh. Traffic is already bad. FC2/AG/435 A. J. Cockrill The A327 and the B3272 roads through Eversley are already inadequate for the volumes of traffic of all types using them. The increase in traffic as a result of the development would inevitably raise danger levels for driver’s cyclists and pedestrians. FC2/AG/437 Mr & Mrs M. L Jackson The A327 is already a very busy road; exiting and accessing drive at peak times is a hazard. (see above for summary, WBC response The whole area will become gridlocked if the and recommendations on this issue) development plans are realised. FC2/AG/439 Mr D. A Woolgar The roads surrounding Arborfield are already under stress. Nine Mile Ride already carries heavy traffic to the detriment of houses. FC2/AG/440 Mrs J.H.P Sharpe The roads in the area are already a nightmare.

FC2/AG/441 unknown Construction traffic must be banned from using minor roads through the villages. Additional planning applications in the surrounding area which would add to traffic volumes would have to be carefully controlled for the duration of the project and beyond Increased traffic volumes from this and other planed developments would result in encouraging the use of villages as rat runs, particularly the extension of Nine Mile Ride at its junction with the A327. Routes in the area should be clearly marked particularly from eh A327 to the A33 and junction 11. Measures must be put in place urgently to protect Farley Hill in particular from increased traffic. FC2/AG/442 Caroline Sellick Concerned that one of the principle routes for traffic from the proposed development at Arborfield Garrison will be the A327 and the B3272. They both carry heavy traffic at the moment and are quite unsuitable for then number of vehicles which may Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 226 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

be expected to stream from the new development. The increase in traffic will have a bad effect on life in (see above for summary, WBC response Eversley and Yateley particularly in the stretch The and recommendations on this issue) Street where the carriageway narrows and the houses are shaken. FC2/AG/443 C S Barson The Arborfield bypass has already been reduced as a requirement within the plans but must be considered essential before development is allowed. The effect on Barkham Road has been almost neglected, with only minor adjustments to the bridge being mentioned. The major supermarkets of Tesco, Sainsbury’s Morrison’s Waitrose and the proposed Lidl and Elms Field Stores all require travel on the Barkham Road. There is little opportunity to improve traffic flow on Barkham Road which will become a bottleneck. The level crossing will suffer the same difficulties. FC2/AG/444L Richard Owen Concerned about the effect the new development will have on traffic on the area, and the impact on queuing traffic. Concerned about the delays at junctions and lights, such as the new bottle neck at the Reading to Shinfield road caused by lights, recently installed. FC2/AG/445L Andy South The road structure in Eversley has not been built to take the volume of extra traffic. FC2/AG/446L Jane South The development would increase the volume of traffic through Eversley dramatically. FC2/AG/447L Mr & Mrs Colin Williams The proposed development will add extra pressure to the already busy road structures around Finchampstead and Arborfield. There will be a huge increase on the existing road structure during construction which is unavoidable. FC2/AG/450L Tim Smith The traffic on the A327 is already at an unacceptable level and the proposed development at Arborfield will significantly add to and compound

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 227 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

an already over crowded road. Has a bypass been considered? Need a road designed and fit for purpose for the volume of traffic (see above for summary, WBC response the A327 supports. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/451L Paul Harris Existing infrastructure cannot support the current number of houses. The slightest problem/road works causes untold delays and misery for the local population. Need to solve the current issues first. FC2/AG/452L Edgar Studer The Nine Mile Ride and Barkham Road are already too narrow and cannot be more loaded. FC2/AG/454 Mrs C Hayward Congestion along Barkham Road is already a big problem. More houses will make it worse. Theme 8: ADMINISTRATION - Safeguarding other land / Administration / Proposed open spaces Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Safeguard other land FC2/AG/78 Mrs R Henley Playing fields and other open spaces are vulnerable Summary (FC2/IDC/2) to development. Public open spaces and school Provisions should be made to allow the playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity management and safeguarding of against risk of future development. They should be playfields and open spaces in perpetuity. owned and managed by the community. WBC Response It is not the role of the ARBSPD to set out detailed proposals upon future safeguarding of open spaces. However, the ARBSPD recognises the importance of long –term management of open spaces and recommends in paragraph 6.5 this need and the requirement for developers to explain how public open spaces will be managed by a specialist company or community development trust.

Recommendations No recommended change.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 228 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Administration FC2/AG/36 Steve Honour It needs to be ensured that various departments Summary within Council communicate to ensure flood A separate local council should be prevention measures are not compromised. created to administer the new SDL FC2/AG/62 Terry Heffernan Planning process is severely flawed as it fails to development area. consider or make provisions for impact on local environment and infrastructure that is already WBC Response struggling to cope. This issue goes beyond the scope of the FC2/AG/153 Graham Drewett There should be a separate local council to serve ARBSDL to set out detailed the new SDL community. administrative proposals but will form part FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Large amount of literature is confusing and a of the administrative issues dealt with summary of when decisions will be taken and the later on. priority for development would be appreciated. FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Housing forecast is based on out-of-date data and Recommendations should be revisited. Criticism that local views are not No recommended change. listened to. FC2/AG/209 Joan Morley A new local council should be installed to serve the (FC1/ICD/13) new community. FC2/AG/210 Steve Ollerhead A new local council should be installed to serve the (FC1/ICD/14) new community. FC2/AG/279 Robert Newman A new Local Parish Council should be established to represent the current and new houses (people) within the boundary or the SDL. FC2/AG/291 Roger Huggan There should be a separate local council to serve the new SDL community. FC2/AG/293 Brigitte Huggan There should be a separate local council to serve the new SDL community. FC2/AG/307 David Wright There should be a separate local council to serve (FC2/IDC/33) the new SDL community. FC2/AG/308 Jennifer Wright There should be a separate local council to serve (FC2/IDC/34) the new SDL community. FC2/AG/314 Finchampstead Parish The SDL should be administered by a new separate Council parish council to reflect the new identity and character for the SDL. Section 2.4 should add the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 229 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

following: “Once the new settlement reaches an appropriate size there will be a community governance review with a view to the establishment of a separate (see above for summary, WBC response parish council to serve the settlement.” and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/323 Peter McSweeny Should the new development have a distinct local (FC2/IDC/39) council rather than shifting the balance of interest in the existing parishes of Barkham and Arborfield? FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter WBC and al of the affected Parish Councils have stated that they wish to retain a separation between the parishes. As the boundary between Finchampstead runs through Area B to the south of Tyler Drive, the masterplan should be amended to exclude any development in Area B to the west of Sheerlands Road. FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium raise objections to the SPD and cannot Landowner Consortium sign up to and deliver the proposed SPD because SPD does not accord with South East Plan or Core Strategy because it does not make provision for a minimum 3,500 dwellings. Also, SDL boundary needs to reflect MOD ownership. FC2/AG/386 Carrie Temple on Recommend that a project-level appropriate behalf of the RSPB assessment be undertaken for the SPD proposals to ensure that impacts on the SPA are fully considered in planning terms.

RSPB recommends that SPDs should state the need to contribute to Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) as set out in the Council’s Impact Avoidance Strategy.

Proposed open spaces FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat Concerns that the green area at the top of Summary Sheerlands Road adjacent to the nursery has now Green spaces at Sheerlands Road been included as a development location and areas should not be developed. Playing fields

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 230 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

of existing trees being reduced. This land and its and opens spaces should be trees should be protected as a valuable local safeguarded from development. amenity for recreational purposes. FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison Playing fields and other open spaces should be WBC Response safeguarded in perpetuity against future This issue goes beyond the scope of the development. They should be owned and managed ARBSDL to set out detailed by community. administrative proposals but will form part FC2/AG/120 Kerry Chalmers Development would result in loss of valuable green of the administrative issues dealt with fields and countryside. later on. FC2/AG/153 Graham Drewett Public open spaces and school playing fields need to be safeguarded in perpetuity and playing fields Recommendations and other open spaces should be owned and No recommended change. managed by community. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of A good model for long term management of the the Arborfield Working landscape is Ernest Cook Trust. Party Ongoing maintenance of landscaping is critical. FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan How has open space been calculated? (FC2/IDC/8) Include requisite green and sports infrastructure in addition to the SANG. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan In whose ownership will playing fields (school and public) and other open space is to be vested? FC2/AG/176 Spencer King Road infrastructure is inadequate (in particular Nine Mile Road) for proposed development and level of traffic. FC2/AG/209 Joan Morley Playing fields and school fields need to be (FC1/ICD/13) safeguarded against development. FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad Already have safe open spaces to play and do sports why is a development needed to provide this? FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium objects to amount of open space Landowner Consortium including within brownfield sites exceeds that required by Core Strategy – currently estimated at 60ha (consortia estimate a provision of 14ha reflects WBC open space standards and Core Strategy Inspector decisions.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 231 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Theme 9: CENTRES - Topics: District Centre District Centre / Existing community uses / Supermarket / Schools / Health Services / Community Development Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response District Centre FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach Reservations about the urban character of the Summary (also comments district centres and the contemporary designs for Mixed views were received regarding the on Infrastructure community buildings in such a rural setting. new district centre with some supporting SPD) the initiative whilst others had concerns FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to District and neighbourhood centres as regarding its scale and position in the (FC2/IDC/17) this SDL should be restricted to brownfield ARBSDL. development only and consequently the proportion of development should be scaled back. WBC Response FC2/AG/236 Dean Chamberlain Building a district centre seems extremely The ARBSPD is framed by the Core unnecessary and unthoughtful. Strategy that requires the proposed District Centre at a central point, well integrated with educational and other facilities. Appendix 7b) of the Core Strategy states: “The mix of uses, which should be concentrated in a new district and neighbourhood centres to provide for convenience retail, nursery, primary and secondary education, primary health care and community facilities.”

The ARBSPD seeks to position the district centre as the community hub for local activity. Its scale and land uses accommodated within it will ensure good levels of access to services and facilities for all residents, and will reinforce the objective of a self-contained settlement.

Since the previous consultation events an indicative layout has been drawn up to illustrate how the district and

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 232 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

neighbourhodd centre could positively interact with new and existing development – shown in Appendix One.

Public and community uses will be located according to their anticipated catchment, and following accessibility standards set out as a guide in para. 4a(ii).

Residential uses should also be included in the neighbourhood and district centres and are seen as essential for their vibrancy, safety and appeal.

Detailed assessments of the neighbourhood and district centres that tackle issues relating to amenity will be addressed in later stages of the design and planning process.

Recommendation No recommended change. FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium is concerned that neighbourhood Landowner Consortium centres raise commercial viability issues as they will compete with district centre. It is suggested to move the district centre in line with the Consortium’s master plan. FC2/AG/136 Brian and Carole Le Development sounds reasonably attractive in terms Page of design and amenities in the district centre. FC2/AG/279 Robert Newman The two secondary and one primary ‘shopping’ areas should not be divided by roads, the area should be pedestrianised like Woodley. FC2/AG344 Derek Oxbrough A small shopping complex should be built prior to any housing to reduce unnecessary traffic flow into

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 233 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Wokingham along existing roads. Supermarket FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey No need for new shopping centre. Summary FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer While new schools are welcome and will be needed Concerns raised regarding the provision Deering once the development is up, a new supermarket of a new supermarket and its associated and the extra traffic that it will bring is not. traffic and pressure on existing FC2/AG/217 Ken & Mary Lane Superstore and secondary school are likely to rather community uses and open spaces. draw traffic from surrounding areas than containing traffic. WBC Response FC2/AG/225 Timothy J Wileman No need for another supermarket in the area as The ARBSPD is framed by the Core 2 there are enough options (another one being Strategy, which requires a 4000m constructed in the Molly Millar lane area). supermarket with a range of other FC2/AG/236 Dean Chamberlain A supermarket will serve the new development but facilities. The ARBSPD recommends that also bring more traffic from surrounding areas. the District Centre should be located There are enough supermarkets in the area. centrally within the SDL to act as a community hub for new and existing residents.

Further design work has also been produced to illustrate how the large footprint land uses such as a supermarket can be designed thoughtfully into the block (figure 4.6).

Recommendation

No recommended change.

FC2/AG/273 Sajjad Abbasi The proposal of the supermarket will breed anti social behaviour and drug pushing culture. FC2/AG/275 Hina Abbasi The proposal of the supermarket will breed anti social behaviour and drug pushing culture. FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown No need for a supermarket, there are enough surrounding the area and there is enough choice. Building another will just increase traffic and

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 234 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

pollution. FC2/AG/322 Daniel Boys The proposed supermarket will draw further traffic into the area and contribute to an increase in noise and congestion. FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith Do not need a supermarket in Arborfield, there are shopping facilities in Wokingham. It will result in more traffic, lighting, delivery lorries, noise and rubbish. The Proposed buffer zone is very small. Schools FC2/AG/4 Sarah Turner Why is new secondary school proposed when Summary Ryelish Green is perfectly adequate? Whilst some supported the provision of new educational facilities as part of the FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey No need for new schools, redeveloping Ryeish ARBSDL some raised concerns Green would be cheaper. regarding the Borough’s education FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat Seems a waste of money to close and demolish one strategy concerning the potential closure (M4 SDL) secondary school at in the South of of Emmbrook and Reyish Green schools. M4 SDL and another at Emmbrook and then build a new school at Arborfield only then having to Concerns were also raised regarding the transport students from the South of M4 SDL and potential loss of sports fields as a result around Emmbrook to a new school at Arborfield. of the new primary school. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan One new primary school taking a large section of open space that is well used for sports facilities by WBC Response the existing resident’s but completely ignore their The ARBSPD responds to the Concept responsibility for the secondary school and the other Rationale set by the Core Strategy to primary school (not profitable enough). Schools will provide a new secondary and two primary create noise and therefore is a negative response schools as part of the new development (para 3.2.9). at Arborfield. In order to reinforce the Site is designated for a new secondary school; with self-containment of the settlement, the the possibility of a free school on the old Ryeish schools should be located in the District Green Secondary School in Shinfield linked to major and Neighbourhood Centres. development for Shinfield is such a big school based on good practice if the free school is Indicative design concepts have been approved? Will its viability threaten the other prepared and illustrated in Appendix 1 infrastructure contributions needed to make the that shows how the new primary school location sustainable? could retain the existing playing field.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 235 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Provision of a secondary school is crucial but along with highway/public transport needs and other The Council’s education policies, infrastructure. requirements for the delivery of schools FC2/AG/174 Lee & Emma Painter Existing primary schools in area are oversubscribed and school places, and the definition of and proposed development will make situation school catchments are the responsibility worse. of the Local Education Authority. Schools required in the ARBSDL are as a result of the LEA’s forward planning, and the requirement for two new primary schools at ARBSDL is set out in Core Strategy Policy CP18.

The role of the ARBSDL is to identify the optimum location for the schools, to ensure that they are centrally located within their catchments and easily accessible. The ARBSPD is based on the work and policies of the LEA.

Funding for secondary school places will be required as part of Section 106 Agreements, and will therefore be legally binding.

It should be noted that a new secondary school will be provided at Arborfield SDL.

Traffic modelling takes account of school travel patterns.

More detailed planning and design will be required as part of future planning applications.

Recommendation

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 236 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

No recommended change.

FC2/AG/250 Mrs S Hill The proposed secondary school at Arborfield Garrison SDL is welcome. However the school needs to be an additional school not a replacement for Emmbrook Secondary School. FC2/AG/269 Katy Stanlake Don’t object to the building of new schools but feel that investment should be made in the existing infrastructure. FC2/AG/284 Mrs K Tipton The proposed secondary school is not wanted by residents. The original planning indicated that this (see above for summary, WBC response was requires due to Ryeish Green school closing. and recommendations on this issue) As it may re-pen as a free school the requirement for a new school is not there. FC2/AG/297 Darren Tipton Clear that a secondary school is not wanted in Arborfield. It has been proposed on the basis that Ryeish Green closed. However, it looks now that it will reopen as a free school. FC2/AG/300 Karen Brown Additional schools are not needed in the area. Plenty of primary schools within the surrounding area. FC2/AG/348 Celia Adams on behalf The parish council wishes to receive confirmation of Swallowfield Parish that the catchment area of the proposed senior Council school in the Arborfield Garrison will include the parish. FC2/AG/358 Susan Philips Local school (resident of Langley Common Road) is not full FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter Illogical that WBC should wish to close 2 existing secondary schools and replace them with a new secondary school in Arborfield. What Is the justification of this? WBC should support local parents plans to reopen Ryeish Green as a free school and stop their plans for a new secondary school n Arborfield. FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith How can WBC spend money on a new secondary

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 237 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

school at Arborfield when there is a perfectly good school which is likely to open as a free school on the old Ryeish Green site? Would be far more environmentally friendly and would cost significantly (see above for summary, WBC response less. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium suggests that the schools could be Landowner Consortium relocated – the secondary school to the Garrison and northern primary closer to Area B. Flexibility is needed to allow the location of secondary and primary schools to move – secondary could go to the Garrison and northern primary moved closer to Area B. FC2/AG/384 Laurence Heath Secondary school is welcome but concerned about travel patterns of pupils. FC2/AG/403 Sarah Warr Local schools should not take the influx of pupils even temporarily. Health Services FC2/AG/62 Terry Heffernan No additional health care arrangements are Summary contained in the plan. Development will place Concerns raised regarding the limited additional strain on local GP’s and residents of the amount of detail within the SPD regarding development will be solely reliant upon the hospital the provision of new healthcare facilities. in Reading which is already struggling to cope with demand. Concerns also raised regarding the strain FC2/AG/73 John Carter Concern that health services won’t be sufficient to that the new development will place on cater for new development as resources are already existing health care provision within the under huge strain (Royal Berks and Wokingham Borough. hospitals). FC2/AG/117 Ashley Hall No provision for additional medical facilities, in WBC Response particular The ARBSPD recognise health centre FC2/AG/118 Fenella Hall No provision for additional medical facilities, in provision as a key facility that should be particular located within community hubs to help FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of GP Surgery is essential. reinforce self-containment and ease of the Arborfield Working access. Party FC2/AG/164 Linda M V Carter Concerned about health services as hospital Providing detailed information regarding

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 238 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

resources are already under huge strain. healthcare is not within the scope of the FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan What medial facilities are being provided? There is ARBSDP. However the mechanisms for a modern mini hospital on site. Can this be delivering new healthcare facilities are set retained? out in the Infrastructure Delivery and FC2/AG/183 Steve Betts Although there are new schools and some shops Contributions SPD. The Arborfield SPD within the planned development, where are the new emphasises the need for either an residents supposed to go to the doctor, dentist and overarching infrastructure outline other health services? Existing services are already planning application or Infrastructure heavily used. Delivery Plan to demonstrate how the SDL will deliver the infrastructure requirements laid down in Policies CP18- 21 and Appendix 7 of the Core Strategy.

Recommendation

No recommended change.

FC2/AG/249 Gill Purchase The Royal Berkshire Hospital is already over stretched and unable to meet demand. FC2/AG/284 Mrs K Tipton The facilities and the capacity of the Royal Berks Hospital are already stretched. FC2/AG/287 Mrs C. S. Heffernan The Royal Berkshire hospital is already stretched and would be overloaded by the development, yet no hospital or clinic is planned. FC2/AG/302 Liam Flanagan-Todd - What provision has been made for the increased burden on the NHS services in the area, particularly services at RBH, such as pre and post natal services, paediatrics, geriatrics, and oncology? - Provision for people with learning disabilities and people who require assistance at home. FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins Royal Banks is at capacity. My local practice (Swallowfield) is running near capacity. No-one from WBC seems to have reviewed capacity for all the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 239 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

new residents from the proposed 3500 homes. FC2/AG/334 David and Margaret Concerned about the Royal Berks Hospital. It closes Edwards its maternity unit weekly because it cannot cope, what will happen with more people in the area, where will they go? FC2/AG/358 Susan Philips Do not have local doctors surgery (resident at Langley Common Road) FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter What is the Berkshire West PCT saying about their ability to deliver a GP service, national health (see above for summary, WBC response hospital and dentist service for the SDL? The Royal and recommendations on this issue) Berkshire NHS Trust is already fully stretched and will simply not be able to cope with the additional patients. FC2/AG/420 M Barrie The Royal Berkshire Hospital is already struggling to cope and the development would make things impossible. The hospital car park is already overflowing most days FC2/AG/421 A Barrie The Royal Berkshire Hospital will not cope with extra patients; all the services will be stretched to the limit even more than they are now. FC2/AG/437 Mr & Mrs M. L Jackson Car parking at the Royal Berkshire Hospital is almost impossible. Not sure how it will cope with thousands of extra patients. FC2/AG/444L Richard Owen Waiting lists at hospitals will increase. Is something being done at the Royal Berks & Frimley Park Hospitals? Community Development FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Community facilities (e.g. schools, medical Summary the Arborfield Working provision, youth facilities, faith, sports, burial) are Services and facilities should be planned Party not appropriate to the size and makeup of the for carefully to accommodate the diverse community and should be planned for. needs of the community. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan What measures will be taken to mitigate the increase of 750 dwellings to the existing facilities WBC Response (community centre)? The ARBSPD has been amended to The recreational/community facilities at garrison include reference to the Wokingham

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 240 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

must not be lost. Community Hubs Consultation, which the What provision is made for the retention of the SPD regards as an important document church? to shape the development scheme at FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe Increase in traffic will make it dangerous to cross Arborfield. the road and cut residents off from neighbours, thereby degrading the community aspect of living in Further planning and design work will be the area. developed as part of the planning application process. There is also greater scope for community engagement through the creation of a Delivery Board – as set out in Section 6.

Recommendation

No recommended change.

FC2/AG/302 Liam Flanagan-Todd Provision for people with learning disabilities and people who require assistance at home. FC2/AG/151 Ed Sampson & Nicola Vast majority of development will occur within Alder on behalf of current boundaries of Barkham and Finchampstead Parish Church of St which will have impacts upon the services delivered James, Finchampstead by the Parish (provide baptisms, weddings, funerals for anyone within the Parish). Provision of clergy to cover the doubling in size of the Parish, the design of the development needs to cater for facilities for churches and faith groups. It is welcome that the Church of St Eligius will be retained (it lies within the parish of St James Barkham and not Finchampstead), it is too small to minister to a community of the size that is proposed. Furthermore, land for burial space should be identified and a clearly defined suitable space for the growing Christian Community in Finchampstead should be identified (traditionally at the heart of communities sits a church). A combined community

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 241 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

building that provides for a church and further community facilities should be provided. Theme 10: EMPLOYMENT - Topics: Employment / Loss of existing business Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Employment FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat Employment would be better choice for this location Summary than residential as it would help to replace jobs that Concerns raised regarding the increased will be lost with the MoD vacating the site. This provision of employment at Hogwood would require less infrastructure than the proposed Industrial Estate as it would increase housing development and would avoid flooding, the traffic (including HGVs) in the area; other need to provide SANG, provision of schools etc. In more suitable locations exist elsewhere in addition a science park (relocating of Science Park the Borough; requires significant from South of M4 SDL) would potentially enable infrastructure improvements; no strong reuse of more Garrison buildings. employment demand locally. FC2/AG/84 Nigel Stoate There are insufficient jobs and amenities in the area to support the development. WBC Response FC2/AG/88 A.W. Gubby Has any thought been given to the prospects of Appendix 7f) states: “The enhancement employment for the people who will move into this of employment facilities within the development? community to provide scope for living and FC2/AG/89 Seal Family Doubling size of Hogwood industrial estate is working in close proximity. Hogwood madness in current climate. Roads already busy Industrial Area will remain as a principal with HGV’s. Further employment should be provided employment area although there may be on demand rather than in advance making use of scope for some minor expansion or existing unoccupied buildings. intensification.” FC2/AG/93 Laura Donnelly Empty offices in Bracknell and Wokingham should be filled first. Employment provision for Arborfield FC2/AG/147 Kath James Where will new residents work (see empty units on through local services and facilities and Molly Millers Road and in wider area)? designated employment sites will ensure FC2/AG/164 Linda M V Carter Concerned about jobs and where people will work. a wide range of employment uses: FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Hogwood Industrial Estate is currently not suited for 30,800m2 additional employment space. expansion as the site is not sustainable without Efforts are made within the ARBSPD to considerable improvements to poor roads and limit energy demands from the new public transport. development through careful integration FC2/AG/178 Bert Smit Objection to doubling the size of Hogwood Industrial of uses - reflected by the 'community Estate due to so many industrial units in hubs' approach - and connectivity to Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 242 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

Wokingham and adjoining districts being empty. enhanced public transport provision, the FC2/AG/186 Martin Bloomfield Is expansion of Hogwood Industrial Estate really creation of walkable neighbourhoods and (FC2/SW/34) necessary as many existing industrial estates in the creating a better match between existing vicinity have large proportion of vacant offices? The employment and location of housing to type of jobs likely at this estate would probably reduce the need to travel. attract people from elsewhere as the salaries would not be high enough to afford living in this area. Appendix 1 includes additional design Therefore evidence does not support this proposal. concepts for the Nine Mile Ride Gateway that show the extension of the industrial estate carefully integrated within a landscape framework shielding it from neighbouring developments.

Recommendation

No recommended change.

FC2/AG/194 Jo Day No need for extension to Hogwood Industrial Estate due to sufficient empty office and industrial space in Wokingham. FC2/AG/222 Mary Ferry Ideally at least a half mile boundary should surround industrial sites to mitigate risks (fire, chemical hazards, noise, etc.) and to provide a carbon sink in this area. FC2/AG/236 Dean Chamberlain Development of Hogwood Industrial Estate is in theory a good idea but in reality units will be empty and those that are occupied will bring more traffic form lorries to people travelling to work. If more units are required maybe Molly Millers Lane should be looked at that has been vacant for years FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock Disagree that 1000 new jobs will be generated within the SDL, how will these be generated? FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence Given the current economic climate, what measures and studies have been taken to ensure there will be sufficient employment available within the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 243 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

immediate rural vicinity? FC2/AG/246 Alison Worley Object to the doubling in size of the Hogwood Industrial Estate. It will increase the density of housing to compensate for the land used for industrial purpose, and forcing inappropriate (see above for summary, WBC response industrial traffic on to residential roads. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/359 Robert King Proposals are insufficient to create enough local employment opportunities to prevent any new residents of the SDL from having to travel further afield to work. Not in support of the scale of extension to the Hogwood business area as proposed. FC2/AG/397 Paul Taylor Object to the doubling in size of the Hogwood Industrial Estate. It will increase the density of housing to compensate for the land used for industrial purpose, and forcing inappropriate industrial traffic on to residential roads. FC2/AG/435 A. J. Cockrill Clearly insufficient employment opportunities in the area for such a huge population increase. FC2/AG/452L Edgar Studer Not enough jobs in and around Wokingham to support the development. Loss of existing business FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Neglect of struggling farming community in the area. Summary FC2/AG/100 Bev Hutchings Increase in traffic could adversely affect local store The new development threatens the where parking is already difficult. existing shops and businesses in the FC2/AG/109 Tim Yates Serious concerns regarding development and area. should it go ahead, objector would seriously consider moving his offices to another location WBC Response which would result in loss of employment. Analysis of the impact that the new FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan Has job loss from closure of garrison been taken development will have on existing local into account? businesses is not within the scope of the SPD however, it is a requirement of planning guidance (PPS4) for new employment development to undertake detailed analysis of need for new

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 244 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

services and their impact on existing commercial services and facilities.

Recommendation

The ARBSPD should include PPS4 within the list of planning guidance documents.

FC2/AG/269 Katy Stanlake Building the supermarkets and petrol station could put local traders out of business. FC2/AG/309 N M Long-Field Barkham supports agricultural industry which is a part of the English Heritage, and is in decline. The equestrian aspect of Barkham is clearly being compromised. FC2/AG/312 Richard and Angie Seal Damage to the semi-rural economy caused by companies currently accommodated within the district no longer being able to operate in such conditions. Ducks Nest Farm relocated here from Reading due to congested roads around their premises. If this occurs here, will threaten employment in the area. Theme 11: AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Topic: Affordable housing Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response FC2/AG/16 Christine Robbins If development happens then priority should be Summary given to affordable housing. General support for a proportion of FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of 35% of affordable housing is in appropriate without affordable housing although 35% the the Arborfield Working considering the potential for converting existing level should be lowered in this location. Party buildings on the site for affordable housing. FC2/AG/172 Mrs K Cowan Too many blocks of flats are built for affordable Flats not in keeping with existing property (FC2/IDC/8) housing but they are not in keeping with types in this rural location. countryside. Reuse of existing buildings? Consideration must be given to reducing the 35% WBC Response amount of newly built affordable housing. The SPD recommends that each FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan A variety of types and sizes is crucial in the neighbourhood should make provision for

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 245 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

provision of housing and large blocks of flats to a mix of house types and tenures in order achieve the densities are not appropriate in the very to promote inclusivity and choice. An rural areas planned for development. The housing important principle promoted by the SPD mix must be three bed and more to avoid the area is that all housing should be “tenure becoming a ghetto. blind” so as not to distinguish between Are the existing MoD houses on site to be released private ownership, social rented and into the private sector and will this number form part shared ownership properties in the of the 3,500 with what impact on housing economy? appearance and setting of the dwelling. Will WBC reduce the number of affordable houses to enable the other entire infrastructure to evolve? In terms of affordable housing provision, FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to affordable housing as it is considered the SPD is in keeping with CS policy (FC2/IDC/17) too high and unsuitable for this location. CP5. However, affordable housing FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth How much will be affordable housing in reality and provision will form part of detailed what rental properties will be available? negotiations as part of future planning applications. Recommendation

No recommended change.

FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock Believe that workers in will not be able to afford to live at Arborfield and therefore there will be more traffic as people drive to their jobs. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter The level of affordable housing is too high. It should be no more than 10% which still equates to 350 houses. Added to the numbers of existing houses already owned by the MOD and likely sold (800) gives a total of 1150 affordable houses. This equates to 26.7% which is a significant proportion. WBC’s proposal to provide affordable houses at 70% rental and 30% equity should be 30% rental and 70% equity as per the Surrey Heath model. FC2/AG/373 Alison Ward on behalf Affordable housing should be reduced to 10% (FC2/IDC/54, of Arborfield & Newland FC2/ENV/7) Parish Council

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 246 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/441 unknown 35% affordable housing sounds a very high rate and could jeopardise the quality of the project. Theme 12: NOTIFICATION - Topic: Notification Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Notification FC2/AG/2 Jim Rudd Additions to some of the plans are new and imply Summary improvements to Arborfield Cross Junction; this was Responses focused primarily upon the not consulted on (see comment under limited amount of supporting information; Infrastructure/Highways). poor consultation with local residents and FC2/AG/3 Andy Fairclough All original submitted comments should remain valid neighbouring parishes and district in addition to any lodged this time around. councils; insufficient time. FC2/AG/4 Sarah Turner Consultation appears to be more of a “formality” in which local residents views are discounted WBC Response immediately. The public consultation has met the statutory requirements. The ARBSPD FC2/AG/8 Paul Pardon Proposal has yet to be consulted with the below has been extensively publicised beyond organisations: the statutory notice and formative stages - Hampshire County Council of the document have been prepared in - Wokingham County Council consultation with the local community and - Eversley Parish Council other stakeholders through a series of FC2/AG/11 Margaret Walker Objection due to insufficient consultation with workshops and exhibitions. residents and Parish Council of Eversley. FC2/AG/12 Ray Walker Objection due to insufficient consultation with Any future planning application will also residents and Parish Council of Eversley. be subject to the Council’s established FC2/AG/19 Jean Britland Brief consultation period about which very little notification procedures and available for information has been available. public comment. No consultation from WBC but only from Eversley Parish Council. Recommendation FC2/AG/20 David Britland WBC has not consulted residents in Finchampstead. No recommended change. Documents are filled with acronyms and are difficult to understand. Documents are not referenced properly. Hampshire should have been consulted (legal challenge by Eversley Parish Council). Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 247 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/24 Ann Koska Concerns about lack of transparency (keeping residents informed) and the manner in which approvals/objections are accounted for. Absence of public consultation sessions relevant to the status 2011-2026. FC2/AG/26 Col J M Gaff Inadequate publicity. Lack of consultation with areas outside the Core (see above for summary, WBC response Strategy adopted by WBC in 2010. and recommendations on this issue) Lack of consultation with Hampshire County Council, Hart District Council or Hampshire County Council. FC2/AG/27 Mike & Nikki Collins Lack of consultation of residents in Eversley. FC2/AG/51 Sheena Reid Failure to notify and consult with people living nearby the site. Timing of consultation in December 2010 was extremely inconvenient. Was there a hidden agenda when camera crews were barred from that meeting? FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Criticism of lack of consultation with Eversley residents. No consultation with Eversley or Hampshire. FC2/AG/59 Julian Tominey Consultation process is flawed as residents within the site were not consulted. A referendum should be held. FC2/AG/60 Jacqueline Hogarty Lack of consultation with Eversley residents. FC2/AG/70 T R B Andreae WBC did not inform villages in Hampshire which are going to be greatly affected by this scheme. FC2/AG/73 John Carter Lack of consultation is very disappointing. FC2/AG/75 Elisabeth Andreae No consultation with neighbouring settlements. FC2/AG/80 Peter Doyle Lack of consultation about proposals with local residents. FC2/AG/82 Tove B Godfrey Objection to lack of consultation with Eversley residents of the effects the development will have. FC2/AG/84 Nigel Stoate WBC has failed to consult appropriately and failed to take account of relevant factors when considering proposed development. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 248 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/87 Brian Scott Concerns regarding total lack of consultation with Hampshire CC, Hart District Council, and Eversley Parish Council throughout the planning stage. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/90 Mrs J. F. Gubby WBC should have consulted with residents of and recommendations on this issue) Eversley long before now. FC2/AG/91 Peter Doyle No consultation with residents of Eversley. FC2/AG/92 Mark & Julia It seems that no consultation with local residents McDonnell has been made and none is planned. FC2/AG/93 Laura Donnelly No consultation of residents within just 1 mile of the site. FC2/AG/98 Alison Saunders No consultation of people in Eversley despite impact. FC2/AG/101 John Spencer WBC has not properly consulted with Hampshire County Council, Hart District Council or Eversley Parish Council or local residents on proposed plans. FC2/AG/102 Barry Edmonds WBC has not consulted outside its own borough and no consideration has been given to the impacts upon Eversley and its surroundings. FC2/AG/104 David Long Decision is flawed as no consultation process despite government requirements to do so. FC2/AG/105 Robert Briggs Concerned with consultation and failing to listen to residents objections. FC2/AG/106 Mr M C Woodman Disappointment of lack of consultation (e.g. huge impact of development on value of property and potentially the need to move house). FC2/AG/107 Mrs J Woodman Disappointment of lack of consultation (e.g. huge impact of development on value of property and potentially the need to move house). FC2/AG/113 M J Green Scale of the plan is of concern without any consideration or consultation given to the impacts of the development on Eversley and surrounding areas. FC2/AG/116 Christine Green Lack of consultation with local residents. FC2/AG/117 Ashley Hall Lack of consultation with Herts District Council and Hampshire County Council is wholly unacceptable. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 249 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/118 Fenella Hall Lack of consultation with Herts District Council and Hampshire County Council is wholly unacceptable. FC2/AG/121 Else Hicks Residents of Eversley and Reading Road should be (see above for summary, WBC response consulted. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/122 Ann Tidey WBC did not consult Hampshire County Council, Hart District Council or Eversley Parish Council properly (reference is made to a legal challenge). FC2/AG/123 Mr and Mrs Sach Misleading consultation that did not stress that development included Hogwood Farm and West Farm; WBC made residents believe that SDL was only on brownfield land at garrison. FC2/AG/129 Julie Kentish Barnes Lack of consultation with Hart District Council and Eversley Parish Council. FC2/AG/133 David Henderson Lack of consultation with local Councils. FC2/AG/134 Matt Lawrence Lack of consultation on and publication of plans is contravention of WBC’s duties. FC2/AG/142 Kathryn Curran Overall consultation of local residents outside of WDC has been poor. FC2/AG/143 John Hartle Eversley residents and Eversley Parish Council have not been consulted. FC2/AG/146 Chris Swale Difficult to find a clear unambiguous message of what is proposed and confusing to understand documents. FC2/AG/159 Simon Hall Objection on grounds of inadequate consultation with adjacent Eversley Council and residents. FC2/AG/164 Linda M V Carter Concerned about lack of consultation. FC2/AG/179 Mrs A J Green Would have liked to take part in previous consultation but was not aware of it at the time. FC2/AG/180 Geraldine Clarke Little or no effort has been made to inform residents of the area of the plans. FC2/AG/183 Steve Betts The news of the proposed development was withheld from Hampshire County Council and Eversley Parish Council so that residents could not appeal and risk the success of this project. FC2/AG/186 Martin Bloomfield A lot of people in the area were unaware of Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 250 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

(FC2/SW/34) proposals. FC2/AG/187 Jackie Wright No consultation with Hampshire’s local authorities has taken place. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/188 Sarah Boys Appalled that WBC has only done minimum to raise and recommendations on this issue) public awareness. Cost argument is a poor excuse. FC2/AG/197 Ralph Varcoe WBC failed to notify about the consultation periods and thereby broke the law. FC2/AG/205 Karen Hathaway Why were Eversley residents not made aware of consultation and allowed to voice objections earlier? FC2/AG/212 Olivia & Peter Thornton Lack of notice to local communities. High court judgement required. FC2/AG/221 Justin Stokes Complaint about process and transparency of WBC regarding Arborfield development. A review of the options and alternatives should be carried out and an open consultation should be conducted. FC2/AG/231 Elizabeth Love WBC has not properly consulted local and regional Councils. FC2/AG/277 David Simpson, Not given convincing reasons for ignoring Eversley Hampshire County as outlined in the submission by Hampshire County Councillor Council to WBC Core Strategy.

Clear that none of WBC’s current proposed conditions will help Eversley. If that continues to be the case then any planning application should be refused. Para 30 shows how the development will be in breach of The Disability Discrimination Act 1995. By causing The Street in Eversley to be so filled with vehicles that the disabled will not be able to cross it. Contravening PPS1 as it talks of good planning. The public interest operates beyond the boundaries of a County and Wokingham BC has failed to put in appropriate mitigation measures therefore it is contravention of PPS1. Spatial Planning has not been looked at as required

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 251 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

by PPS1 WBC is destroying the historic environment for future generations – contravenes PPS5. (see above for summary, WBC response Breaking PPS with regards to the DDA. and recommendations on this issue) Hard to see how ignoring legitimate concerns from HCC can be considered a ‘good partnership’ PPS23 – failed to put people at the centre, failed to do a cost benefit analysis, failed to respect environmental limits and failed to apply the precautionary principle as outlined by International Treaty obligations. Failed to show integration with existing communities. Failed to recognise the significant adverse impact the development will have upon the residents of Eversley and beyond. FC2/AG/244 Richard Love Concerned that there ha been a failure By WBC to notify Eversley residents about consultation periods. FC2/AG/259 John and Susan Watt - WBC seems to have forgotten to notify the potentially affected residents in Finchampstead. - The drawings available online are poor quality resolution which makes it very difficult to determine the exact location of existing roads. FC2/AG/260 Charles Blackham No proper consultation with Eversley residents or parish/district councils. FC2/AG/264 Stephen and Christina In support of comments made by Martin Rutter of Haigh AG-RAG, that WBC did not take the trouble to write to each resident in the affected area. FC2/AG/276 Claire Harris WBC has not consulted residents sufficiently. Would have expected a letter outlining the detail and impact. FC2/AG/284 Mrs K Tipton The communication and consultation offered by WBC throughout the process has been appalling.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 252 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

No letters, flyers or household communications has been put into place. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/286 Russell Johnston Concerned that no consultation leaflet was posted and recommendations on this issue) to nearby residents. FC2/AG/287 Mrs C. S. Heffernan WBC has disregarded the area of Eversley and has not consulted Hart Council or Eversley Parish Council. FC2/AG/290 Nick Powell Had not heard about the scheme until informed by neighbours (resident of Eversley) FC2/AG/294 Andrjez and Olga Consultation process has been inadequate. WBC Borowy has failed to notify affected parties of the consultation period. FC2/AG/297 Darren Tipton Did not receive a letter from WBC about a plan to build a new development on doorstep, including the widening of the road outside of house to accommodate the new houses planned. It seems that nothing further has been done compared to the previous consultation to inform residents of the planned development. Not true that people who originally corresponded with the council on the previous consultation was informed of this consultation. FC2/AG/299 Caroline Blackham No consultation with the people of Eversley. FC2/AG/302 Liam Flanagan-Todd What publications affecting Eversley were notifications published in? What notices were placed in shops in Wokingham, Winnersh, Lower Earley and the NAAFI? No notice put in stores that would potentially be used by the majority of Eversley. FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad Insufficient and inadequate consultation has not received any notification of any consolations that have taken place for this development. Only become aware of it through ha third party. FC2/AG/313 Alison D Haywood Has there been adequate consultation with adjacent councils? FC2/AG/315 Suzanne Craddock - WBC was able to adopt their LDF without

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 253 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

any proper consultation with residents living within 2 miles of the proposed Garrison (see above for summary, WBC response SDL. Neighbouring constituents are and recommendations on this issue) statutory consultees for both LDF and the proposed SDL’s - WBC has not advertised in any local publications that would reach Eversley residents or asked Eversley Parish Council, and no information posted in Yateley library or council offices. Not sufficiently advertised in Eversley. - Why could the council not provide information about where the Arborfield Cross relief road would go when asked? FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins Minimal effort was made to inform local residents that a consultation was taking place. Only due to AG-RAG that became aware of the redevelopment plans from the 2010 consultations. The same has been the case now in 2011. FC2/AG/329 Miss P. Hunter Would like to know why it was not deemed necessary to consult to hear our views before decisions were agreed. Why hasn’t WBC consulted with other councils? FC2/AG/333 Katie Lawrence - With reference to PPS 1 - the residents of Eversley have not been consulted on WBC’s plans at any stage in the last 2 years. - Eversley residents have been left out of the consultation, no workshops, articles or leaflets have been distributed - Find it difficult to know how to participate in a consultation, having been already told the principle o the development is ‘beyond legal challenge’ - How is the public meant to comment on

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 254 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

plans to improve the A327 when there is no information available to suggest how the (see above for summary, WBC response improvements will be made? and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/339 David Bell on behalf of - There appears to have been little or no FC2/STST/11 Heckfield Parish communication between the Wokingham Council and Hart Councils about these proposals. Wokingham has a duty to consult more closely with its neighbours. - Opposed as a parish to the development.

FC2/AG/347 Phillippa Radford Feel strongly that have not been informed about the development, which will impact on roads through the village. FC2/AG/350 Paul Lethbridge Communication and consultation on the development has been inadequate. FC2/AG/355 Hatty Masser As a resident of Eversley, have not been properly consulted. Residents of Eversley have had to find out about the development themselves. WBC has a clear legal duty to consult local residents, and in the case of Eversley has obviously failed to do this. The draft SPD’s are flawed as they don’t take into account the views of the local community of Eversley. FC2/AG/360 Martin Rutter WBC have failed to make local residents aware of the scale, nature, extent and true location of the development proposed for Arborfield Garrison. WBC has failed to explain why they are sticking with the targets as set out by the RSS and advice issued in Aug 2009 by Caroline Spelman. FC2/AG/364 Vivien Quinn Development has been put forward without proper levels of notification and consultation. Disgraceful and undemocratic. FC2/AG/366 Cllr Philip Todd Improper consultation by WBC – WBC did not send EPC all the consultation material. FC2/AG/375 Hazel Burges So many of the community feel that although there

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 255 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

have been consultations and people have attended meetings, the council is just ploughing on regardless of residents concerns. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/376 Deborah Smith Astonished that so many letters written at the last and recommendations on this issue) consultation have now been discounted. Asks |WBC to write to explain why a letter inviting opinion on the development in light of WBC’s claims to have consulted above and beyond their legal obligations. FC2/AG/379 Andrew Collins - As a resident of Eversley, views have not been adequately considered regarding the impact the development will have on the environment, enjoyment of life and safety of our children. - The advertisement for the consultation period has been inadequate for Hampshire residents. No effort has been made by WBC to write to residents in Hampshire who will be affected. FC2/AG/396 David and Louise Concerned that as nearby residents, not consulted Dunne with regard to the planning proposal despite it having significant effect. FC2/AG/404 Olga Hughes Concerned about lack of consultation between WBC (same as 406) and Bracknell Forest Council. Cumulative impacts of developments should be considered. FC2/AG/405 Daniel Craddock WBC has not made any effort to communicate with residents living less than 2 miles away from the SDL. Can you explain how the council has tried to communicate with Eversley residents? FC2/AG/409 Philip Todd Objects to WBC’s approach as it has not consulted (FC2/SM4/98) districts in Hampshire appropriately in terms of the likely effects from the development at Arborfield. FC2/AG/419 William Gilmore Don’t feel anyone in Eversley has been properly consulted over many issues that would impact lives. FC2/AG/421 A Barrie Why hasn’t there been more time for consultation. FC2/AG/423 Mr D Bradley Eversley residents will be within one mile of the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 256 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

southern boundary of the project but are only being consulted as an afterthought. This is therefore a case of planning proceeding contrary to the (see above for summary, WBC response requirements of PPS1 and PPS3 and recommendations on this issue) FC2/AG/425 Stephen R Jones Having already objected several times, disgusted that a few minor changes are being shown as ‘new’ and therefore all previous objections will be ignored. Forced to write again, event though objections remain the same. FC2/AG/451L Paul Harris Lack of consultation relating to the proposals. As a resident of Finchampstead on a road connecting to Nine Mile Ride, would have expected to receive a letter detailing the proposal and the opportunity to feedback. FC2/AG/334 David and Margaret Understand that previous views are to be Edwards disregarded, and feel that it is despicable to disregard the very people that you are pad to serve. FC2/AG/355 Hatty Masser Views of people living in Eversley have not been represented in the statement of community views. FC2/AG/382 GVA on behalf of Consortium would like to obtain Statement of Landowner Consortium Community Views.

Theme 13 DELIVERY - Topics: Phasing Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Phasing FC2/AG/75 Elisabeth Andreae No building works should take place until roads are Summary resolved. The delivery of infrastructure set out in FC2/AG/78 Mrs R Henley It is vital to complete building of Arborfield Cross the ARBSPD must be secured to ensure (FC2/IDC/2) bypass before 750 houses built (2015). Given the the needs of existing and new residents short timeframe Council needs to commit to bypass and users in the local area can be met. It now. Cost of bypass should fall on developers not is important that new necessary ratepayers. infrastructure is provided in a timely FC2/AG/79 Richard Peat No Greenfield development until the whole of the manner. In particular it is stated that the brownfield Garrison site is released and developed Arborfield Cross bypass should be built and by inference that no development should occur before 750 houses are completed. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 257 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

at all should the Garrison not be released. FC2/AG/81 Tony Harrison It is vital to complete building of Arborfield Cross WBC Response Bypass before 750 houses are built in 2015. WBC needs to commit to bypass now. Infrastructure and development should be FC2/AG/127 Dr. S.P.Wilford on SDLs must be developed in consequential manner delivered at the right time and in the right (and FC2/NW/9, behalf of Wokingham in order to minimise the effect on the character of place to ensure a high quality and FC2/SW/14, District CPRE Wokingham Borough; Arborfield not being one of sustainable community is established. FC2/SM4/32) the first two and should only come forward if Regard should be given to the phasing paramount need has been established. indicated in the Infrastructure Delivery FC2/AG/128 Patricia Green The development of the four proposed SDLs should and Contributions SPD. Piecemeal and (FC2/NW/10, be carried out sequentially with each location being ad hoc planning applications which fail to FC2/SW/15, completed before another is commenced to avoid deliver coherent and integrated strategic FC2/SM4/33) major works going on for many years across much infrastructure will be resisted. of the borough. First location based on rule of sustainability (Arborfield would be last). Sequential Recommendation development would also help with infrastructure delivery and community building. No recommended change. FC2/AG/132 Fred Trigg Building works should not commence until a bypass (FC2/IDC/6) has been completed (costs to be borne by developers not taxpayers). FC2/AG/136 Brian and Carole Le Road infrastructure should be improved early in the Page process and the proposed houses built around it to help minimise increase in congestion by ensuring that disruption happens before the development is occupied. Brownfield sites should be developed as a priority. FC2/AG/153 Graham Drewett Vital to complete Arborfield Cross Bypass before 750 houses built (2015). Important that WBC commits to bypass now. FC2/AG/162 Jim Dunn on behalf of Infrastructure should be provided before the the Arborfield Working development takes place. Party Document lacks viable plan and a programme. FC2/AG/168 Dave Hogg Arborfield Cross by-pass should be constructed (FC2/IDC/7) before any additional houses are built and costs need to be carried by developers not local residents

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 258 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

via Council Tax. FC2/AG/173 Cllr Gary Cowan What will be the timetable/phasing for infrastructure delivery and have financial contributions been (see above for summary, WBC response agreed? and recommendations on this issue) All infrastructure needs to be phased to prevent residents having to wait long time for proper roads etc. FC2/AG/181 Mrs Marion Desai A suitable bypass is essential now before any (FC2/ICD/10) housing development takes place and costs should be borne by developers. FC2/AG/209 Joan Morley Bypass is essential to avoid major congestion on (FC1/ICD/13) existing roads through Barkham and it must be built before the houses. FC2/AG/210 Steve Ollerhead Bypass is essential to avoid major congestion on (FC1/ICD/14) existing roads through Barkham and it must be built before the houses. FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Phasing as proposed is very vague. (FC2/IDC/17) FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth Any plans for phasing? These should be published. FC2/AG/235 Geoff & Karen Hartnell Improvements to infrastructure should be put in place prior to building and occupation of the development. FC2/AG/241 John Cullen Not clear why the development is not being phased with brownfield coming forward first. Why has the council not safeguarded the area against too rapid development so as to make sure that if new infrastructure is required that it can be developed when appropriate? FC2/AG/297 Darren Tipton During the construction the residents of Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Road will be subject to the conditions of a continual building site. What will WBC do to mitigate this with phasing of the development? Phasing is very unclear in the document with many unknowns and questions still to be asked.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 259 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

FC2/AG/303 Helen Aylett Grad No development should take place on greenfield sites before that of brownfield sites. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/AG/317 Simon Collins Worst scenario would be if development was to start and recommendations on this issue) on greenfield land and then the MOD change their mind. Would be left with part of the SDL in place and not enough budget for the development to be able to implement the infrastructure. FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard Brownfield sites should be delivered first, and there should be a moratorium on large-scale development in the South East until the need for new home is reviewed. FC2/AG/322 Daniel Boys No house building should take place until the army have completely vacated the site. FC2/AG/331 Miss Linden Almond There should be no building on greenfield ahead of brownfield. FC2/AG/349 Julia Townsend - Rose Development should be confined to brownfield land and only begin once the MOD have left. FC2/AG/359 Robert King Any development should begin on brownfield area when the garrison has been fully vacated. FC2/AG/368 Anne Rutter Plenty of room to build on the land owned by the MOD. No building should take place until they have left the site, and plans should be scaled back. FC2/AG/372 Simon Millett on behalf Phasing strategy should show how continuity of of Sports England sport provision will be maintained. FC2/AG/373 Alison Ward on behalf No planning application should be approved until (FC2/IDC/54, of Arborfield & Newland on-site and off-site infrastructure provision is fully FC2/ENV/7) Parish Council agreed and completed before the end of the planned period, MOD has left, and brownfield land should be developed before greenfield. FC2/AG/385 Ashley Wright How will WBC ensure that the infrastructure is delivered to the highest standards possible rather than the cheapest? How ill WBC guarantee the phasing of the essential elements of infrastructure is delivered on time? What measures have WBC put in place to ensure that the entire infrastructure listed

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 260 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

in appendix 7 of the CS is delivered? How will WBC ensure that the local villages do not suffer due to excessive construction traffic of the bypass is delayed? FC2/AG/401 Toby Perring The development of garrison land on sites A and C, and then followed by site B allows for almost 2000 homes. Development can proceed in a phased way in response to more reliable short term predictions of housing demand.. The current SPD has greenfield development taking place at the start of the 15 year Plan, with the significant risk of a purely dormitory development. The SPD is very vague about phasing of the development. FC2/AG/414 A C Lewis No provision for the SDL for the Garrison area to be (same as developed first with green field land slowly being 448L) released over the life of the SDL. The Garrison must be considered as the first phase of the development. Theme 14: Miscellaneous Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response FC2/AG/26 Col J M Gaff Impact upon adjacent villages, in particular Eversley WBC Response has not been assessed properly. Noted – highway modelling is complete and will be reported in September. FC2/AG/54 Simon Elliott Impact on Eversley has not been considered in WBC Response planning process despite its proximity to the site – Noted – highway modelling is complete impacts must be taken into account. and will be reported in September FC2/AG/62 Terry Heffernan Human rights Act 1998 has not been considered. WBC Response Noted FC2/AG/200 Heather Spencer Objection to the plans. WBC Response Noted – SDLs were adopted and found sound by the Inspector at the core strategy examination. FC2/AG/202 Katy & Spencer In addition to their own comments they are WBC Response Deering supporting the Arborfield Residents Action Group Noted

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 261 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

and their concerns. FC2/AG/215 Mark Picken Objection to development as process will be WBC Response (FC2/IDC/17) unregulated (CS does not take into account Noted ownership issues). The development will also greatly affect house prices. FC2/AG/220 Alison Forsyth Double standards when planning permission for WBC Response small house extension is being refused while this Noted development is going ahead? The garrison houses are currently being sold on the open market – who is paying compensation in terms of disturbance or compulsory purchase to the new residents? Taxes should not be used for this purpose. FC2/AG/228 Lindsey Bailey Development will have significant impact on value of WBC Response properties. Noted FC2/AG/242 David Evans The local conservative authority should allow a WBC Response referendum for the local people to be allowed to Noted – outside of the scope of the vote on a range of options. ARBSPD FC2/AG/251 Tony Hughes What measures will be put in place when/if the WBC Response garrison is vacated to stop illegal camping on the Noted – Outside of the scope of the SPD open areas. but will form part of more detailed discussions and conditions placed as part of future planning applications. FC2/AG/253 Jane Stoneham Concerned about the saleability of property and the WBC Response impact on future. Noted FC2/AG/263 James Lewis Can a copy of the adoption statement when it is WBC Response published be sent? Noted – all plans will be available on the Council’s website and Council offices. FC2/AG/268 Zoe Evans The current plan runs counter to the current WBC Response economic climate which looks likely to continue for some time. Totally at odds with Localism, since it is against the wishes of local communities. FC2/AG/271 Patrick & Alison Turley Agree with the concept of creating a new WBC Response development to avoid ad hoc and piecemeal infill, it Noted must be done in a way that does no impact badly on

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 262 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

the surrounding areas and change the semi rural communities into traffic jammed links to Wokingham and elsewhere. FC2/AG/312 Richard and Angie Seal Lack confidence that in the ability of WBC to control WBC Response development in such a way as to minimise impact Noted on the surrounding environment. FC2/AG/313 Alison D Haywood Having chosen village life - why should the value of WBC Response property fall so that commercial development might Noted profit a few? FC2/AG/314 Finchampstead Parish Measures to ensure deliverability of the SPD WBC Response Council principles are not set out clearly in the SPD. Noted FC2/AG/318 Jan Heard Would like to support the idea of an Eco – town, but WBC Response in a way that supports sustainability which is Noted genuinely friendly to the environment. Don’t support the proposal to build wind turbines, and should be prevented using planning conditions. FC2/AG/336 Dr Mike Matthews Would like to know that objection has been noted WBC Response and will be explained to those deciding whether the Noted development is to go ahead. FC2/AG/421 A Barrie This development is the worst thing that could WBC Response happen to this area and should not go ahead. This Noted is a rural areas and the development would ruin it. Councils are elected, so if people say no then the council should say no. FC2/AG/424 Mrs Brunhilde Williams Fully support the Eversley Action Group and the WBC Response Arborfield Garrison Residents Action. Noted FC2/AG/439 Mr D. A Woolgar Fully in support of the Arborfield Residents Action WBC Response Group. Would like WBC to amend their plans to Noted accommodate all their suggestions. FC2/AG/443 C S Barson Little consideration has been given to the effect the WBC Response development will have on the existing community. Noted The documentation is full of terms such as ‘should be’ and ‘during the early part of the development’ These should be replaced with positive terms such as ‘must be’ and with firm time schedules on

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 263 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARBSPD)

developers.’

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. 264 The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.