Statutory Consultation Responses Masterplan

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Traffic Hampshire County Council (FC/STAT/2) Concern about possible adverse impact on Noted. Outside of scope of SPD. Discussions North Hampshire. Seeking meeting to to take place as appropriate. discuss possible mitigation measures. (Arborfield) See also Infrastructure SPD. Sport England (FC/STAT/27) Welcomes attention paid to sport and Noted. Sport recreation in the SPDs. Council studies form foundation for effective strategy for sport, open space and recreation. (General)

Para 1c(v). Should be clarified to include as Up to date standards will apply up to date standards as possible. (General)

Playing field land should not be lost to Noted. SANG. (North Wokingham)

Theatres Trust (FC/STAT/26) Not particularly relevant to Trust’s work. Noted. Performance space may be a Theatre Provision (General) requirement in proposed Community building.

Reading Borough Council (FC/STAT/3) Support strategic planning in this way. Noted. Strategic Planning Assume archaeology constraints will be Noted and confirmed. addressed through Managing Delivery DPD. Bracknell Forest Council (FC/STAT/24) Little consideration appears to have been The highway measures for the SDLs were Traffic given to cross boundary traffic impacts. discussed at the Examination in Public and (N/S Wokingham) found to be sound.

Park and Ride – implications for that Outside of scope of SPD. Discussions to take planned at Jennetts Park not considered. place as appropriate. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 1 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response (N Wokingham)

Bracknell Forest Council (FC/STAT/24) SANG location – will safeguard gap with Noted. Cross reference with SANG location SANG location Wokingham/Binfield (N Wokingham/S comments on South Wokingham (see Wokingham). Acknowledges importance of FC/SW/23 etc) provision. Bracknell Forest Council (FC/STAT/24) Education – has impact on Bracknell school Education provision was considered at the Education children been considered? (N Core Strategy EIP which was found to be Wokingham/S Wokingham) sound.

Bracknell Forest Council (FC/STAT/24) Pedestrian/cycle links to Coppid Beech. Subject to detailed consideration. Pedestrian/Cycle Unclear how they will be linked to Bracknell links Forest. (N Wokingham)

Bracknell Forest Council (FC/STAT/24) Flood risk. Have cross boundary risks been Consultation with Environment Agency has Flood risk considered? (South Wokingham) taken place.

St Nicholas Hurst Parish Council Not mentioned in Core Strategy or policy Section A7.41 of Core Strategy applies. North Wokingham – (FC/STAT/19) CP10 to CP20. Therefore provision is not Ashridge policy. Not justified since its purpose is Interchange served by Northern Relief Road.

Questions deliverability of a suitable Detailed matter outside scope of SPD. This will design. need to be considered St Nicholas Hurst Parish Council Technical note is limited in its assessment All commitments have been allowed for. North Wokingham: (FC/STAT/19) of implications. No allowance for Technical note development of Sandford Farm, Woodley Sandford Farm considered a commitment in appears to have been made (approved on Core Strategy figures. appeal). Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 2 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Questions accuracy of data. Noted.

St Nicholas Hurst Parish Council Preliminary proposals by Consortium at Consortium proposals are not subject of this Northern Relief (FC/STAT/19) open day 15th Feb show a route but its SPD. Consortium proposals will be expected Road (NRR) nature would discharge traffic onwards to to follow SPD guidance. Coppid Beech and would not act as a NRR. The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. St Nicholas Hurst Parish Council Concern about impact on rivers and Policy CP4 of Core Strategy. Section Flooding (FC/STAT/19) streams. A7.53(f)(1) applies.

South of M4 Eastern Earley Town Council (FC/STAT/30) Concerned this will encourage more traffic Infrastructure measures are aimed at achieving Relief Road onto Lower Earley Way, particularly London ‘nil detriment’. bound. The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. General Berkshire Archaeology (FC/STAT/25) Assume general archaeology Noted and confirmed. View also expressed by considerations will be addressed through Reading Borough Council. Managing Delivery DPD.

ALL SDLs NHS Berkshire Shared Services Most comments are infrastructure SPD related. (FC/GEN/43L) Some are town centre related. ARBORFIELD NHS Berkshire Shared Services Should support its own GP surgery. An Provision of new GP surgery is a requirement GARRISON SDL (FC/GEN/43L) attractive solution would be provision over under para A7.13 of the CS. the proposed supermarket.

NORTH NHS Berkshire Shared Services There appears to be limited scope for a GP Provision of primary health care facilities are a WOKINGHAM SDL (FC/GEN/43L) surgery within SDL. Cantley Park may be requirement under para A7.37 of the CS. an option. An extension to Norreys may be an option Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 3 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response but this is in private hands.

SOUTH NHS Berkshire Shared Services South Wokingham is worth pursuing but Provision of primary health care facilities are a WOKINGHAM SDL (FC/GEN/43L) there is concern about site availability. requirement under para A7.49 of the CS. .

NHS Berkshire Shared Services Overall suggest pursuing Section 106 Provision of primary health care facilities are a (FC/GEN/43L) contributions in a Borough-wide endorsed requirement under para A7.49 of the CS. formula.

ARBORFIELD Eversley Parish Council (FC/GEN/38) The A327 through Eversley is already at See comments by Hampshire County Council GARRISON/SOUTH capacity and cannot take more traffic regarding impact on Eversley to be considered. OF M4 SDLs generated by Arborfield Garrison/South of M4 SDLs The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. NORTH The SPD can only address SDL development WOKINGHAM SDL related issues.

Flooding Wokingham Town Council What provision will be made outside the Discussions are taking place with the (FC/STAT/11) scope of developer contributions? Environment Agency. Emmbrook School Wokingham Town Council No firm commitment on possible closure of A separate consultation will take place on the school. closure of the school.

SOUTH WOKINGHAM SDL

Levels crossings Wokingham Town Council Clarification of position regarding The highway measures were discussed at the Easthampstead crossing. Does traffic Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. modelling take account of options? Implications of Barkham Road closure for Length of time due to Airtrak matters being station crossing? Is a bridge possible? considered via Wokingham Town Centre Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 4 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response As above. Masterplan although implications built into modelling.

Network Rail has long term aspirations to close crossing. Network Rail indicates that it is encouraging developers to assist in achieving closure to vehicular traffic.

Flooding Wokingham Town Council What provision will be made outside the As North Wokingham response. scope of developer contributions? Further development Wokingham Town Council What are the implications if Arborfield The CS is based on evidence that Garrison will Garrison is not available? Is there a be available. If circumstances change contingency plan? Can reassurance be development will be in accordance with other given that land to south-east of the SDL provisions of CS. No development of south- will not be developed? If it is, how would east is proposed through this SPD and would additional traffic be dealt with? be contrary to CS. ARBORFIELD SDL

Vision Finchampstead Parish Council Overall very positive about vision and The vision and objectives are consistent with (FC/ARB/240) direction of Arborfield SDL. Section 3 paras 3.1 to 3.12 of the CS. Barkham Parish Council (FC/STAT/10)

Separation Finchampstead Parish Council Concern re reduction in separation between MASTERPLAN MODIFIED TO CLARIFY. Finchampstead and new development as a result of development on Nine Mile Ride extension. Additional Barkham Parish Council Grave concern about development beyond Development will be in accordance with CS. development 3,500, particularly development in surrounding countryside and inadequate infrastructure. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 5 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Traffic Barkham Parish Council Serious concern that residential roads, Appendix 7 of CS will apply. Finchampstead Parish Council including Langley Common Road, Barkham Road and Bearwood Road, will be used as The highway measures were discussed at the main arteries to reach the SDL. Good that Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. Arborfield Relief Road is planned. Trigger point of 750 units must be observed. Concern that no details of measures relating to existing roads are known. Transport/movement Barkham Parish Council Clarification of measures to improve Appendix 7 of CS will apply. Measures will Finchampstead Parish Council accessibility by non-car modes. include public transport, cycling, walking. Services Barkham Parish Council Future of sewage treatment must be Noted. See CS paragraph A7.13 resolved. Level crossings Barkham Parish Council Barkham Road is a problem and no plans Noted. to improve. The road layout should be The highway measures were discussed at the considered. Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. Employment site Barkham Parish Council HGV access to SDL should be restricted to These are matters of detail outside of SPD but Finchampstead Parish Council the A327. Routes for construction traffic will be considered through planning should be restricted during development. applications. No clarity of preferred route for heavy goods vehicles. Not clear if any primary routes suitable. Supermarket Barkham Parish Council Inspector increased scale from 2,500 sq m The Council is bound by the Inspector’s report to 4,000 sq m. This creates a monopoly. and adoption of the CS. CS A7.12(b) applies. The matter should be redressed. Its initial The design will be subject of detailed size should be limited to 2,500 sq m, consideration. because of limited land it could be two storey. Car parking for supermarket should be for general use.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 6 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Traffic management Barkham Parish Council Speed restrictions should be enforced. This is a matter of detail which will be pursued Finchampstead Parish Council The maximum speed should be 30 mph through planning applications. Highway safety and 20 mph in centres. will be a priority. Street lighting Barkham Parish Council What criteria will be required to establish CHANGE - TEXT ON ROLE OF LIGHTING need? Night time restrictions should be AND AMENITY ISSUES TO BE ADDED. considered. Public transport Barkham Parish Council Generally supportive. There should be Noted. This is a matter of detail which will be Finchampstead Parish Council negotiations with bus operators regarding pursued through S106 negotiations. frequency and affordability. Greenways Barkham Parish Council Details needed. Noted. Where off site this is a matter of detail Finchampstead Parish Council which will be pursued as appropriate. Telecommunications Barkham Parish Council Fibre optic cables should service all Material detail to be pursued through planning properties in SDL. Maximises home applications. working and avoids satellite dishes. Existing buildings Barkham Parish Council Langley House should be retained. SPD recognises benefits of retention of existing buildings where appropriate. SDLs

General comment GOSE (FC/STAT/6) Document is well presented. Noted. Policy context GOSE ‘Must’ should be replaced by ‘should’ to CHANGE - TEXT TO BE AMENDED AS reflect where guidance not policy. APPROPRIATE. Deliverability GOSE More discussion with delivery partners and Noted. agencies may be necessary, especially regarding Infrastructure. The involvement of ATLAS and a Delivery Board is noted. Para 1.1.1 GOSE ‘To be confirmed’ can be removed as SEP CHANGE - TEXT TO BE AMENDED. (Arborfield) has been published. Para 5.3.3 GOSE PPS ‘Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a CHANGE - TEXT TO BE UPDATED. changing Climate’ requires local Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 7 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response requirements to be in a DPD.

Para 6.3.5 GOSE Should be revised to reflect CIL. CHANGE - TEXT TO BE UPDATED.

Highways Agency GOSE As well as Highways Agency encourage Detailed work will need to be subject of (North Wokingham) working with Bracknell Forest. consultation. ALL LOCATIONS

Overall Thames Water (FC/STAT/4) Supports production of SDL, SPDs. In Appendix 7 of the CS applies. particular in their role of establishing principles for delivery of infrastructure. SUDs Thames Water Thames Water advises that sustainable Appendix 7 of the CS applies. drainage systems are supported but may not work everywhere. Planning Thames Water Supports avoidance of piecemeal Appendix 7 of the CS applies. applications that do not achieve infrastructure delivery. Code for Thames Water Support requirement to build to standards Appendix 7 of the CS applies. Sustainable Homes of CSH. Sewage treatment Thames Water Support for testing of odour contours. Appendix 7 of the CS applies. works (N Advise that location can change volume of Wokingham) flow and accepts that isopleths are indicative. ALL LOCATIONS

Evidence base Highways Agency (FC/STAT/5) WBC needs to provide evidence base in Noted. Evidence base will be published. support of all SDLs, without it all are The highway measures were discussed at the unsatisfactory. Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 8 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response SRN Highways Agency Little or no reference to SRN. Further CHANGE. TEXT TO BE CLARIFIED AS information should be provided. Should REQUIRED. refer to SRN as in line with DGT Circular 02/07. ARBORFIELD Highways Agency Generally content. No reference to bus CHANGE - TEXT TO BE CLARIFIED AS transport corridor. Should cross reference REQUIRED. with Infrastructure SPD (Table 1). All other comments are Infrastructure SPD related. Arborfield parking Highways Agency Should be in line with PPG13. On-street Parking is also referred to in PPS3 and Core parking should be kept to a minimum and Strategy Policy CP6. all parking should be well planned and designed to prevent detrimental impact. SOUTH Highways Agency Generally content. All comments are See Infrastructure Delivery SPD. WOKINGHAM Infrastructure SPD related. ARBORFIELD Highways Agency HA identifies limited capacity on A327 The highway measures were discussed at the through Arborfield Cross and other local Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. roads. These issues will be further looked at through Relationship with Junction 11 as A327 links planning application stage. directly to this. SOUTH OF M4 Highways Agency HA particularly interested in improvements Noted. to capacity of A327 and M3, the proposed Park and Ride in the vicinity of Junction 12 The highway measures were discussed at the and road over M4. Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. Park and Ride Highways Agency Evidence base not provided. Will almost Noted. Evidence base will be published. certainly impact on Junction 11. The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. NORTH Highways Agency Generally content. No reference to bus CHANGE - TEXT TO BE CLARIFIED AS WOKINGHAM transport corridors. Should be cross REQUIRED. referenced with Infrastructure SPD (Table Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 9 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response 3).

North Wokingham Highways Agency Concern refers to NRR and Ashridge CHANGE - TEXT TO BE CLARIFIED AS Interchange that primary access route will REQUIRED. potentially increase vehicles using the SRN especially junction 10 of the M4.

Request rewording of Design Principle 6D by adding ‘at nil detriment to the safe and efficient running of the SRN’ and ‘mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the impact the proposed schemes will have on the SRN will be provided’.

SOUTH Highways Agency General points as per above. No specific Noted. WOKINGHAM points. Overall Highways Agency To satisfy PPS12 WBC should add new CHANGE – NEW PARAGRAPH NEEDED paragraph covering policies relating to the wider SRN. GENERAL Reading Borough Council (FC/STAT/3)

Education Reading Borough Council Two schools in Wokingham currently have Children’s Services issue. Catchment catchments as far as Reading Town implications will be a key consideration. Centre. The principle that families in the designated areas should continue to access schools should be retained. Transport Reading Borough Council There is a strong bias towards new Appendix 7 of CS applies. highway capacity that should be considered in context of more integrated transport The highway measures were discussed at the

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 10 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response strategy. Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound.

Impact of traffic generation needs to be fully assessed. Commitments Reading Borough Council Not clear if additional dwellings includes CHANGE - POSITION TO BE CLARIFIED. commitments in SDL areas. Road enhancements Reading Borough Council No indication of capacity improvements on The highway measures were discussed at the existing highway network within Reading Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. will be enhanced. Park and Ride Reading Borough Council Will not be accessible from A327 and main Site was subject of planning permission. purpose will not be achieved. Although this lapsed in Sept 2009 principle established. Evidence presented to CS EIP on access to Park and Ride from A327. Hampshire County Council (FC/STAT/2)

Mineral/Waste Sites Hampshire County Council Attention is drawn to a list of sites in These are outside SDL boundary. relation to proximity of Arborfield Garrison.

Traffic Hampshire County Council Concerned about volume of traffic close to Noted. Eversley. The highway measures were discussed at the Mitigation within Hampshire should be Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. accounted for. SANGs Natural England (FC/STAT/1) No specific comments. AMEND AS NECESSARY.

Generally supportive, although NW includes small area of SANG (south of employment area) that is impractical.

Encourage discussions with Consortia. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 11 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Para A6 2.8. reference to Burnham Beeches SAC. SPD’s South East England Partnership Board Do not wish to make a representation. Noted. (FC/STAT/17) NORTH WOKINGHAM

Heritage English Heritage (FC/STAT/16) Heritage assets should be more clearly Heritage assets are a key constraint. identified as key constraints. (eg Ashridge farmhouse) potential impact issues should be clarified.

Welcomes reference to account being Noted. taken of local character.

Key Gateway Close to listed building and should be Noted. classified SOUTH WOKINGHAM

Lucas Hospital/ English Heritage Listing should be clarified CHANGE – TEXT TO ACKNOWLEDGE Locks House GRADE I LISTED (WITH GRADE 2 ELEMENTS) SOUTH OF M4 English Heritage Text does not recognize need for protection Heritage assets are a key consideration. of listed buildings (see fig 2.2, fig 3.1)

ARBORFIELD English Heritage Comments welcomed. These matters will be considered at detailed GARRISON Infirmary stables are nationally important. stage. To preserve its setting areas to south east Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 12 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response and north west should remain undeveloped.

Biodiversity Environment Agency Biodiversity/Country parks/green CHANGE – CROSS REFERENCE WITH (FC/STAT/15) infrastructure is welcomed INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY SPD.

Flood Risk Environment Agency Should be strong push to reduce run off to Noted. Paragraph A7.13 of CS applies. as low as possible to reduce flood risk.

Environment Agency Detailed look will be needed to establish Noted. Paragraph A7.13 of CS applies. flood risk Numerous recordings of flood occurrences in Arborfield and Barkham Brook. This is an ideal opportunity to incorporate local measures of flood risk reduction.

SOUTH OF M4 Concerns about link road and flood risk. Noted. Paragraph A7.28 of CS applies. Contributions should be sought.

Flood occurrences around Spencers Wood. Noted. Paragraph A7.28 of CS applies. Opportunities should be taken to see if new developments could alleviate. Contributions should be considered.

NORTH Large section of fluvial flood plain. May Noted. Paragraph A7.41 of CS applies. WOKINGHAM also be change from A329M. Flood risk management measures should be considered. Contributions should be considered.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 13 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response SOUTH Flood risk management should be Noted. Paragraph A7.53 of CS applies. WOKINGHAM considered through contributions. Early consultation with Thames Water needed re sewerage.

ARBORFIELD

Lack of detail Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Lack of detail by “admission and design” The SPD is guidance for development and (FC/STAT/14) leads to assumption that this will fail to expands upon paragraph A7.12 of CS. Further consider what is best for Arborfield and details will emerge through planning local community. applications. Land availability Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Framework should not be accepted until Evidence on land availability was presented to (FC/STAT/14) details of land availability known. EIP on Core Strategy.

Greenland Arborfield and Newland Parish Council If MOD do not vacate, initial development Evidence on land availability was presented to Development (FC/STAT/14) will be entirely on countryside. Without EIP on Core Strategy. MOD may not be viable. Arborfield Relief Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Lack of route means cannot understand This will emerge through subsequent work and Road (FC/STAT/14) wider impact of traffic flow. will be subject to consultation. Infrastructure Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Should be provided in advance of Provisions of Infrastructure Delivery SPD will (FC/STAT/14) residential/commercial development. apply including phasing.

Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Financial provision appears insufficient. As above. (FC/STAT/14) Not fully costed. Overall delivery Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Concerns that more than one developer is Will be looking for comprehensive approach. (FC/STAT/14) involved. The CS and SPDs are concerned with delivery and joint working is a priority. Emmbrook School Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Availability of land for relocation remains The SPD makes allowance for a site. Evidence location (FC/STAT/14) unclear. on land availability.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 14 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response New Homes Survey Arborfield and Newland Parish Council There were non typical trends in Arborfield The SPD is in accordance with the CS. 2004 (FC/STAT/14) that have not been taken into account.

Flooding Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Environmental impacts not properly Paragraph 7.12 of CS applies. (FC/STAT/14) researched.

Wildlife Arborfield and Newland Parish Council No evidence that implications have been Wildlife and protected species will be taken into (FC/STAT/14) thought through. account.

IT and power Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Lack of consideration in documents. Detailed matter which will be considered infrastructure (FC/STAT/14) through planning applications. Countryside Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Areas outside development should be MDD will resolve. (FC/STAT/14) classified as countryside.

Existing buildings Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Target for affordable housing is extra to Development will be in accordance with CS. (FC/STAT/14) existing homes. Annington Homes. This Policy CP5 and CP18. will ‘skew’ population.

Existing dwellings Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Existing dwellings mean that overall figure Development will be in accordance with CS. (FC/STAT/14) will exceed 3,500.

Administration Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Should be a new Parish Council. Noted. Outside of scope of SPD. (FC/STAT/14) Non Car Travel Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Not planned or costed. Limited bus Paragraph A7.7 of the CS will apply. See also (FC/STAT/14) services. Any new services would be Infrastructure SPD comment. funded by developers in perpetuity.

Waste Management Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Local system is of capacity. Paragraph A7.12 of CS will apply. (FC/STAT/14)

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 15 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Management and Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Opportunity for this to be handled by a Noted. Landscape (FC/STAT/14) Trust. Design Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Must be in context with areas. Paragraph A7.12 of CS will apply. (FC/STAT/14)

Existing Buildings Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Retention should be explored. In text already. See also earlier comment on (FC/STAT/14) CPI. Public Art Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Not relevant to the Countryside. Noted. (FC/STAT/14) Naming of Streets Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Should be seen in context of name of CHANGE – TEXT TO BE CLARIFIED. (FC/STAT/14) development and local area.

Police Services RPS on behalf of Thames Valley Police Concerned about inconsistencies between TEXT TO BE CHECKED FOR CONSISTENCY (FC/GEN/13) Infrastructure Delivery SPD and Masterplan AND AMENDED AS REQUIRED. SPDs.

In case of N Wokingham, no reference to drop in facilities in Section 6. This should be provided in first phase.

General Woking Borough Council (FC/GEN/9) Commends effort in producing documents Noted. which will play a significant role in delivering the Core Strategy.

General Slough Borough Council (FC/GEN/4) Acknowledgment letter. No comments. Noted.

General Surrey County Council (FC/GEN/3) No direct impact on Surrey. Noted.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 16 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response ARBORFIELD GARRISON Finchampstead Parish Council Broadly support Noted. Principles (FC/STAT/13)

Schools Finchampstead Parish Council Strongly support secondary and other Noted. (FC/STAT/13) schools. Must be accessible to residents of surrounding areas.

Separation of Finchampstead Parish Council Wishes to preserve distinctiveness of Noted. settlements (FC/STAT/13) settlements.

New services and Finchampstead Parish Council Wishes to see these maximised. Noted. infrastructure (FC/STAT/13)

Nine Mile Ride Finchampstead Parish Council Supports curved road through centre. Best Noted. extension (FC/STAT/13) opportunity for managing traffic.

Traffic Management Finchampstead Parish Council Measures should be included to control Noted. (FC/STAT/13) speed and provide safe crossings.

Arborfield Relief Finchampstead Parish Council Strongly support. Noted. Road and other (FC/STAT/13) transport infrastructure

Off site road works Finchampstead Parish Council Seek more information and consultation. To be subject of subsequent detail through (FC/STAT/13) planning applications.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 17 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Policies of Core Finchampstead Parish Council Some policies not explicitly mentioned. In case of doubt CS policy will apply. Strategy (FC/STAT/13)

Bus services Finchampstead Parish Council Should be annually funded and available The Infrastructure SPD indicates that funding (FC/STAT/13) from commencement of development. for bus corridors should be provided from 2012 to take account of the housing trajectory. . SOUTH OF M4

Location & Shinfield Parish Council (FC/STAT/9) Locations do not accord with Core Strategy, Noted. SPD is considered to be in accordance Developments specifically in that development could be with CS since its role is as a Development Brief located to the west, east and north-west of under paragraph 4.53 of the CS. It is through Shinfield. this process that preferred locations have been established. Church Land Shinfield Parish Council (FC/STAT/9) Cannot understand why this has not been The site is not considered to be suitable for included as a preferred site. inclusion for a number of reasons, including separation of settlements, inability to deliver infrastructure, landscape issues etc. as outlined in reasons for refusal in recent application. Other land in Shinfield Parish Council (FC/STAT/9) Consortium appears to be reserving sites to This SPD is in compliance with housing Consortium control the east of Shinfield for later development. provision CS.

SANG Shinfield Parish Council (FC/STAT/9) SPD recommends splitting SANG into two Natural England has no objections. locations, one of which is water meadows. This would cause practical problems in terms of safety and is not best solution.

The SANG in the Core Strategy would The separation will be achieved by open separate the villages of Shinfield and space/countryside. The role of SANG is not to Spencers Wood. It would provide informal provide separation in its own right. recreation with year round access. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 18 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – STATUTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Natural England supports the single Paragraph 4.22 of CS seeks protection of both solution and this would more likely achieve SANG and public open space “in perpetuity”. the objectives set by Natural England.

Previous Shinfield Parish Council (FC/STAT/9) Too many discrepancies between previous The previous consultation has informed the consultation consultation and current SPD. The project process. The preferred option has taken full is supposed to be ‘community led’. account of this and deliverability.

Crossing of M4 Shinfield Parish Council (FC/STAT/9) Concerned will not materialise until a later Noted. Any development will need to conform stage as part of the Science Park with CS. There will be a phasing strategy. development Ryeish Green Shinfield Parish Council (FC/STAT/9) The site could be used for a primary school The site is previously developed land and will School which would have benefit of retaining be considered as such. The SPD does not existing sport and leisure facilities within preclude re-use but this is not considered to be SDL. the best location for a primary school.

ARBORFIELD

Flooding Swallowfield Parish Council The developments exacerbate flood risk. EA are statutory consultees. TEXT CHANGED (FC/STAT/35) Importance of involving Environment TO CLARIFY INVOLVEMENT OF DRAINAGE Agency is stressed. AUTHORITIES. Highways Swallowfield Parish Council Parish is pleased to note alignment of Nine Noted. Paragraph A7.13 of the CS applies. (FC/STAT/35) Mile Ride extension but is nevertheless concerned about major effect of traffic on The highway measures were discussed at the residents and roads. Seeks assurance that Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. infrastructure measures will be undertaken. Arborfield By Pass Swallowfield Parish Council Finds it incomprehensible that proposed Proposals will be subject of detailed (FC/STAT/35) route is unknown at this stage. consideration and planning application. MASTERPLAN MODIFIED TO REMOVE ‘IMPLIED’ ROUTE. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 19 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Principle of SDLs David Tinker (FC/SW/44) Better to have located elsewhere Principle established by Core Strategy (CS).

Location of Eastern Jon Myers (FC/SW/23) SANG should be located adjacent to Clay Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy applies. SANG Alison Myers (FC/SW/22) Lane. If located to the east, existing Location of SANG to the east assists in Ben Dudley/Catherine Salt (FC/SW/18) residents will use their cars and may be retaining separation with Bracknell. The Mrs P. Banyard (FC/SW/14) liable to use the SPA. Locating the SANG SANG is a short walking distance from Clay Martin & Paul Rees (FC/SW/13) adjacent to Clay Lane/Priest Avenue will Lane/Priest Avenue. The current pedestrian D.W. & T.W. Mullineaux (FC/SW/12) enhance the green qualities of Clay Lane route along London Road is wide and A.G. Nicholls (FC/SW/11) and will retain some vestige of countryside. attractive. It is envisaged that other routes to S.L. & L.C. Harrison (FC/SW/9) the SANG will be secured through the Mr R. & Mrs P. Gunn (FC/SW/7) planning application process. Paragraph Nina Bell-Williamson (FC/SW/5) 3.2.11 requires SANG etc to integrate E. Bean (FC/SW/39) seamlessly with the rural surrounding of the Barbara Smith (FC/SW/45) SDL. Mr & Mrs Griggs (FC/SW/46) C. Nuttall (FC/SW/47) Clay Lane forms an important buffer between C. Scott FC/SW/48) Priest Avenue and the new development. L. Skinner (FC/SW/49) Careful consideration to protect residents’ J. Page (FC/SW/50) amenities will be given through planning T. Lown (FC/SW/51) applications. N. & R. Riches (FC/SW/52) P. Povey (FC/SW/53) CHANGE: Mr & Mrs Porter (FC/SW/54) THE MASTERPLAN IS TO BE AMENDED B. Lamb (FC/SW/55) TO CLARIFY PROTECTION MEASURES. T.G. & P.J. Lee-Smith (FC/SW/55) D. Gelstharp (FC/SW/57) See also comments by Bracknell Forest Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 20 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Mr & Mrs Robertson (FC/SW/58) As above. Borough Council (FC/STAT/24) and Natural J. Hartwell (FC/SW/59) England (FC/STAT/1) which support C. Burrows (FC/SW/60) separation of settlements. K. Russell (FC/SW/61) Mr & Mrs Glover (FC/SW/62) E. Mee (FC/SW/63) A. & S. Eastwell (FC/SW/64) S. Allen (FC/SW/65) H. & S. Maguire (FC/SW/66) Mr & Mrs Hallows (FC/SW/67) Mr S. Smith (FC/SW/68) Drs W. & H. Williams (FC/SW/69) M. & L. Lane (FC/SW/70) Mr & Mrs Duffin (FC/SW/71) Mr Goodier (FC/SW/72) Mr & Mrs Robertson (FC/SW/73) J. Smith (FC/SW/74) Mrs Eastland (FC/SW/75) J. James (FC/SW/76) S. Saunders (FC/SW/77) W. Arnett (FCSW/78) A. MacDonald (FC/SW/79) S.L. Brown (FC/SW/80) M. Rhind (FC/SW/81) Dr & Mrs Hession (FC/SW/82) A. & R. Hall (FC/SW/83) Mr & Mrs Peel (FC/SW/84) A. & K. Pettit (FC/SW/85) Mr & Mrs Dever (FC/SW/86) S. Rigby-Barrett (FC/SW/87) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 21 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response G. Wall (FC/SW/88) As above. C. Fish (FC/SW/89) Helen Hopkinson (FC/SW/90) Mr & Mrs Rees (FC/SW/91) Fiona Martin (FC/SW/92) Mr & Mrs Knight (FC/SW/93) M. Owens (FC/SW/94) S.N. Cockroft (FC/SW/95) P. & K. Rudd (FC/SW/96) B Tattam/J Fazackerley-Tattam (FC/SW/97) P. Latham (FC/SW/98) D. Meachen (FC/SW/99) N. & S. Brown (FC/SW/100) E. & J. Thompson (FC/SW/101) C.J. Mitchell (FC/SW/102) Mr & Mrs Gilmore (FC/SW/103) P. Sheridan (FC/SW/104) Mr & Mrs Boulton (FC/SW/105) Mrs Day (FC/SW/106) M. Leadeham & M. Madsen (FC/SW/107) Mr Woodage (FC/SW/108) A. Harnett (FC/SW/109) K. Lincoln (FC/SW/110) D.F. Greenwood (FC/SW/111) Mr & Mrs Borland (FC/SW/112) Neil Henderson (FC/SW/113) D. Robson (FC/SW/114) A. McLeod (FC/SW/115) H. McLeod (FC/SW/116) Mrs Dawe (FC/SW/117) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 22 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Mr Dawe (FC/SW/118) As above. Mr & Mrs Shields (FC/SW/119) K. Shephard (FC/SW/120) Mr & Ms Fernando (FC/SW/121) Loss of open land G. & J. Crowther (FC/SW/15) There are available brown field sites which Principle of development on Greenfield land Michele Gagie (FC/SW/8) should be developed instead of green field resolved by CS. Delivery of the number of Mr & Mrs Russell (FC/SW/6) land. Loss of natural landscape. units required means a balance must be struck between previously developed and green field sites. The approach taken allows for delivery of major infrastructure. Major landscape Great Langborough Residents Association Major landscape features should be retained Section A7.52(b) of CS requires positive features (FC/SW/1) and accessible/visible from existing rights of response to topography of site and existing way and protected from major noise tree plating. Design principle 1a of SPD pollution. applies.

Location of David Tinker (FC/SW/44) No development should be allowed west of This matter can be dealt with through Development within Great Langborough Residents’ Association footpath from Gypsy Lane to Ludgrove planning applications. SDL (FC/SW/1) School – views should be protected. (CHANGE – ADD TEXT TO ALL SDLs REGARDING BENEFIT OF INCORPORATION OF VIEWS OF LANDMARKS, DISTANT VIEWS, ETC)

Waterloo Road/ Jon Myers (FC/SW/23) Concern that there will be an accident to The SPD does not preclude closure of Easthampstead Road Alison Myers (FC/SW/22) pedestrians unless there is a footbridge as crossings or construction of a pedestrian Crossing Ben Dudley/Catherine Salt (FC/SW/18) an alternative to crossing. Do not bridge. Network Rail has confirmed that they Mrs P. Banyard (FC/SW/14) understand how private transport can be are actively encouraging developers to seek Martin & Paul Rees (FC/SW/13) excluded from Waterloo Road Crossing. opportunities to close crossings. Exclusion Mr & Mrs D.W. Mullineux (FC/SW/12) of private transport is a detailed design issue A.G. Nicholls (FC/SW/11) Easthampstead T junction with Old but has been achieved elsewhere.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response S.L. & L..C. Harrison (FC/SW/9) Wokingham Road Level Crossing should be Airtrak has indicated that a public inquiry into Mr R & Mrs P. Gunn (FC/SW/7) closed to all traffic and a footbridge provided. its proposals is targeted for Autumn 2010. E. Bean (FC/SW/39) Barbara Smith (FC/SW/45) Implications of Airtrack must be considered. (CHANGE – CLARIFY TEXT) Mr & Mrs Griggs (FC/SW/46) C. Nuttall (FC/SW/47) Some support for Waterloo Road to remain C. Scott FC/SW/48) open. L. Skinner (FC/SW/49) J. Page (FC/SW/50) T. Lown (FC/SW/51) N. & R. Riches (FC/SW/52) P. Povey (FC/SW/53) Mr & Mrs Porter (FC/SW/54) B. Lamb (FC/SW/55) T.G. & P.J. Lee-Smith (FC/SW/55) D. Gelstharp (FC/SW/57) Mr & Mrs Robertson (FC/SW/58) J. Hartwell (FC/SW/59) C. Burrows (FC/SW/60) K. Russell (FC/SW/61) Mr & Mrs Glover (FC/SW/62) E. Mee (FC/SW/63) A. & S. Eastwell (FC/SW/64) S. Allen (FC/SW/65) H. & S. Maguire (FC/SW/66) Mr & Mrs Hallows (FC/SW/67) Mr S. Smith (FC/SW/68) Drs W. & H. Williams (FC/SW/69) M. & L. Lane (FC/SW/70) Mr & Mrs Duffin (FC/SW/71) As above. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 24 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Mr Goodier (FC/SW/72) As above. Mr & Mrs Robertson (FC/SW/73) J. Smith (FC/SW/74) Mrs Eastland (FC/SW/75) J. James (FC/SW/76) S. Saunders (FC/SW/77) W. Arnett (FCSW/78) A. MacDonald (FC/SW/79) S.L. Brown (FC/SW/80) M. Rhind (FC/SW/81) Dr & Mrs Hession (FC/SW/82) A. & R. Hall (FC/SW/83) Mr & Mrs Peel (FC/SW/84) A. & K. Pettit (FC/SW/85) Mr & Mrs Dever (FC/SW/86) S. Rigby-Barrett (FC/SW/87) G. Wall (FC/SW/88) C. Fish (FC/SW/89) Helen Hopkinson (FC/SW/90) Mr & Mrs Rees (FC/SW/91) Fiona Martin (FC/SW/92) Mr & Mrs Knight (FC/SW/93) M. Owens (FC/SW/94) S.N. Cockroft (FC/SW/95) P. & K. Rudd (FC/SW/96) B Tattam/J Fazackerley-Tattam (FC/SW/97) P. Latham (FC/SW/98) D. Meachen (FC/SW/99) N. & S. Brown (FC/SW/100) E. & J. Thompson (FC/SW/101) As above. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 25 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response C.J. Mitchell (FC/SW/102) As above. Mr & Mrs Gilmore (FC/SW/103) P. Sheridan (FC/SW/104) Mr & Mrs Boulton (FC/SW/105) Mrs Day (FC/SW/106) M. Leadeham & M. Madsen (FC/SW/107) Mr Woodage (FC/SW/108) A. Harnett (FC/SW/109) K. Lincoln (FC/SW/110) D.F. Greenwood (FC/SW/111) Mr & Mrs Borland (FC/SW/112) Neil Henderson (FC/SW/113) D. Robson (FC/SW/114) A. McLeod (FC/SW/115) H. McLeod (FC/SW/116) Mrs Dawe (FC/SW/117) Mr Dawe (FC/SW/118) Mr & Mrs Shields (FC/SW/119) K. Shephard (FC/SW/120) Mr & Ms Fernando (FC/SW/121) Mrs Nina& Mr Mark Bell-Williamson (FC/SW/5) Mr Gareth Rees (FC/SW/3)

Traffic modelling David Tinker (FC/SW/44) Potential impact has been underestimated. Modelling and requirements are based on principle of ‘nil detriment’.

The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 26 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Traffic Michele Gagie (FC/SW/8) The plan shows secondary street Design Principle 5a (SPD). The street Kay Dain (FC/SW/4) connections. Reassurance is needed to hierarchy and highway management will be ensure access is from new primary road. subject of detailed consideration at planning application stage.

Impact on existing Great Langborough Residents Association Concern that new road structure should Policy CP10 of the CS requires road network (FC/SW/1) work. improvements to the Strategic Transport The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound.

Networks to ameliorate major environmental or safety problems and to support new development. Design Principle 5a of SPD Design Principle 5c of SPD

Traffic conflict/flow Holme Grange School Limited (FC/SW/20) Avoid conflict with new development. These matters will be addressed through any Henry Lucas Hospital (FC/SW/41) outline/detailed planning applications. The masterplanning process does not seek to restrict access to existing uses. Traffic generation Leslie Skinner (FC/SW/10 and 19) Concern that large number of houses will The number of houses and density reflects from Buckhurst Farm generate significant vehicles and cause the Core Strategy. The proposals include queues. Relief Road and public transport measures as part of overall transport strategy.

The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Traffic generation Charlotte Heseltine (FC/SW/16) Traffic generated by new developments The SPD proposals include the Relief Road Gareth Rees (FC/SW/3) should not be directed through existing and public transport measures as part of an G. & J. Crowther (FC/SW/15) neighbourhoods. The development will overall transport strategy. Mr & Mrs Russell (FC/SW/6) cause congestion. Nina Bell-Williamson (FC/SW/5) The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. Securing David Tinker (FC/SW/44) Infrastructure should be secured financially CS Appendix 7 applies. infrastructure and scheduled before development takes Policy CC7 SEP + WOS4 apply. place. Lucas Hospital G & J. Crowther (FC/SW/15) 1) The hospital is Grade 1 not Grade 2 The main building is Grade 1, with Grade 2 Michele Gagie (FC/SW/8) 2) Development should respect outbuildings/structures. This will be Kay Dain (FC/SW/4) character/size of existing buildings. corrected. Development will take account of David Tinker (FC/SW/44) its listed status Wokingham History Group (FC/SW/42) (CHANGE TEXT) Henry Lucas Hospital (FC/SW/41) Development of G. & J. Crowther (FC/SW/15) The maps show development on private land The maps are indicative. The photographs private land and the SPD uses illustrations that are on are illustrative only. The Council will not be private land. compulsory purchasing land for housing. (CHANGE ILLUSTRATIONS) Property within SDL Ben Peries (FC/SW/21) Property is given designation when it should The framework masterplans are high level J. Winkley (FC/SW/43) be shown as existing development. What and indicative. This will be corrected/clarified will happen to displaced uses? where necessary. (CHANGE MAPS, CONSIDER TEXT CHANGE TO CLARIFY) Amenities of existing Ben Peries (FC/SW/21) Adverse impacts of new development on These matters will be addressed where property/land Mr & Mrs Russell (FC/SW/6) existing property. material to any outline/detailed planning applications. All SPDs to be reviewed to correct as necessary. (CHANGE – ADD TEXT REGARDING Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 28 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response RELATIONSHIP WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT) Chapel Wokingham History Group (FC/SW/42) Should be designated as a Conservation SANG fulfils a particular function, and is a Green/Luckley Area in preference to SANG as it will give requirement of the CS, which would not be greater protection. achieved by Conservation Area status. (REFER REQUEST FOR CA STATUS TO CONSERVATION TEAM FOR CONSIDERATION) Employment G. & J. Crowther (FC/SW/15) Little variety of employment in the area. Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy seeks to retain existing employment and identifies scope for additional employment. In the case of South Wokingham the CS will provide additional employment through construction and through new schools and local centres. Services G. & J. Crowther (FC/SW/15) Huge demands on power, water, sewage Policy CP4 states that planning permission disposal. will not be granted unless appropriate arrangements for the improvement of provision of infrastructure, services etc. Schools G. & J. Crowther (FC/SW/15) Schools should be available and accessible. Paragraph A7.53(b)(1) of the Core Strategy Great Langborough Residents Association requires two new primary schools. (FC/SW/1) Paragraph A7.53 (b)(11) requires contributions towards a new/extended secondary school to serve the development. Paragraph 4a(11) of SPD identifies need for two primary schools. Financial Martyn & Anita Russell (FC/SW/6) Respondents consider that they should be This is outside the scope of planning compensation compensated for loss of value of their consideration. property.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Noise and pollution Kay Dain (FC/SW/4) Noise and pollution impacts and proximity to These matters will be subject to detailed Michele Gagie (FC/SW/8) existing development. Road should be consideration. David Tinker (FC/SW/44) located close to railway line. Terry Rogers et al (FC/SW/40)

Flooding Peter Bird (FC/SW/2) Concern that development will make worse Policy CP4 of CS. Section A7.53(f)(i) Great Langborough Residents Association existing flooding and will be built in areas requires flood mitigation measures under (FC/SW/1) liable to flood. planning obligations. It is not the role of the Wokingham History Group (FC/SW/42) development to improve the existing situation, although this may be a bi-product. The EA was consulted and have commented that there should be a “strong push” to reduce flood risk. This will be subject to detailed consideration and opportunities to incorporate local measures of flood risk reduction. The EA will be consulted on any planning application. Street naming, public David Tinker (FC/SW/44) Local resident/heritage groups should be In text. art and community consulted. facilities

Location of Terry Rogers et al (FC/SW/40) New centre close to houses, should be Appropriate to locate to centre of site. neighbourhood located closer to Tesco’s. Relationships to existing development will be centre (south of a detailed consideration. railway) Design of houses Terry Rogers et al (FC/SW/40) Houses should be same style as existing and Paragraph A7.52 of CS will apply. in keeping.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Trees Mrs Diane Coates (FC/SW/122L) Siting development close to trees puts them at risk Amenity trees will be considered for TPO. from root disturbance Trees will be subject to conditions on any planning application.

Location of Eastern Mrs Diane Coates (FC/SW/122L) SANG should be located adjacent to Clay Lane on Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy applies. SANG west side of Buckhurst Farm site Location of SANG to the east assists in retaining separation with Bracknell. The SANG is a short walking distance from Clay Lane/Priest Avenue. Paragraph 3.2.11 requires SANG etc to integrate seamlessly with the rural surrounding of the SDL.

See also comments by Bracknell Forest Borough Council (FC/STAT/24) and Natural England (FC/STAT/1)

Other land with Michael Bingham on behalf of Land should be identified for development Not previously advanced. Representation development Knoll Farm (FC/SW/32) does not include a delivery strategy but potential indicates availability.

Other land with Boyer Planning on behalf of Shown as included in the Masterplan but no agreement Not previously advanced. Representation development Woods Farm (FC/SW/29) with Consortia. But advancing as available. indicates availability. potential.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Ownership/Control Consortium (South of Railway) Para 2.1. The Masterplan must not rely on The Masterplan only relies on land where (FC/SW/38) land where the intention of the owners is owners have indicated a willingness to not fully known. participate.

The constraints plan shows land not CHANGE – CONSTRAINTS PLAN TO BE controlled by the consortium. Suggest CORRECTED. explanatory text on who the main landowners are and who the South Wokingham are.

Figure 2.2. shows Woods Farm under As above. consortium control. Infrastructure required is shown in that land. This will obstruct delivery.

Further clarification of role of land not in As above. control of consortium is required.

SHLAA land SHLAA sites should be more specifically KNOWN DESIGNATIONS WILL BE explained and shown on the plans. INCLUDED OR REFERRED TO AS APPROPRIATE. Consortia The partnership approach with David The partner companies within the Consortia are Wilson Homes should be acknowledged in expected to work together to achieve delivery the SPD. of the SDL.

Park and Ride Park and Ride. Referred to under CHANGE - TEXT TO BE CORRECTED. ‘objectives’. Not an objective of SDL itself (para 2:3.4)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Balancing Pond Balancing pond – (para 2.2.1.) should be Noted. Amendment not required. Balancing omitted as part of open space strategy as ponds are often included within development. public safety issue due to its functional purpose where it fills with water.

Carbon Neutral Carbon Neutral Developments (para 3.1.4). (CHANGE – AMEND/CLARIFY TEXT) Development Should be guided by national policy/timescale. Should not introduce The Council will clarify that local requirement requirements ahead of national timescales. above statutory requirement is aspirational. Higher codes check of national timescales Local mandatory requirements for development should be viability tested. to exceed statutory requirements for sustainable buildings may be included within the Managing Development Delivery DPD – as stated in para 4.8 of CS. General Para 3.2.1(i) – should be amended to (CHANGE – AMEND TEXT) include ‘land’.

General Framework Masterplan (CHANGE – AMEND TEXT) Add text to explain that explanatory text is not ‘phasing’ Rural Interface Rural Interfaces. Paragraph A7.52 of CS applies.

Chapel Green Chapel Green: Identified to provide for Noted. Paragraph A7.52 of CS will apply. lower density development. Suggest area north is identified to accommodate mid to lower density development. Wokingham Motors New commercial enterprise – anticipate a Refers to Wokingham Motors. CS does not new commercial enterprise within SDL make provision. It is recognised that WM may given requirements to deliver new rail be dispossessed and detailed discussions/pre- bridge. application discussions are recommended. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 33 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Schools Unclear that Education Department would This will be a matter of detail. accept front doors onto public highway without setback.

General Figure 4.6: Request explanatory text. (CHANGE – ADD TEXT)

Southern Relief Should follow land parcels in control of Masterplan only identifies land in control of Road consortium. consortium or where other landowners have indicated willingness to participate.

Waterloo Road Closure of Waterloo Road Crossing not SPD does not specifically require this but Crossing justified. More evidence needed. leaves option open. See elsewhere for latest Airtrack position. General Figure 4.8: Request explanatory text. (CHANGE – ADD TEXT)

Climate Change Climate change: Para 5.3.3 reads ‘2010’ (CHECK AND AMEND AS APPROPRIATE) should be ‘2013’. SANG Consortium (North of Railway) SANG – Location supported See residents’ comments and response (FC/SW/34) No change proposed.

Capacity Indicative capacity supported Noted

Schools Primary School – Better located to south Noted. Securing of a community hub is a adjacent to railway desirable output. No Change. Primary school size – Given as 2 ha. (AMEND TEXT) Infrastructure SPD says 2.5 ha Noted. Current requirement for schools indicates need for 2.5ha. SPD will clarify in line with advice from Children’s services re provision of primary education. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 34 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response POS Expectations for open air recreation should Appendix 4 of the CS covers guidelines for be tested for viability. Public Open Space associated with development. Dual use Dual use of education sports facilities This will be subject of consideration at welcomed but extent to be negotiated in application stage including S106 to ensure terms of viability. retention. Separation of Paragraph 1a(iii) refers to ‘Gap’ and should Agree settlements be removed (AMEND TEXT)

Public Art Public art strategy seems excessive. Feel Paragraph A7.52 of the CS is seeking public art they are limited. integral to the design of the development.

Self-build Self-built plots. Should be caveat on basis Noted. Self build plots are encouraged. of discussion with developers

Density Figure 4.5 on page 33. Supports higher Development will be expected to comply with density north of railway – between 30-45 CS. dph. Taller buildings ‘Taller buildings’ requires clarification – Paragraph A7.52 of CS applies. assure could be up to 4 storey.

Community Neighbourhood centre welcomed. Noted.

Code for Code for sustainable houses – AMEND TEXT TO CLARIFY AND BRING IN Sustainable Homes contradictory. Should not be more onerous LINE WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (CSH) than national standards. SPD.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response SDL Delivery Applications across whole of SDL – not One application is the preferred option. deliverable due to multi Otherwise the developer must demonstrate interests/ownership. In particular there is a delivery through an infrastructure delivery plan. physical barrier of the railway. . Noted. Current requirement for schools indicates need for 2.5ha. SPD will clarify in line with advice from Children’s services re provision of primary education. General Table on page 60 wrongly refers to IDC Agree. SPD as ‘policy’. (AMEND TEXT)

Vision and Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Endorses visions and objectives of SPD. Noted. Objectives Lucus Hospital Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Grade I not Grade II as stated in draft CHANGE – TEXT WILL BE AMENDED Chapel Green document. Main hospital is Grade I, other elements are Grade II. Railway Bridge Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Text reads as if bridge will be modified not CHANGE – TEXT WILL BE AMENDED rebuilt

Southern Relief Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Concern that traffic calming will deter use SRR will be designed as a street but with Road (SRR) and people will still use town centre capacity to ensure it is fit for purpose.

Location of SRR Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Concern that it will divide communities. SRR will be designed as a street. One of its functions will be to link parts of the community effectively and safely. Consideration will be given to safe crossings. Photographs Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Inappropriate images show urban situation Will be reviewed. Further explanation of – should be withdrawn. context will be given as appropriate. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 36 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Public Art Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) As North Wokingham comments. As North Wokingham response.

SANG Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) As North Wokingham comments. As North Wokingham response.

Development close Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Contradicts 3.1.2 regarding key views. CHANGE – TEXT TO ADDRESS to Chapel Green Also subject to flooding. BENEFITS/OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED Farm WITH KEY VIEWS.

Self-build plots Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Much to commend intention to provide self- Noted. build plots.

Streets/area names Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Discussions should be widened to heritage Refer to relevant WBC services, local groups, and community groups. bodies.

Community Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) As North Wokingham comments. As North Wokingham response. Development Police Office Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) Do police support? Would it be better to See FC/GEN/13 response by Thames Valley use a post-office outlet? Police.

Management and Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22) As North Wokingham comments. As North Wokingham response. Delivery

South Wokingham Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22/L) Lack of detailed and transport modelling. Modelling has been done at high level. Road and traffic Additional letter received (original letter Detailed modelling will need to be done in plans 18th March 2010) respect of planning applications.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response General North Wokingham Consortium (NWC) Supports many aspects of SPD. Noted. (FC/NW/106) Broadly supports – Noted.

- The neighbourhood approach - Option to allocate SANG on land controlled by NWC. - Retention of Cantley Recreation Ground. - The broad transport requirements, notably the upgrade to Bell Foundry Lane/Warren House Road and links through two proposed neighbourhoods

Acknowledges the level of engagement undertaken with delivery partners prior to publication of draft Masterplan SPD.

Core Strategy Core Strategy should carry most weight. Paragraphs 3.19 and 4.53 of CS in particular Masterplan SPD should only be used to apply to consideration of planning applications. guide applications, notably on design. Suggested Reference to ‘applicant’ and ‘planning Noted. Paragraph A7.32 of CS applies. amendments application’ in singular do not reflect All SPDs seek a single outline application as a phased approach to delivery. means of securing delivery. It is for developers to show how this could be achieved if they follow other than this course.

Presumption that NW SDL can Quantity of housing development has to be in Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 38 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NORTH WOKINGHAM (NW)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response accommodate around 1,500 units without conformity with Core Strategy. masterplanning evidence. Therefore figures for Areas A and B should not be considered finite.

Presumption that the NW SDL alone will See also concept statement on responsibility deliver Ashridge Interchange and link to for transport delivery. Coppid Beech, the latter measure is not required to mitigate impact of NW SDL. The former, only as part of a wider package of strategic transport measures that the phased developments will pay reasonable and fair contributions. SANG Identification of large area of land for SANG NE has no objection to SPD. with no implementation strategy. The NWC has produced a SANG strategy that outlines the required mitigation based on a figure agreed by Natural England. Design Request for a contemporary design to Paragraph A7.40 of CS applies. mitigate impacts of carbon generation. This is potentially not reflective of character of CHANGE – BUILDING FOR LIFE TEXT TO BE this market town. CLARIFIED.

Inference that full Building for Life is required is ambiguous.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Park and Ride Barton Willmore on behalf of Ashdale Support delivery of Park and Ride. Land (FC/NW/105) Phasing for delivery should be confirmed.

Support importance of creation of direct CHANGE – AMEND MASTERPLAN/TEXT TO pedestrian and cycle connections to Coppid CLARIFY. Beech Park and Ride. However, links Note. Bracknell Forest has sought clarification appear to be missing from masterplan. of how these will be linked to Bracknell.

Proposes complementary Noted. Outside of scope of CS. commercial/leisure as part of a Would need to comply with CS and Policies comprehensive development. CP11, CP20, CP15 etc. May be desirable to consider as site allocation in MDD. Surprised that technical work has not been Technical work has been undertaken. produced to demonstrate NRR is not The North Wokingham Technical Note applies. needed. The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and overall were found to be sound subject to further modelling as recommended by Inspector.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Northern Distributor Graham Leason (FC/NW/1) Need for a full Northern Distributor Road to access the The Council has undertaken modelling to Road (NDR) Emmbrook Residents Association North Wokingham SDL identify the transport requirements and (FC/NW/55) capacity of the road network on a strategic - Traffic to be kept Colin Nicholls (FC/NW/4) and local level. away from existing Steve Ross (FC/NW/7) Many comments also requested that the NDR be road network. Jackie Taylor (FC/NW/54) completed prior to the commencement of other Infrastructure mitigation must be reasonable Pat Cooper (FC/NW/57) development at the site. in relation to impact of proposals. Mary Mackie (FC/NW/94) Neil Hines (FC/NW/96) Core Strategy Policies CP10 and CP20 S & J Wilkinson (FC/NW/97) provide basis. P Wilson (FC/NW/107) S & A Hill (FC/NW/113) Development at North Wokingham SDL will S. Mayers (FC/NW/118) not preclude the opportunity to create the Gordon Mackie (FC/NW/120) Northern Distributor Road, however its R. Wheeler (FC/NW/127) completion prior to the commencement of Chris Rodger (FC/NW/8) development at the site is not a requirement Matthew Pepper (FC/NW/9) of the Core Strategy or the SPD. Christine Hazelwood (FC/NW/10) Paul Morrison (FC/NW/12) Andy Pragnell (FC/NW/16) Mrs NS. Kendall (FC/NW/17) Mr JR. Kendall (FC/NW/18) L. Blakeman (FC/NW/19) M. Aylmer (FC/NW/20) GV. Mackie (FC/NW/21) Gerald D. (FC/NW/22) Susan (FC/NW/23) C. & J. Rodger (FC/NW/24) PA. Baker (FC/NW/25) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 41 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NORTH WOKINGHAM (NW)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response M. Moore (FC/NW/26) As above. Mark Hughes (FC/NW/27) Tina Hughes (FC/NW/28) Nicola King (FC/NW/29) Mrs JA. King (FC/NW/30) Simon King (FC/NW/31) NJ. King (FC/NW/32) Mr A. Baker (FC/NW/33) RS Crowther (FC/NW/72) Alan & Jane Michael (FC/NW/36) D. Thomas (FC/NW/45) P. Thomas (FC/NW/46) Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/68) Alec Froy (FC/NW/74) Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) Keith Eversden (FC/NW/77) Melvyn Haines (FC/NW/80) Sue Lardge (FC/NW/81) Brian Hughes (FC/NW/82) Malcolm Lewin (FC/NW/83) Dino Matticci (FC/NW/87A) Colin Alborough (FC/NW/87) Dale Green (FC/NW/88) Paul Morrison (FC/NW/89) Ann Warner (FC/NW/90) John Lucan (FC/NW/91) Chris Jamieson (FC/NW/92) Chris Rodger (FC/NW/93) Michaela Hearn (FC/NW/99) Steve Ross (FC/NW/108)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Claire Wright (FC/NW111) As above. Rachel Partridge (FC/NW/112) Judy King (FC/NW/128) Gordon Smith (FC/NW/130) Ashridge Interchange Paul Gough (FC/NW/56) Ashridge interchange is only considered 50% of a See NW technical note which identifies what Pat Cooper (FC/NW/57) solution, as it is only east facing (and could lead to the is required to serve development. Carol Sheasby (FC/NW/60) surrounding area becoming a through road/bottleneck Dave Hasler (FC/NW/61) and could have safety implications). The Masterplan allows for an Ashridge BM Hughes (FC/NW/62) Interchange but also seeks to protect option P & T Ive (FC/NW/63) As such Northern Distributor Road would serve the of full Northern Distributor Road. Pippa Boyd (FC/NW/64) new settlement better. Dale Norton (FC/NW/65) Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/68) Hurst Village Society (FC/NW/70) L & E Coe (FC/NW/71) Lisa Lunn (FC/NW/73) Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) Kevin Harradine (FC/NW/101) P Wilson (FC/NW/107) M & S Howard (FC/NW/115) R. Wheeler (FC/NW/127)

General Traffic/Road Ged McLaren (FC/NW/14) How will extra traffic in the vicinity of the site be See North Wokingham Technical Note. Infrastructure Ann Mayers (FC/NW/37) handled? Need for appropriate mitigation/strategy. Strategic Transport Infrastructure provision concerns due to David Walmsley (FC/NW/39) is an important part of planning all SDL’s. additional pressure on Beryl Lambert (FC/NW/40) Investigation of impacts, particularly on key roads will Core Stragegy Policies CP10 and CP20 network/speeds in Tony Mansfield (FC/NW/42) need to be seriously considered by the council. provide basis. vicinity of James W Parker (FC/NW/43) development John Ratcliffe (FC/NW/49) Junction improvements are likely to form a (including Hurst). Carol Sheasby (FC/NW/60) part of most highway improvement schemes

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Dave Hasler (FC/NW/61) As above. to the site. This will be a subsequent Dale Norton (FC/NW/65) detailed consideration outside the scope of Hurst Village Society (FC/NW/70) the SPD. Lisa Lunn (FC/NW/73) Robin West (FC/NW/76) Colin McClelland (FC/NW/84) S & J Wilkinson (FC/NW/97) B & J Hall (FC/NW/98) Michaela Hearn (FC/NW/99) Kevin Harradine (FC/NW/101) P Wilson (FC/NW/107) Rachel Partridge (FC/NW/112) L & F Cooke (FC/NW/52)

NWSDL SPD and Emmbrook Residents Association The NWSDL SPD and North Wokingham Technical The Council has undertaken modelling to Technical Note (FC/NW/55) Note fail to address the Core Strategy inspectors identify the transport requirements and concerns in his report over the inevitable increase in capacity of the road network on a strategic traffic on local roads. The accuracy of the document is and local level. questioned. Core Strategy Policies CP10 and CP20 provide basis.

Infrastructure mitigation must be reasonable in relation to impact of proposals.

The council will be considering reasonable improvements in line with its adopted policy documents to ensure impact on local road network is acceptable.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Potential impact of an Pat Cooper (FC/NW/57) NDR leads to nowhere – this conflicts with Inspector’s See North Wokingham Technical Note. incomplete NDR Janice Smith (FC/NW/58) findings. Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/68) Alec Froy (FC/NW/74) RS Crowther (FC/NW/72) Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) Keith Eversden (FC/NW/77) Melvyn Haines (FC/NW/80) Sue Lardge (FC/NW/81) Brian Hughes (FC/NW/82) Malcolm Lewin (FC/NW/83) Dino Matticci (FC/NW/87A) Colin Alborough (FC/NW/87) Dale Green (FC/NW/88) Paul Morrison (FC/NW/89) Ann Warner (FC/NW/90) John Lucan (FC/NW/91) Chris Jamieson (FC/NW/92) Chris Rodger (FC/NW/93) Steve Ross (FC/NW/108) Claire Wright (FC/NW111) Rachel Partridge (FC/NW/112) S & A Hill (FC/NW/113) Jackie Taylor (FC/NW/119) Judy King (FC/NW/128) Gordon Smith (FC/NW/130) Emmbrook Residents Association (FC/NW/55) Wokingham Society (FC/STAT/22)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response NDR start/end point Pat Cooper (FC/NW/57) NDR should start at the A329 in order to avoid the Noted. Infrastructure mitigation reasonably Janice Smith (FC/NW/58) single carriage way at Old Forest Road and avoid relates to development. See NW Technical Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/68) causing further traffic problems. Note. Alec Froy (FC/NW/74) RS Crowther (FC/NW/72) Core Strategy Policies CP10 and CP20 Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) provide basis. Keith Eversden (FC/NW/77) Melvyn Haines (FC/NW/80) The initial model test reveals there are small Sue Lardge (FC/NW/81) changes in traffic flows and speeds between Brian Hughes (FC/NW/82) the infrastructure options tested. The Test 3 Malcolm Lewin (FC/NW/83) option of partial NDR and east facing slip Dino Matticci (FC/NW/87A) roads to the A329(M) has the least impact Colin Alborough (FC/NW/87) on the local road network and even Dale Green (FC/NW/88) eliminates congestion on some roads Paul Morrison (FC/NW/89) compared to a Do Nothing Scenario. Whilst Ann Warner (FC/NW/90) Test 4 (full NDR) provides the greatest level John Lucan (FC/NW/91) of improvement, the difference is quite Chris Jamieson (FC/NW/92) small. Further work will be needed in Chris Rodger (FC/NW/93) response to detailed development Steve Ross (FC/NW/108) proposals. As it may be necessary to use Claire Wright (FC/NW111) CPO powers for off-site works, a business Rachel Partridge (FC/NW/112) case will need to justify the choice adopted. S & A Hill (FC/NW/113) Whilst the partial Ashridge Jackie Taylor (FC/NW/119) Interchange/partial NDR is preferred and Judy King (FC/NW/128) justified, it is recommended that the route of Gordon Smith (FC/NW/130) the full NDR to Coppid Beech be reserved. Transport Modelling Emmbrook Residents Association Transport modelling needs to be more robust and show (FC/NW/55) more detail, times of day etc to truly show impacts. Pat Cooper (FC/NW/57) Janice Smith (FC/NW/58 Some comments that transport modelling should have

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/68)) been released earlier in consultation period. RS Crowther (FC/NW/72) Alec Froy (FC/NW/74) Transport modelling contains anomalies and Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) inaccuracies. Keith Eversden (FC/NW/77) Melvyn Haines (FC/NW/80) Sue Lardge (FC/NW/81) Brian Hughes (FC/NW/82) Malcolm Lewin (FC/NW/83) Dino Matticci (FC/NW/87A) Colin Alborough (FC/NW/87) Dale Green (FC/NW/88) Paul Morrison (FC/NW/89) Ann Warner (FC/NW/90) John Lucan (FC/NW/91) Chris Jamieson (FC/NW/92) Chris Rodger (FC/NW/93) David Sutton (FC/NW/102) Steve Ross (FC/NW/108) Rachel Partridge (FC/NW/112) S & A Hill (FC/NW/113) M & S Howard (FC/NW/115) Jackie Taylor (FC/NW/119) Judy King (FC/NW/128) Gordon Smith (FC/NW/130) Concerns over traffic David Walmsley (FC/NW/39) Traffic problems and safety risks could arise in this See North Wokingham Technical Note. in vicinity of Toutley James W Parker (FC/NW/43) area due to transport pressures, limited access points, Road industrial Colin Livingstone (FC/NW/50) some level of road improvements/traffic control should estate/Old Forest Jackie Wood (FC/NW/66) be considered. Road/Emmbrook Rd BM Hughes (FC/NW/62)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response and Reading Road Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/68) (Single lane sections at Old Forest Road and S & J Wilkinson (FC/NW/97) Emmbrook Road railway bridges are a particular area Kevin Harradine (FC/NW/101) of concern – especially with potential increased David Sutton (FC/NW/102) industrial use at Toutley Road) Colin Livingstone (FC/NW/50) Mike Cannar (FC/NW/5) North Wokingham Pat Cooper (FC/NW/57) North Wokingham Technical Note seems to indicate See North Wokingham Technical Note Technical Note Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/68) little or no surplus capacity. The note appears to Alec Froy (FC/NW/74) indicate that none of the mitigation measures are RS Crowther (FC/NW/72) acceptable. Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) Keith Eversden (FC/NW/77) Melvyn Haines (FC/NW/80) Sue Lardge (FC/NW/81) Brian Hughes (FC/NW/82) Malcolm Lewin (FC/NW/83) Dino Matticci (FC/NW/87A) Colin Alborough (FC/NW/87) Dale Green (FC/NW/88) S & A Hill (FC/NW/113) Paul Morrison (FC/NW/89) Ann Warner (FC/NW/90) John Lucan (FC/NW/91) Chris Jamieson (FC/NW/92) Chris Rodger (FC/NW/93) Steve Ross (FC/NW/108) Claire Wright (FC/NW111) Rachel Partridge (FC/NW/112) S & A Hill (FC/NW/113) Jackie Taylor (FC/NW/119)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Judy King (FC/NW/128) Gordon Smith (FC/NW/130) Government Inspector Mrs NS. Kendall (FC/NW/17) “It is clear to me that extra traffic from 1,500 new See North Wokingham Technical Note comments on traffic Mr JR. Kendall (FC/NW/18) dwellings would increase the pressure on already through Keephatch L. Blakeman (FC/NW/19) constrained residential roads if no new outlets at each Road (27/10/09) M. Aylmer (FC/NW/20) end of a partial NDR were to be provided. At present GV. Mackie (FC/NW/21) the Core Strategy does not include any firm Gerald D. (FC/NW/22) requirement for a new partial interchange on the Susan (FC/NW/23) A329(M) at Ashridge. This may enable some benefits C. & J. Rodger (FC/NW/24) through the reduction of traffic in Wokingham town PA. Baker (FC/NW/25) centre.” M. Moore (FC/NW/26) Mark Hughes (FC/NW/27) Tine Hughes (FC/NW/28) Nicola King (FC/NW/29) Mrs JA. King (FC/NW/30) Simon King (FC/NW/31) NJ. King (FC/NW/32) Mr A. Baker (FC/NW/33) Alan & Jane Michael (FC/NW/36) D. Thomas (FC/NW/45) P. Thomas (FC/NW/46) Jackie Taylor (FC/NW/54) Government Inspector Matthew Pepper (FC/NW/9) Section 9.4: “I am not convinced that the traffic See North Wokingham Technical Note comments on traffic Christine Hazelwood (FC/NW/10) modelling has been sufficiently robust in assessing the through Keephatch Paul Morrison (FC/NW/11) likely impact on residential streets leading to and from a Road (27/10/09) Mrs NS. Kendall (FC/NW/17) partial Northern Distributor Road (NDR) the new Mr JR. Kendall (FC/NW/18) housing development should not be achieved at a L. Blakeman (FC/NW/19) disproportionate cost to local residents through M. Aylmer (FC/NW/20) increased traffic in a residential environment.” Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 49 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NORTH WOKINGHAM (NW)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response GV. Mackie (FC/NW/21) As above. Gerald D. (FC/NW/22) Susan (FC/NW/23) C. & J. Rodger (FC/NW/24) PA. Baker (FC/NW/25) M. Moore (FC/NW/26) Mark Hughes (FC/NW/27) Tine Hughes (FC/NW/28) Nicola King (FC/NW/29) Mrs JA. King (FC/NW/30) Simon King (FC/NW/31) NJ. King (FC/NW/32) Mr A. Baker (FC/NW/33) Alan & Jane Michael (FC/NW/36) D. Thomas (FC/NW/45) P. Thomas (FC/NW/46) Jackie Taylor (FC/NW/54) Grant Addison (FC/NW/35) J & A Websper (FC/NW/51) L & F Cooke (FC/NW/52) Northern Distributor Kevin Scott (FC/NW/13) Is the full Northern Distributor Road (NDR) deliverable See North Wokingham Technical Note. Road (NDR) Ged McLaren (FC/NW/14) in its entirety and not just on that part promoted by the Development at North Wokingham SDL will consortium of land owners led by Savills? Will there be not preclude the opportunity to create the a study on the transportation issues as suggested by Northern Distributor Road. the Core Strategy Inspector? Additional work completed as suggested by Inspector. Traffic Modelling R. Wheeler (FC/NW/127) Why is the base rate set on 2005 figures? Is this an See North Wokingham Technical Note. inadequate baseline?

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response NDR will be harmful Andrew Edwards (FC/NW/129) Urged council to “reconsider this route with use of and See North Wokingham Technical Note. development of existing roads”. Public Transport Ged McLaren (FC/NW/14) Will public transport arrangements for the area Noted, Strategic Transport Infrastructure (including the train station) be improved and provision is an important part of planning all increased? SDL’s. Modelling will continue to influence decisions and mitigation steps at the SDL.

All SDLs will be making a contribution to strategic transport improvements. Developer contribution Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/15) There will be no traffic relief as a result of the As a Council we are expecting to Northern Distributor Wokingham SDL as the Kentwood development would comprehensive development in order that Road not pay a link between the developments and the the infrastructure can be delivered. Northern Distributor Road. Applications that do not cover the whole areas to be developed within the SDL will be expected to demonstrate delivery. Para 6.1.1 of the SPD addresses this issue. Infrastructure and Colin Livingstone (FC/NW/50) There are serious concerns as to how the issue of The Core Strategy and Infrastructure SPD communication infrastructure is going to be approached with this set out the needs of the developments with between departments development. Departments should ensure good regards infrastructure. within WBC communication when making decisions to maximise outcomes. Cycle Provision Len and Fran Cooke (FC/NW/52) Cycle routes should be included within this Provision will be made within the SDLs. development, including safe routes to train stations and town centre and outside the SDL. Cycle racks in the town centre would also be appreciated. More cycle lanes would also be appreciated where there are busy walkways. Wider impact of all Pat Cooper (FC/NW/57) Need for more modelling on a strategic level, need for Borough wide modelling has been SDLs and Janice Smith (FC/NW/58) co-ordinated strategic transport planning due to undertaken and is available for inspection. developments such as Jackie Wood (FC/NW/66) cumulative impact. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 51 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NORTH WOKINGHAM (NW)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Jennetts Park

Possible De- Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) If a full junction is achievable would deregulation of the See NW Technical Note and Highways regulation of the R. Wheeler (FC/NW/127) A329m be an option? Agency comments. Full junction not A329M as at Reading achievable or desirable. end to free up an additional road lane Traffic increases and Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/15) Are the Council going back on their commitment to The Council cannot control house builder’s Crest Nicholson mitigate traffic increases from this SDL after allowing decisions to go public. A press release was consultation Crest Nicholson to go public with the plans without issued indicating that the Council was not discussing them with the Council. involved with the developer’s public consultation.

However pre application discussions are ongoing with developers to ensure a high standard of development occurs.

Traffic mitigation is considered a key part of the SDL proposals. Pedestrians as a Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/15) Concerned that the developer’s consultation implied A press release was issued indicating that priority encouragement of motorists. As a result of this it the council was not involved with the seems that there will be no pedestrian precincts. developer’s public consultation.

Development with be expected to accord with guidance in the SPD. Ashridge Interchange Leslie David Roland (FC/NW/6) Proposed bus lane from Park and Ride is not logical. Noted - Transport modelling has been Extra traffic caused by Jennett’s Park Development undertaken and has informed the Core and other road modifications will increase the potential Strategy and continues to inform the for more accidents. planning process.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Vital need for a full Ashridge Interchange. The Council has undertaken modelling to identify the transport requirements and Are discussions still progressing with the Highway capacity of the road network on a strategic Authority on this matter? and local level.

Are you settling for second best when it comes to Infrastructure mitigation must be reasonable options concerning the Ashridge Interchange? in relation to impact of proposals.

Core Strategy Policies CP10 and CP20 provide basis.

Development at North Wokingham SDL will not preclude the opportunity to create the Northern Distributor Road, however its completion prior to the commencement of development at the site is not a requirement of the Core Strategy.

Full NDR and Partial M & S Howard (FC/NW/115) In this instance due to the number of movements etc See NW Technical Note. Ashridge interchange that the development would generate neither the not the solution, Northern Distributor Road or Ashridge Interchange would suitably mitigate the transport impacts. Access to the M4 and a 2 way Ashridge interchange is essential. GP Surgery Grant Addison (FC/NW/35) Development looks unlikely to require more than one See NHS comments (FC/GEN/43L) new GP, which would make it an unviable practice.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Emmbrook School Ann Mayers (FC/NW/37) If Emmbrook School is moved, would children have to This is a Children’s Services issue outside travel John McBrearty (FC/NW/48) be driven to the new location on the Finchampstead scope of this SPD. Any new schools will be side of town; creating more traffic problems? subject to travel plans.

GP Surgery Ann Mayers (FC/NW/37) The proposed new surgery would be useful as the two Noted. The SDLs include provision for GPs at present would not be able to cope with the healthcare facilities. influx of new patients. Proposed Primary Gary Saunders (FC/NW/38) Is the proposed primary school (Matthewsgreen Road) This is a Children’s Services issue outside School Diane Lawton (FC/NW/41) a replacement or an addition to existing primary scope of this SPD. A relocated/expanded J. Parker (FC/NW/43) schools? Why is there no provision for more secondary school is facilitated at Arborfield Garrison. TA. Bailey (FC/NW/44) schools as a result? John McBrearty (FC/NW/48) Section 106 contributions will be sought Colin Livingstone (FC/NW/50) from developers.

Existing Secondary Gary Saunders (FC/NW/38) Would it not be better to spend the monies that are This is a Children’s Services issue outside Schools Diane Lawton (FC/NW/41) meant for new secondary schools on improving scope of this SPD. A relocated/expanded J. Parker (FC/NW/43) existing secondary schools? school is facilitated at Arborfield Garrison. Colin Livingstone (FC/NW/50) Section 106 contributions will be sought from developers.

Secondary Schools Gary Saunders (FC/NW/38) With the proposed developments to the area would it This is a Children’s Services issue outside Diane Lawton (FC/NW/41) not make more sense to have additional secondary scope of this SPD. A relocated/expanded J. Parker (FC/NW/43) schools? school is facilitated at Arborfield Garrison. TA. Bailey (FC/NW/44) Colin Livingstone (FC/NW/50) Section 106 contributions will be sought from developers.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response New Shops in S & J Wilkinson (FC/NW/97) There are vacant shop units in Clifton Road, what is Paragraph A7.41 of CS applies. The SDL neighbourhood centre the point in additional units? will generate additional need.

Provision of Len and Fran Cooke (FC/NW/52)  There should be a space sufficiently big enough to Noted. Further consultation on community community facilities house large group activities/exhibitions within this hubs will take place and has been centre (Emmbrook Vale), this will improve sense of programmed. community and spirit.  Facilities should include shops and a meeting space, and a secure bike lock-up.  Improved drainage in the area would be required along with development. School number and John McBrearty (FC/NW/48) What provisions will be made to manage the impact on This is a Children’s Services issue outside locations school numbers and locations in Wokingham North as scope of this SPD. A relocated/expanded a result of the increased population from the school is facilitated at Arborfield Garrison. developments? Could you also provide the current plans for schools and links (if there is one set up)? Section 106 contributions will be sought What meetings are being arranged to understand these from developers. changes? How are residents and parents of children at the current schools going to be affected by these changes? Community John McBrearty (FC/NW/48) As a result of new schools and the break up of current This is a Children’s Services issue outside schools, communities in Wokingham will be scope of this SPD. A relocated/expanded detrimentally impacted through a break-up. Will one of school is facilitated at Arborfield Garrison. the local schools be closed because of the proposed new schools? Section 106 contributions will be sought from developers.

Catchment Areas John McBrearty (FC/NW/48) As a result of various changes being made to schools This is a Children’s Services issue outside in the area; would catchment areas be relocated? If so scope of this SPD. A relocated/expanded how will they benefit the parents and pupils? school is facilitated at Arborfield Garrison. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 55 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NORTH WOKINGHAM (NW)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Section 106 contributions will be sought from developers.

Potential impact of Joan Utting (FC/NW/3) CPRE chairman for Ascot and Bracknell area. The NWSDL area for development has Development on Expressed concerns about the impact of the North previously been identified through the Core NWSDL plan area. Wokingham Development on this area. Would like a Strategy adoption process. map of this area that shows details of where the development will take place. The siting of specific parts of the development and uses will be identified through the NWSDL SPD document.

Subsequent planning applications will be subject to full public consultation. Cornerstone Leslie David Roland (FC/NW/6) Was any report ever issued on the proceedings of the Consultation process set out as part of SPD Consultation (12th consultation? process. Will be published as background to September) adoption. A summary of the informal process was included in the consultation draft. Crest Nicholson Colin Nicholls (FC/NW/4) It does not seem to tie up with the options outlined at Noted, any scheme submitted will need to consultation letters the Transport meeting held by the Council before accord with the Borough’s masterplan and and NDR Christmas. Request for further information on Crest Core Strategy. Nicholson phase 1 plan and to know if the Council is supporting this. Houses around Joan Baines (FC/NW/11) All houses to have solar energy. All buyers or people Noted. Section 5 of the SPD illustrates the Matthewsgreen Road who rent, to have electric cars. Cycle paths to and from Council’s commitment to sustainable any school that is built. development.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Mail from empty Joan Banies (FC/NW/11) Mail from empty shops should be collected. Not a relevant planning consideration. shops

Keepers Cottage Colin Nicholls (FC/NW/4) Keeper’s Cottage Pond is not shown on plans. Noted – To be considered at application Natural Pond Concerns that development may increase the height of stage. The Environment Agency will be a the pond. statutory consultee for subsequent applications. May also have biodiversity aspect eg: Great Crested Newts. Influence of the Kevin Scott (FC/NW/13) The future planning of the North Wokingham SDL is in Adequate provision of key infrastructure is Savills’ consortium danger of being unduly influenced by the views of the addressed in the adopted core strategy Savills’ consortium at the expense of the delivery of (appendix 7), this SPD and the draft key infrastructure such as the NDR, adequate SANGS infrastructure SPD. Any subsequent (impact on SPA) and the Park and Ride Facility. application will be expected to accord with these documents with regards infrastructure and mitigation. Land ownership Kevin Scott (FC/NW/13) Highlighted that the land shown in the representation Any planning application must demonstrate would not be constrained by ownership issues as they how the SDL will be delivered. would be willing to work together (The land owners are Sustainable Land Plc., Shanly Homes Ltd., Bellway Homes Plc., Ashdale Land and Property Company Ltd., and The Palmer Family) Assistance from Kevin Scott (FC/NW/13) Do the landowners have the resources to assist in the Consortia has confirmed viability. Any Landowners master planning of the SDL, as envisaged by the planning application must demonstrate how inspector? the SDL will be delivered.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Already permitted Kevin Scott (FC/NW/13) Will the 180 dwellings that have already been permitted They are recognised as part of the overall dwellings to part of the groups’ be integrated into the SDL? This CS commitment. would form part of the groups’ representation to the Consultation Draft of the North Wokingham SDL. Alternative Kevin Scott (FC/NW/13) Wishes to discuss with the Council how all the land Landowners have had many proposed development scheme within the SDL can be brought forward to ensure opportunities to participate. Any comprehensive development to deliver the widest development must be able to demonstrate possible range of benefits to the community. delivery of the SDL. Alternatives to Kevin Scott (FC/NW/13) Has master planning process been unduly constrained As above. proposed SPD and precluded development opportunities for other landowners? Is the masterplanning process too Put forward alternative scheme and development constrained? areas. Environmental health Kevin Scott (FC/NW/13) The potential impact of sewage treatment works upon The SDL takes account of the presence of issues new residential areas. Need for Bunds etc (as an the treatment works. Information on this example of potential constrictive nature of site) was submitted as part of the Core Strategy’s ‘Examination in Public’ and the CS was subsequently found to be sound. Further information will be required with applications to show compliance with necessary standards.

Previous community Ged McLaren (FC/NW/14) How was the community consultation communicated The informal consultation was advertised on Consultation and advertised? the Wokingham Borough Council website, (June/July options on BBC Radio Berkshire, through the local workshop) press, in libraries and letters were sent out to EIP respondents and others who have participated in the process.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Consultation Gary Saunders (FC/NW/38) Why is only a targeted area consulted on The Consultation process has been participants Diane Lawton (FC/NW/41) developments when the proposals will impact on the Borough wide. J. Parker (FC/NW/43) whole of Wokingham and further? Colin Livingstone (FC/NW/50) Green Space Ged McLaren (FC/NW/14) Concerns over loss of Green Space to the north west No public open space will be lost. of the development site. Concerns of detrimental Property price is not a planning issue. impact to the value of respondent’s property. Will strategic proportions of farmland be saved for Paragraph A7.40 of CS will apply. green space between new and existing developments? Noise pollution and Ged McLaren (FC/NW/14) Concerns over increased noise pollution and emissions This is a matter for detailed consideration. emissions L & F Cooke (FC/NW/52) as a result of NDR. PPG 24 ‘Planning and Noise’ will apply.

Cantley Park Juliet Crosby (FC/NW/34) Area cannot cope with an increase in population Paragraph A7.35 of CS will apply. Location Development density to the area. Road and rail networks cannot of development tested through CS process cope. Increased traffic through Dunt Lane would be which was found to be sound. unacceptable. Excessive speed Tony Mansfield (FC/NW/42) More can be done to enforce the speed 30mph speed ‘Nil detriment’ is sought as a result of the through Hurst John Ratcliffe (FC/NW/49) limit through Hurst. The introduction of speed cameras SDLs. Enforcement of traffic regulations not Colin McClelland (FC/NW/84) perhaps? a planning issue. B & J Hall (FC/NW/98) Will this be worsened by development with the potential creation of a rat run. Industrial Units TA. Bailey (FC/NW/44) There is no need for more industrial units in the area. Principle established in Core Strategy – New industrial units will only contribute in terms of local employment opportunities are an heavy traffic. important part of the development. Matthewsgreen Road TA. Bailey (FC/NW/44) Additional links in and out of Matthewsgreen Road will ‘Nil detriment’ is sought. See NW Technical result in an unacceptable increase in traffic. Note.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Farmland (River TA. Bailey (FC/NW/44) Agricultural land should not be used for development. CS paragraph A7.41(e) applies. Location of Emmbrook flooding) The use of agricultural land for development would not development tested through CS process be as sustainable as growing crops on the land for the and found to be sound. local area. Development on the farmland will also mean the removal of a flood plain, which will increase The Environment Agency have been the threat of flooding to the area. It would be preferable consulted. The EA will also be consulted on if no development took place in this area. any application. Housing rates TA. Bailey (FC/NW/44) Will there be a reduced rate for residents of This is not a relevant planning matter. Wokingham to buy property on the new residential There will be affordable housing. estate. Compensation TA. Bailey (FC/NW/44) There should be compensation made to residents who This is not a relevant planning matter. will suffer from loss of view, devaluation of their properties and be subjected to noise and pollution through the implementation process. Kentwood Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/47) On the proposals map the development is highlighted The developer will have to provide Development as being 400m away from a centre. Whereas in reality infrastructure in accordance with Appendix it is more than 400m away. This would mean that the 7. developers would have to provide more infrastructure facilities. Is agenda too Gary Saunders (FC/NW/38) Are ideas railroaded through due to political influence Extensive consultation of residents interests political? rather than representing the interests of Wokinghams and are taken into account. Residents have residents. been encouraged to play an active part in consultations and formation of documents such as the Core Strategy and continue to be involved in consultations such as the one for this SPD. Infrastructure Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/47) Concerned that infrastructure aims will not be achieved Paragraph A7.41 of Core Strategy applies. highlighted in the SDL at the site. documents

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Noise Barriers John and Ann Websper Provision of noise barriers for the M4 and A329(M) Noise mitigation measures relating to the (FC/NW/51) have not materialised. With Old Forest Road likely to SDL will be considered. experience more traffic the situation will only get worse. Core Strategy Michael Rosen (FC/NW/2) Wasn’t contacted about the meeting at Emmbrook All council events are publicised – was not a Development Plan School which was held on Friday 22nd January; why Council sponsored event. Meeting was this? Increased flood risk in Paul Gough (FC/NW/56) Potential risk of increased flooding in Surrounding Paragraph A7.41 of CS applies. surrounding area Dave Hasler (FC/NW/61) area/Hurst area due to impact of 1500 new dwellings in Environment Agency was a consultee. P & T Ive (FC/NW/63) the area. Potential environmental impact in relation to Planning applications will need to take Pippa Boyd (FC/NW/64) Sewage Treatment Works. account of flooding and the EA will be Hurst Village Society (FC/NW/70) consulted. Lisa Lunn (FC/NW/73) B & J Hall (FC/NW/98) P Wilson (FC/NW/107) Claire Thomas (FC/NW/110)

Character and Len and Fran Cooke (FC/NW/52) Existing hedgerows and fences are to be protected Paragraph A7.40 of CS applies. appearance of the from the development. In particular the ones along locality Matthewsgreen Road and Toutley Road. Keephatch Local Pat Cooper (FC/NW/57) Need to maintain and preserve Keephatch nature Paragraph A7.40 of CS and general wildlife Nature reserves Janice Smith (FC/NW/58) reserves. protection will apply. Peter Humphreys (FC/NW/68) RS Crowther (FC/NW/72) Alec Froy (FC/NW/74) Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) Keith Eversden (FC/NW/77) Melvyn Haines (FC/NW/80) Sue Lardge (FC/NW/81) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 61 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NORTH WOKINGHAM (NW)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Brian Hughes (FC/NW/82) As above. Malcolm Lewin (FC/NW/83) Dino Matticci (FC/NW/87A) Colin Alborough (FC/NW/87) Dale Green (FC/NW/88) Paul Morrison (FC/NW/89) Ann Warner (FC/NW/90) John Lucan (FC/NW/91) Chris Jamieson (FC/NW/92) Chris Rodger (FC/NW/93) Mary Mackie (FC/NW/94) Steve Ross (FC/NW/108) Claire Wright (FC/NW111) Rachel Partridge (FC/NW/112) S & A Hill (FC/NW/113) Jackie Taylor (FC/NW/119) Judy King (FC/NW/128) Gordon Smith (FC/NW/130) Emmbrook School site Jackie Wood (FC/NW/66) Emmbrook School site may lead to traffic reductions if Re-use of site will be subject of separate it is closed, but this is unlikely to be for 4-5 years and consideration and is likely to require the subsequent re-use of the site will have cumulative planning permission unless same use class traffic impacts. were proposed and no operational development was to be undertaken. . Sewage Treatment Hurst Village Society (FC/NW/70) Does the STW have the capacity to serve the new Paragraph A7.41 of CS applies. Works pressures of the SDL developments. Could have significant odour implications. Timing of NWSDL Alex Stockle (FC/NW/75) North Wokingham SDL should be delivered last as it The phasing will be in accordance with CS. delivery has the smallest number of houses and the smallest Housing trajectory Appendix 6. community gains.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Physical pollution Robin West (FC/NW/76) Should also be sited on the northern side to reduce Outside scope of this SPD. mitigation barriers on increased impact to Hurst area. M4 and A329M Impact of NDR on Graham Jorro (FC/NW/79) Issues of Noise, pollution, lost public access and loss Paragraph A7.40 of CS will apply. residential amenity C&K Maye (FC/NW/122) of view could occur.

Provision of C. Davies (FC/NW/86) Community centre should have ample parking and Noted. Community workshops to be held to community centre and an array of appropriate room sizes to look at these issues. accommodate a range of users.

Health centre, community centre, shops should be available and of a flexible nature. Erosion of Character B & J Hall (FC/NW/98) Increase in traffic etc through Hurst will cause ‘Nil detriment’ is a priority. of Hurst significant damage to the rural character of Hurst. The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound.

Two Cottages on Andrew Hunter (FC/NW/109) Wishes for these cottages to be shown on maps are CHANGE. MASTERPLAN TO BE Toutley Road should they are within the SDL area, and could mislead people CORRECTED. be shown on maps to how close neighbourhood will come to Toutley Road.

Would also like clarification of potential buffer between Paragraph A7.40 applies. SDL and Fernhill Cottages prior to planning application, concerned over possible loss of amenity due to proximity. Vegetation along Andrew Hunter (FC/NW/109) SDL should have a green edge, substantial vegetation Paragraph A7.40 of CS applies. edges of SDL site should be preserved.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Siting of development Claire Thomas (FC/NW/110) Development could be sited elsewhere (Eg. Molly Principle of SDLs established by Core Millars Lane) Strategy

Siting of School Claire Thomas (FC/NW/110) Talk of Emmbrook School closing, will this make it less This is a Children’s Services issue outside Provision sustainable due to increased distances to secondary scope of this SPD. schools. CS provides for sufficient sites in appropriate locations. New Town S & A Hill (FC/NW/113) A new town would be a better alternative allowing Principle of SDLs established by CS. infrastructure planning from scratch.

Alternative scheme G Leason (FC/NW/126) Propose alternative linear development with SANG These matters were considered in buffer between existing and new development. Partial developing preferred option. Link road only. Paragraph 6.1.1 Taylor Wimpey (FC/NW/59) Comments on Paragraph 6.1.1 – The overall approach Any application will need to demonstrate is supported by Taylor Wimpey, however it should not delivery of the SDL. An outline application be seen as a mechanism to frustrate the delivery of the for the whole SDL is sought. development if owners of small areas ot the land are unwilling to take part at this moment in time, and where any excluded land could be brought forward at a future date, subject to it contributing to a reasonable proportion of overall development costs (through legal agreement). Land outside of application boundaries should show that land owners/developers are willing and able to deliver the infrastructure within and agreed timescale. Ashridge farm land Taylor Wimpey (FC/NW/59) If SPD is adopted in similar form to draft, land at All land identified in the SPD is within the Ashridge must be included in any supporting SDL boundary. Any application will need to masterplans even if it lies outside of the application demonstrate delivery of the SDL. boundaries as it contains areas of essential infrastructure (NDR and SANG in particular). Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 64 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NORTH WOKINGHAM (NW)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Pebblestone Cottage Sam Cullum (FC/NW/59) Concern over the location of NDR, due to its proximity The Cottage lies on the aspirational route of Dennis Hind (FC/NW/125) to the dwelling they occupy. Concern that it would the NDR extension to Coppid Beech severely affect their residential amenity and local roundabout. The issues are for detailed biodiversity, and that the modelling would imply that the consideration at the appropriate time. traffic improvements from the road would not justify the expense. Would consider legal action to block the proposals.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Northern Distributor AM King (FC/NW/137L) Need for a full Northern Distributor Road to access the Additional work completed as suggested by Road (NDR) DM King (FC/NW/138L) North Wokingham SDL Inspector. See North Wokingham Technical C & S George (FC/NW/139L) Note. Joel Park Residents Association – - Traffic should be kept away from existing road (FC/NW/136L) network Development at North Wokingham SDL will Trisha.Steve (FC/NW/131L) not preclude the opportunity to create the Mark Hughes (FC/NW/132L) Many comments also requested that the NDR be Northern Distributor Road. Development Sarah Brown (FC/NW/135L) completed prior to the commencement of other will need to accord with the Infrastructure C & S George (FC/NW/139L) development at the site. Delivery SPD.

Potential impact of Trisha.Steve (FC/NW/131L) NDR leads to nowhere – this conflicts with inspector’s Additional work completed as suggested by an incomplete NDR Mark Hughes (FC/NW/132L) findings. Inspector. See North Wokingham Technical Sarah Brown (FC/NW/135L) Note.

Development at North Wokingham SDL will not preclude the opportunity to create the Northern Distributor Road. Development will need to accord with the Infrastructure Delivery SPD.

NDR start/end point Trisha.Steve (FC/NW/131L) NDR should start at the A329 in order to avoid the See NW Technical Note. Mark Hughes (FC/NW/132L) single carriage way at Old Forest Road and avoid Sarah Brown (FC/NW/135L) cause further traffic problems.

Transport Modelling Joel Park Residents Association – Transport modelling needs to be more robust and show See NW Technical Note. This was released (FC/NW/136L) more detail, times of day etc to truly show impacts. as soon as it was practically available. Trisha.Steve (FC/NW/131L) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 66 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NORTH WOKINGHAM (NW)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Mark Hughes (FC/NW/132L) Some comments that transport modelling should have Sarah Brown (FC/NW/135L) been released earlier in consultation period. Concerns over traffic Joel Park Residents Association – Traffic problems and safety risks could arise in this Additional work completed as suggested by in vicinity of Toutley (FC/NW/136L) area due to transport pressures, limited access points, Inspector. See North Wokingham Technical Road industrial some level of road improvements/traffic control should Note. estate/Old Forest be considered. Road/Emmbrook Rd Development at North Wokingham SDL will and Reading Road (Single lane sections at Old Forest Road and not preclude the opportunity to create the Emmbrook Road railway bridges are a particular area Northern Distributor Road. Development of concern – especially with potential increased will need to accord with the Infrastructure industrial use at Toutley Road) Delivery SPD.

Traffic Winnersh Parish Council Parish requests details of modelling for North None to NW. Appendix A7.35 and A7.41 of (FC/STAT/8) Wokingham. Is provision made for the full relief road in CS applies. Winnersh? No confidence relief road will be built. Wishes to see modelling for Winnersh crossroads The highway measures were discussed at without relief road. the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound. Modelling concerns Joel Park Residents Association – The model seems to conflict with the inspectors See NW Technical Note. (FC/NW/136L) findings, particularly with regards Old Forest Road/Toutley Road. System misleading to real life events. Suggested model doesn’t allow for the impact of one way traffic lights or Reading Road congestion. North Wokingham Trisha.Steve (FC/NW/131L) North Wokingham Technical Note seems to indicate See NW Technical Note. Technical Note Mark Hughes (FC/NW/132L) little or no surplus capacity. The note appears to Sarah Brown (FC/NW/135L) indicate that none of the mitigation measures are acceptable.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response North Wokingham Emmbrook Residents Association North Wokingham Technical note has serious Noted. The council believes the North Technical Note (FC/NW/55) unexplained anomalies and inaccuracies as detailed in Wokingham Technical Note to meet the the appendix of our letter. Document lacks credibility requirements for assessing the traffic impact and failed to make a clear case for council’s preferred of the site. The comments contained in the option. letters and appendices are noted and will be considered by Highways Officers as they If accepted at face value the Ashridge interchange continue to assess traffic impact at the site. option would cause the largest aggregate increase in traffic to the roads in NW. Buses and Lorries Joel Park Residents Association – Particularly with regards the Toutley Road industrial See NW Technical Note, paragraph A7.35 conflicting with other (FC/NW/136L) estate, it is considered that danger could arise from of CS. road users increased use. Safety is a key consideration.

Ashridge interchange Joel Park Residents Association – Para 3 pg 5 of technical note. Partial NDR with See NW Technical Note. (FC/NW/136L) Ashridge is not considered to comply with inspector’s comments. JPRA feel that any form of Ashridge interchange will encourage traffic through Emmbrook. Obstructions to NDR Joel Park Residents Association – There are obstructions to the delivery of a full NDR, e.g Full NDR is aspirational not a requirement. (FC/NW/136L) Pebblestone Cottage and ancient woodland. These issues would be subject to detailed consideration. Various issues with Joel Park Residents Association – Raised a number of concerns with regards model Additional work completed as suggested by the North (FC/NW/136L) working, including: Inspector. See North Wokingham Technical Wokingham Note. Technical note -Cantley long Stay car parking (para 2 page 4) - Need for Emmbrook school to be factored in to Development at North Wokingham SDL will models. not preclude the opportunity to create the - Concerns over improvement option examination Northern Distributor Road. Development will need to accord with the Infrastructure Delivery SPD.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Cycle Provision Joel Park Residents Association – Cycle routes should be included within this This is essentially a detailed consideration (FC/NW/136L) development, including safe routes to train stations and outside of scope of SPD. The SPD town centre and outside the SDL. Cycle racks in the considers these matters where relevant to town centre would also be appreciated. More cycle the SDL. lanes would also be appreciated where there are busy walkways. Increased flood risk AM King (FC/NW/137L) Potential risk of increased flooding in Surrounding Paragraph A7.41 of CS applies. in surrounding area DM King (FC/NW/138L) area/Hurst area due to impact of 1500 new dwellings in Joel Park Residents Association – the area. Potential environmental impact in relation to Environment Agency was a consultee and (FC/NW/136L) Sewage Treatment Works. will be consulted on any planning application.

Keephatch Local Trisha.Steve (FC/NW/131L) Need to maintain and preserve Keephatch nature Nature conservation is considered in SPD. Nature reserves Mark Hughes (FC/NW/132L) reserves. Sarah Brown (FC/NW/135L) Milton Road Joel Park Residents Association – Milton Road is considered to be a high risk road with Highway safety is a key consideration. (FC/NW/136L) narrow pavements and should be factored into modelling as its omission is concerning. Support for Joel Park Residents Association – Support for comprehensive outline approach, mirroring These issues are considered in SPD. comprehensive (FC/NW/136L) surrounding development on SDL edges, high quality outline approach design. Character Emmbrook Residents Association Character – Does not agree with page 35 of NWSPD Noted. (FC/NW/55) with regards street form consisting of tall properties with small front gardens and vertical repetition. Future development Joel Park Residents Association – Technical note page 1 indicates that capacity for future See NW Technical Note and paragraph (FC/NW/136L) development could be an issue. JPRA indicated that A7.32 of CS. the inspector stated a change to a capacity of around 1500 would not be justified.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Centres Emmbrook Residents Association Para 4c(ii) Should be reconsidered for primary school, Noted. (FC/NW/55) a large secure area with ample short term parking would be a better and more practical solution Acquisition of Bell Emmbrook Residents Association Problems with the acquisition of Bell Farm could affect Not currently relevant to this SPD. Noted. Farm (FC/NW/55) the whole concept of the SDL.

Visions and Wokingham Society Endorses visions and objectives of SPD. The vision and objectives are consistent Objectives (FC/STAT/22) with Section 3 paras 3.1. to 3.12 of the CS.

Community Wokingham Society Council should establish a community forum and Noted. Under consideration. Community Development (FC/STAT/22) continue to consult community groups. development is a key priority.

SANG/Open Space Wokingham Society No indication of how they will be managed. SANG will be protected (in perpetuity) and it (FC/STAT/22) is envisaged that SANG and open space will be subject to Section 106 as part of planning application process. Traffic Wokingham Society Objectives are fine but no guarantee of delivery/activity Paragraph A7.41 of CS deals with delivery. (FC/STAT/22) objectives. Not enough detail in SPD. See also Infrastructure Delivery SPD. Detail will emerge through planning applications.

Pedestrians and Wokingham Society Direct connections to Coppid Beech do not appear Paragraph A7.41 of CS deals with delivery. cycle routes (FC/STAT/22) deliverable.

Public Art Wokingham Society Expertise should be consulted and a panel established Noted. Outside scope of SPD but under (FC/STAT/22) to oversee delivery. consideration.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Employment Areas Wokingham Society 5c(iii) requires adaptability in new buildings but should Outside of scope of SPD. Refer to government (FC/STAT/22) be extended to include review of redundant buildings. guidance and CPI

Park and Ride Wokingham Society Not justified. Little benefit for Wokingham residents. Paragraph A7.41(iv) of CS applies. (FC/STAT/22) Contribution required.

Management and Wokingham Society Should involve local people in delivery forum. Noted. Outside scope of SPD but under Delivery (FC/STAT/22) consideration.

North Wokingham Wokingham Society Support concerns expressed by residents’ associations Not currently relevant to this SPD. Noted. Road and traffic (FC/STAT/22/L) Additional letter about adequacy of published plans. Lack of No new issues raised. plans received (original letter 18th March commitment to a full relief road and unspecified 2010) improvements reveals no coherent strategy.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 71 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Notification Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Lack of prior information, limited The Consultation took place over the statutory Mrs Anne Rutter (FC/ARB/81) consultation, insufficient time, poorly period. The majority of representations which Helen Grad (FC/ARB/75) advertised. Public meeting at Arborfield made this point were received during the David Willis (FC/ARB/73) was short notice. consultation period. The draft document was Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) extensively publicised beyond the statutory Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) notice. Any planning application will be subject Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) to Council’s established notification procedures. Alison Worley (FC/ARB/27) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/55) Darren Tipton (FC/ARB/48) Andrew Witting (FC/ARB/36) Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) Stephen R. Jones (FC/ARB/21) Eileen ter Horst (FC/A/RB/94) Jennifer Jones (FC/ARB/100) Kathy Tipton (FC/ARB/162) Mr & Mrs Sach (FC/ARB/166) Jon Drury (FC/ARB/169) Availability of land Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Uncertainty of delivery due to Defence The MOD is actively promoting the site for for development Melanie Palmer (FC/ARB/91) Review. Pressure to develop other land development and has recently reconfirmed this. M.B. Dicken (FC/ARB/88) with Garrison still in situ. The issue continues to be monitored. Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) THE SPD HAS BEEN AMENDED TO CLARIFY Mr T.J. Hughes (FC/ARB/76) IMPORTANCE OF ACHIEVING OVERALL Eleanor Brindle (FC/ARB/87) DELIVERY IN ORDER TO DELIVER A Helen Grad (FC/ARB/75) SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Judith Taylor (FC/ARB/74) David Willis (FC/ARB/73) Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 72 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) As above. As above. Alison Worley (FC/ARB/27) Mr & Mrs Wileman (FC/ARB/65) Mr R. Smith (FC/ARB/63) Mrs T.L. Hughes (FC/ARB/60) Peter Ayling (FC/ARB/56) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/55) Darren Tipton (FC/ARB/48) Hina Abbasi (FC/ARB/39) Mr Richard Heron (FC/ARB/31) Mark Turner (FC/ARB/30) Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) Stephen R. Jones (FC/ARB/21) Mr Richard Peat (FC/ARB/20) Mrs Elizabeth Peat (FC/ARB/19) Mark Turner (FC/ARB/97) Jennifer Jones (FC/ARB/100) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/112) Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) Steph Weaver (FC/ARB/133) Jill Holiday (FC/ARB/135) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/155) Kathy Tipton (FC/ARB/162) Tony Lewis (FC/ARB/182) Sajjad Abbasi (FC/ARB/188) Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) Green Field Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) The land is not ‘predominantly brownfield’. Reference needs to be made to PPS3 which Development Mrs Anne Rutter (FC/ARB/81) The brownfield land should be developed includes a definition of ‘previously developed Mr & Mrs Martin (FC/ARB/90) before Greenfield. land’ (brownfield). The development at Keith Holland (FC/ARB/89) Arborfield has always been anticipated to be a Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 73 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response M.N. Dicken (FC/ARB/88) Concern is to ensure that through a mixture of green and brownfield land and the Eleanor Brindle (FC/ARB/87) comprehensive scheme brownfield is SDL boundary is drawn widely to acknowledge Darren Rutter (FC/ARB/86) developed and not just Greenfield. this. Delivery only on brownfield would not Serena Robertsen (FC/ARB/84) deliver the numbers of units unless a Charles Wilcockson (FC/ARB/83) substantially higher density was promoted. Martyn Brewer (FC/ARB/82) However, overall delivery is the key issue. Chloe Hughes (FC/ARB/80) Detailed phasing is a matter to be considered in Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) applications; however development of David Martin (FC/ARB/77) greenfield land will be needed to ensure Mr T.J. Hughes (FC/ARB/76) viability where delivery of infrastructure early is Helen Grad (FC/ARB/75) required. Judith Taylor (FC/ARB/74) David Willis (FC/ARB/73) Amenity trees will be subject to preservation Alan Brewer (FC/ARB/72) order being prepared. Wildlife is subject to Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) protection. Martin Rieth (FC/ARB/70) John D’Arcy (FC/ARB/69) Protection of amenity trees (ie trees of value) Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) and structural landscaping is a high priority. It Melanie Palmer (FC/ARB/91) will be a requirement that applications will Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) include detailed tree surveys which will enable Alison Worley (FC/ARB/27) the Council to consider the issue in detail at Mr & Mrs Wileman (FC/ARB/65) that stage. Mr W.A.F. Spearing (FC/ARB/64) R. Smith (FC/ARB/63) The development area will include open space Mark & Lisa Allen (FC/ARB/62) and it is therefore a misconception to assume Mrs L. Spearing (FC/ARB/61) all land will be developed within the yellow Mrs T.L. Hughes (FC/ARB/60) areas on the masterplans. Doreen Smith (FC/ARB/59) Lisa Willis (FC/ARB/57) THIS HAS BEEN FURTHER CLARIFIED IN Peter Ayling (FC/ARB/56) THE TEXT. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 74 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Simon Collins (FC/ARB/55) As above. As above. Zoe, Emilia & William Brindle (FC/ARB/58) Miss L. Harrop (FC/ARB/49) D.P. Tipton (FC/ARB/48) Jane McDonald & Family (FC/ARB/42) Sajjad Abbasi (FC/ARB/188) Ayaan Abbasi (FC/ARB/40) Hina Abbasi (FC/ARB/39) Andew Witting (FC/ARB/36) Mr & Mrs M.V. Boys (FC/ARB/33) Richard Heron (FC/ARB/31) Mark Turner (FC/ARB/30) Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) Stephen R. Jones (FC/ARB/21) Richard Peat (FC/ARB/20) Elizabeth Peat (FC/ARB/19) Sarah Turner (FC/ARB/12) Richard Trevithick (FC/ARB/9) Paul Barton (FC/ARB/2) Gary Nicholls (FC/ARB/93) Eileen ter Horst (FC/ARB/94) Mrs S.E. Boys (FC/ARB/95) Mr M.V. Boys (FC/ARB/96) Mark Turner (FC/ARB/97) Phillip Harris (FC/ARB/104) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/112) Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) Paul Barton (FC/ARB/115) Fiona Exell (FC/ARB/125) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 75 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Robin Krause (FC/ARB/127) As above. As above. Steph Weller (FC/ARB/133) Michael Waller (FC/ARB/134) Margaret Maddox (FC/ARB/136) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/155) Kathy Tipton (FC/ARB/162) Mr & Mrs Sach (FC/ARB/166) Paul Jenkins (FC/ARB/168) Jon Drury (FC/ARB/169) Adam Andrade (FC/ARB/170) Paul Mcburnie (FC/ARB/180) Tony Lewis (FC/ARB/182) Lady Jennifer Hill-Wood (FC/ARB/183) Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) Highway Safety Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Threat to residents, especially children Highway safety both within the site and on Melanie Palmer (FC/ARB/91) during construction and from traffic existing development outside will be a major Mr & Mrs Martin (FC/ARB/90) generally. consideration in any planning application. Eleanor Brindle (FC/ARB/87) These matters can be addressed through Mrs D. Lebovitch (FC/ARB/85) planning applications which will be subject of Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) conditions and/or Section 106 legal agreement. Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) Construction routing can be considered at Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) application stage with the emphasis being on Alison Worley (FC/ARB/27 safety and issues of amenity. Mrs Lynne Spearing (FC/ARB/61) Mr W.A.F. Spearing (FC/ARB/64) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/55) Darren Smith (FC/ARB/59) Zoe, Emilia & William Brindle (FC/ARB/58) Miss L. Harrop (FC/ARB/49) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 76 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response D.P. Tipton (FC/ARB/48) As above. As above. Jane McDonald & Family (FC/ARB/42) Hina Abbasi (FC/A/RB/39) Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/35) Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/34) Steve Honour (FC/ARB/32) Mr & Mrs S. Haigh (FC/ARB/29) Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) Elizabeth Peat (FC/ARB/19) Sarah Turner (FC/ARB/12) Gary Nicholls (FC/ARB/93) Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) Fiona Exell (FC/ARB/125) Tracy Goldsmith (FC/ARB/130) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/155) Chloe Hughes (FC/ARB/156) Gill Pearson (FC/ARB/194) Pollution Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Dust, noise, light pollution due to Construction will be subject to environmental Melanie Palmer (FC/ARB/91) development and traffic will also mean and planning legislation including conditions as Mrs D. Lebovitch (FC/ARB/85) noise/pollution. appropriate. Vehicle emissions subject to non- Martyn Brewer (FC/ARB/82) planning legislation. Chloe Hughes (FC/ARB/80) Tony Hughes (FC/ARB/76) Noise considerations will be taken into account. Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) Martin Rieth (FC/ARB/70) PPS24 Planning and Noise will need to be Mr & Mrs Wileman (FC/ARB/65) complied with. Mr W.A.F. Spearing (FC/ARB/64) Mrs T.L. Hughes (FC/ARB/60) Peter Ayling (FC/ARB/56) Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 77 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Jane McDonald & Family (FC/ARB/42) As above. As above. Ayaan Abbasi (FC/ARB/40) Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/35) Richard Heron (FC/ARB/31) Eileen ter Horst (FC/ARB/94) Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) Jill Holiday (FC/ARB/135) Oliver Webster (FC/ARB/139) Kathrine & Graham Hutchings (FC/ARB/146) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/155) Chloe Hughes (FC/ARB/156) Felicity French (FC/ARB/181) Hina Abbasi (FC/ARB/39) Gill Pearson (FC/ARB/194) Flooding Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Increased risk of flooding due to Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy will apply. Keith Holland (FC/ARB/89) development. Paragraph A7.13 of the Core Strategy requires Eleanor Brindle (FC/ARB/87) flood mitigation as part of a planning obligation. Charles Wilcockson (FC/ARB/83) Environment Agency is a statutory consultee. Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) The EA will also be consulted on any planning Tony Hughes (FC/ARB/76) applications. Mr W.A.F. Spearing (FC/ARB/64) Mrs Lynne Spearing (FC/ARB/61) Mrs T.L. Hughes (FC/ARB/60) Peter Ayling (FC/ARB/56) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/55) Anthony Ettlinger (FC/ARB/51) Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) G.W.F. Swanton (FC/ARB/46) Julie Bardsley (FC/ARB/44) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 78 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) As above. As above. Richard Peat (FC/ARB/20) Mr & Mrs G. Baker (FC/ARB/16) Mrs C. Adams (FC/ARB/13) Sarah Turner (FC/ARB/12) E.C.D. Carter MBE (FC/ARB/8) Belinda Coulson (FC/ARB/99) Mr & Mrs J. Agates (FC/ARB/101) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/112) Steph Weaver (FC/ARB/133) Jill Holiday (FC/ARB/135) Oliver Webster (FC/ARB/139) Kathrine & Graham Hutchings (FC/ARB/146) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/155) Sally Miller (FC/ARB/158) Gordon Burges (FC/ARB/160) Iain Eggeling (FC/ARB/161) Adrian Ellis (FC/ARB/163) C.M. Broadhurst (FC/ARB/167) Belinda Coulson (FC/ARB/172) Laurence Heath (FC/ARB/173) Paul Mcburnie (FC/ARB/180) Crime Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Increase in crime. The development itself will require measures to Melanie Palmer (FC/ARB/91) deter crime. Crime outside of the SDL is a Mr & Mrs Martin (FC/ARB/90) matter for the police. Policy CP3(b) of the CS Keith Holland (FC/ARB/89) will apply to development. This requires Darren Rutter (FC/ARB/86) development to be functional, accessible, safe, Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) secure and adaptable. Tony Hughes (FC/ARB/76) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 79 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Mr W.A.F. Spearing (FC/ARB/64) As above. As above. Mark & Lisa Allen (FC/ARB/62) Mrs Lynne Spearing (FC/ARB/61) Peter Ayling (FC/ARB/56) Miss L. Harrop (FC/ARB/49) D.P. Tipton (FC/ARB/48) Sajjad Abbasi (FC/ARB/188) Mr & Mrs M.V.Boys (FC/ARB/33) Mr & Mrs S. Haigh (FC/ARB/29) Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) Sarah Turner (FC/ARB/12) Rosalind French (FC/ARB/103) Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) Steph Weaver (FC/ARB/133) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/155) Jan Heard (FC/ARB/157) Sajjad Abbasi (FC/ARB/188) Public Transport Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Additional buses will increase danger for Highway safety is a major consideration. Melanie Palmer (FC/ARB/91) children and will bring noise and pollution. Reducing the need to travel and provision of Mrs D. Lebovitch (FC/ARB/85) Will existing roads be suitable for buses? public transport are key elements of the overall Mrs Anne Rutter (FC/ARB/81) strategy. Chloe Hughes (FC/ARB/80) Funding to operate the services must be Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) secured. Para 7.13 of the CS applies. Tony Hughes (FC/ARB/76) David Martin (FC/ARB/77) Bus services must be available for Helen Grad (FC/ARB/75) commencement of the developments. Alan Brewer (FC/ARB/72) Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 80 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Alison Worley (FC/A/RB/27) As above. As above. Mrs Lynne Spearing (FC/ARB/61) Mr W.A.F. Spearing (FC/ARB/64) Finchampstead Parish Council (FC/ARB/240) Infrastructure Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) The proposed infrastructure will not support The modelling evidence submitted to the EIP Keith Holland (FC/ARB/89) the additional traffic. A number of supports the level of development and the M.N. Dicken (FC/ARB/88) respondents believe amounts of money to infrastructure measures. The infrastructure Charles Wilcockson (FC/ARB/83) pay will need to be increased. SPD deals with delivery of viable schemes. Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) The figures included are indicative to test Helen Grad (FC/ARB/75) Advance funding is needed. viability. The key issue is that the infrastructure Judith Taylor (FC/ARB/74) will be needed to support the developments. David Willis (FC/ARB/73) Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) Roads and key infrastructure should be Appendix 7 Adopted Core Strategy (A7.7 – John D’Arcy (FC/ARB/69) delivered at the outset. A7.9) and delivery infrastructure requirements. Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) Infrastructure Delivery SPD provides guidance Alison Worley (FC/ARB/27) There is support that Relief Road will be on securing and phasing of infrastructure. CS Mark & Lisa Allen (FC/ARB/62) buiult with the trigger point of 750 units but A7.13 sets out planning obligation Lisa Willis (FC/ARB/57) some have questioned the adequacy of the requirements. Relief Road is required after 750 Simon Collins (FC/ARB/55) trigger levels. dwellings. Anthony Ettlinger (FC/ARB/51) Diane Darling (FC/ARB/50) Arborfield relief road should be given The details of localised improvements will be Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) highest priority. subject to later work outside the scope of this Sarah Murfitt (FC/ARB/47) SPD. G.W.J. Swanton (FC/ARB/46) The routing of the Relief Road is a great Julie Bardsley (FC/ARB/44) concern. No details are known. Concern Elizabeth French (FC/ARB/45) about achievability. Christopher Heyliger (FC/ARB/43) Cathy Jones (FC/ARB/38) There is also concern that specific details of Mr & Mrs Eric Davies (FC/ARB/37) location and proposals are not included. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 81 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Andrew Witting (FC/ARB/36) As above. As above. Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/35) Mark Turner (FC/ARB/30) Mr & Mrs S. Haigh (FC/ARB/29) Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) D.J. French (FC/ARB/25) T.J. Jones (FC/ARB/24) Lawrench Heath (FC/ARB/23) Elizabeth Cannon (FC/A/RB/22) Richard Peat (FC/ARB/20) Julie Bardsley (FC/ARB/18) Mr & Mrs G. Baker (FC/ARB/16) Tracey Lilley (FC/ARB/14) Mrs C. Adams (FC/ARB/13) Richard Trevithick (FC/ARB/9) Mr E.C.D. Carter MBE (FC/ARB/8) Tim Gray (FC/ARB/6) Mr & Mrs S. Payne (FC/ARB/5) David Rose (FC/ARB/3) Paul Barton (FC/ARB/2) Gary Nicholls (FC/ARB/93) Eileen ter Horst (FCARB/94) Mark Turner (FC/ARB/97) Belinda Coulson (FC/ARB/99) Jennifer Jones (FC/ARB/100) Mr & Mrs T. Agates (FC/ARB/101) Graham Wooley (FC/ARB/102) Rosalind French (FC/ARB/103) Phillip Harris (FC/ARB/104) Dr D.J. Blomley (FC/ARB/105) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 82 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Zoe Parker (FC/ARB/106) As above. As above. Sue Smith & Graham Brown (FC/ARB/108) Richard Tweed (FC/ARB/109) Maureen Atkins (FC/ARB/110) Derek Barnby (FC/ARB/111) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/112) Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) Tracey Lilley (FC/ARB/114) Paul Barton (FC/ARB/115) Ian Hall (FC/ARB/118) Sergio Nogueira (FC/ARB/120) Fiona Exell (FC/ARB/125) Richard Lowrie (FC/ARB/126) Bob Poole (FC/ARB/128) Cliff Chatten (FC/ARB/129) Tracy Goldsmith (FC/ARB/130) Lee Mackie (FC/ARB/131) Julie & Reece Donovan (FC/ARB/132) Michael Waller (FC/ARB/134) Jill Holiday (FC/ARB/135) Margaret Maddox (FC/ARB/136) Laura Heyliger (FC/ARB/138) Oliver Webster (FC/ARB/139) Gill Boudier (FC/ARB/140) Wendy McKeown (FC/ARB/141) Graham Brown (FC/ARB/142) Emma Marchand (FC/ARB/143) Chris Carter (FC/ARB/144) Derek Tagg (FC/ARB/145) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 83 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Kathrine & Graham Hutchings As above. As above. (FC/ARB/146) Sandra Woodley (FC/ARB/147) Godrey Jacobs (FC/ARB/148) Mike Cooper (FC/ARB/149) Karen Knight (FC/ARB/150) Sandy Godfrey (FC/ARB/153) Christian Munro (FC/ARB/154) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/155) Jan Heard (FC/ARB/157) Sally Miller (FC/ARB/158) Gordon Burges (FC/ARB/160) Iain Eggeling (FC/ARB/161) Adrian Ellis (FC/ARB/163) Valerie Chua (FC/ARB/165) Mr & Mrs Sach (FC/ARB/166) C.M. Broadhurst (FC/ARB/167) Jon Drury (FC/ARB/169) Belinda Coulson (FC/ARB/172) Laurence Heath (FC/ARB/173) Richard Watson (FC/ARB/175) Joanne Watson (FC/ARB/176) Rob Rowe (FC/ARB/177) Richard Firth (FC/ARB/178) Janet Firth (FC/ARB/179) Paul Mcburnie (FC/ARB/180) Felicity French (FC/ARB/181) Tony Lewis (FC/ARB/182) Lady Jennifer Hill-Wood (FC/ARB/183) Bjorn Graabek (FC/ARB/185) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 84 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Hina Abbasi (FC/ARB/39) As above. As above. Sajjad Abbasi (FC/ARB/188) Finchampstead Parish Council (FC/ARB/240) Health Services Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Question delivery of a GP Service and Appendix 7 A7.13(c) applies. The NHS are a Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) National Health dentist. Question capacity statutory consultee and have commented on Mark Turner (FC/ARB/30) of hospital facilities. facilities to be provided. It has been suggested Richard Trevithick (FC/ARB/9) that the GP Service be provided on the first Simon Collins (FC/ARB/112) floor over the supermarket. Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) Community Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) What provision has been made for This is being pursued through Council Development Mark & Lisa Allen (FC/ARB/62) community development. Importance of responsibilities, community consultation and Sarah Taylor (FC/A/RB/79) integration with existing community. developer liaison. Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) Importance of faith facilities. CS Appendix 7, A 7.13(c) applies. Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) Richard Peat (FC/ARB/20) Community Hub workshops took place in June. Mark Turner (FC/ARB/97) Phillip Harris (FC/ARB/104) THESE ARE REFERRED TO IN THE SPDs Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) AND A REPORT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON Paul Barton (FC/ARB/115) THE COUNCIL’S WEBSITE. Parish Church of St. James (FC/ARB/17) District Centre - Keith Holland (FC/ARB/89) District Centre location will result in The modelling evidence submitted to the EIP Oppose Eleanor Brindle (FC/ARB/87) unacceptable traffic levels, unsatisfactory supported the level of development including Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) relationship with existing properties. the supermarket and the infrastructure Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) measures. Amenity issues will be dealt with Luke Holland (FC/ARB/67) through planning applications. Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 85 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response District Centre – Ben Borthwick (FC/ARB/121) Welcomes centre location The District Centre is shown at the centre of the Favour site. Impact on property M.N. Dicken (FC/ARB/88) The development will reduce house prices. This is not a relevant planning consideration. prices Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) David Willis (FC/ARB/73) Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) Jane MacDonald & Family (FC/ARB/42) Mr & Mrs M.V. Boys (FC/ARB/33) Mr Simms (FC/ARB/11) Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) Steph Weaver (FC/ARB/133) Affordable Housing Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) 35% is above national average. Account 35% is to be applied to new housing. Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) should be taken of existing housing. CS Policy CP5 applies. This is based on the Mark Turner (FC/ARB/30) Relationship between affordable and presence of existing affordable housing. The Sarah Rolfe (FC/ARB/113) market housing. Could result in social approach will be to make the development Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) problems. Will affordable housing be ‘tenure blind’. spread throughout the development. Street hierarchy Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) How will traffic movement, vehicle, A street hierarchy and highway safety Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) pedestrian separation be achieved? What measures will be incorporated at design stage. Ian Pittock (FC/ARB/107) will happen to existing roads. Off-site infrastructure works will emerge Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) through detailed design. Scale of Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/79) Scale of development is unacceptable. The level conforms to the adopted Core development Diane Darling (FC/ARB/50) How can it be guaranteed that the Strategy which identifies the location during the Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) developer will not increase numbers in the Plan period to 2026 as suitable for 3,500 G.W.J. Swanton (FC/ARB/46) future? dwellings, new employment, appropriate retail Elizabeth French (FC/ARB/45) facilities and transport, social and physical Christopher Heyliger (FC/ARB/43) infrastructure. In addition the Policy requires D.J. French (FC/ARB/25) the provision of SANG. (Para A7.1 of CS Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) applies.) Any application will be determined Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 86 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) As above. against CS policy. Richard Trevithick (FC/ARB/9) Mr E.C.D. Carter MBE (FC/ARB/8) Tim Gray (FC/ARB/6) Rosalind French (FC/ARB/103) Paul Barton (FC/ARB/115) Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) Laura Heyliger (FC/ARB/138) Laurence Heath (FC/ARB/173) Rob Rowe (FC/ARB/177) Richard Firth (FC/ARB/178) Paul Mcburnie (FC/ARB/180) Gill Pearson (FC/ARB/194) Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) Impact on Dan Rutter (FC/ARB/78) The development will result in loss of Protection of amenity trees and wildlife are wildlife/loss of trees Chloe Hughes (FC/ARB/80) /threats to trees/wildlife on and off the site. material considerations. These will be Mrs Anne Rutter (FC/ARB/81) How will wildlife be protected? Various considered in subsequent planning Martyn Brewer (FC/ARB/82) protected species are mentioned by applications. Applications will be expected to Serena Robertson (FC/ARB/84) respondents. undertake full tree and wildlife surveys. Darren Rutter (FC/ARB/86) Eleanor Brindle (FC/ARB/87) Policies PPS9 and CP3 of the Core Strategy M.N. Dicken (FC/ARB/88) apply. Steve & Sara Martin (FC/ARB/90) Melanie Palmer & Brendon Rockery ADDITIONAL TEXT ON THIS MATTER HAS (FC/ARB/91) BEEN ADDED. Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) David Martin (FC/ARB/77) Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) Stephen R. Jones (FC/ARB/21) Alison Worley (FC/ARB/27) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 87 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Luke Holland (FC/ARB/28) As above. As above. Mr & Mrs S. Haigh (FC/ARB/29) Mark Turner (FC/ARB/30) Richard Heron (FC/ARB/31) Mr & Mrs V. Boys (FC/ARB/33) Mrs Sarah Taylor (FC/ARB/34) Hina Abbasi (FC/ARB/39) Ayaan Abbasi (FC/ARB/40) Sajjad Abbasi (FC/ARB/188) Jane MacDonald & Family (FC/ARB/42) D.P. Tipton (FC/ARB/48) Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/55) Peter Ayling (FC/ARB/56) Zoe, Emilia & William Brindle (FC/ARB/58) Darren Smith (FC/ARB/59) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/60) Lynne Spearing (FC/A/RB/61) Mark & Lisa Allen (FC/ARB/62) R. Smith (FC/ARB/63) William A.F. Spearing (FC/ARB/64) Paul Taylor (FC/ARB/68) John D. D’Arcy (FC/ARB/69) Martin Rieth (FC/ARB/70) Dan Brindle (FC/ARB/71) Alan Brewer (FC/ARB/72) Mrs Judith A. Taylor (FC/ARB/74) Helen Aylett Grad CIPD (FC/ARB/75) Tony J. Hughes (FC/ARB/76) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 88 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Richard Peat (FC/ARB/20) As above. As above. Elizabeth Peat (FC/ARB/19) Sarah Turner (FC/ARB/12) Mr Simms (FC/ARB/11) Paul Barton (FC/ARB/2) Gary Nicholls (FC/ARB/93) Eileen der Horst (FC/ARB/94) Mr M.V. Boys (FC/ARB/96) Phillip Harris (FC/ARB/104) Sue Smith & Graham Brown (FC/ARB/108) Simon Collins (FC/ARB/112) Paul Barton (FC/ARB/115) Fiona Exell (FC/ARB/125) Robin Krause (FC/ARB/127) Steph Weaver (FC/ARB/133) Jill Holiday (FC/ARB/135) Sandra Woodley (FC/ARB/147) Tina Hughes (FC/ARB/155) Chloe Hughes (FC/ARB/156) Kathy Tipton (FC/ARB/162) Mr & Mrs Sach (FC/ARB/166) Paul Jenkins (FC/ARB/168) Richard Watson (FC/ARB/175) Joanne Watson (FC/ARB/176) Tony Lewis (FC/ARB/182) Gill Pearson (FC/ARB/194) Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) Services Tony Hughes (FC/ARB/76) Can foul drainage cope? Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy states that Diane Darling (FC/ARB/50) planning permission will not be granted unless Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 89 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) As above. appropriate arrangements for the improvement Christopher Heyliger (FC/ARB/43) of and provision of infrastructure, services etc, Steve Honour (FC/ARB/32) have been made. The Drainage Authority is a D.J. French (FC/ARB/25) statutory consultee. Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) Paragraph A7.13(c) of the Core Strategy will Mr & Mrs S. Payne (FC/ARB/5) apply. Rosalind French (FC/ARB/103) Richard Tweed (FC/ARB/109) Laura Heyliger (FC/ARB/138) Rob Rowe (FC/ARB/177) Gill Pearson (FC/ARB/194) Safeguarding other Diane Darling (FC/ARB/50) Parks, open spaces and playing fields These matters will be subject to detailed land Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) should be safeguarded/owned by consideration at planning application stage. Laura Heyliger (FC/ARB/138) community. See Core Strategy Policies CP2 and CP3. Historic Diane Darling (FC/ARB/50) Historic buildings should be Listed buildings are protected by legislation. buildings/existing Mr & Mrs S. Haigh (FC/ARB/29) protected/buildings of value should be The SPD seeks retention of non-listed buildings buildings Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) retained. Reference should be made to if appropriate (Section 7 of SPD). Tim Gray (FC/ARB/6) retention of Langley House F.A. Scott (FC/ARB/98) Administration Diane Darling (FC/ARB/50) A separate Council should be set up to Not a planning decision but aware debate is Christopher Heyliger (FC/ARB/43) administer the SDL ongoing. Llaura Heyliger (FC/ARB/138) Loss of existing Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) New businesses including shops, could CS Policy CP13, CP15 in particular apply. businesses threaten existing. CP13 protects existing shopping. CP15 protects employment development. Employment Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) Loss of existing employment, businesses. CS Policy CP13, CP15 in particular apply. Dr S.P. Wilford (FC/ARB/10) New population seeking jobs. Should be CP13 protects existing shopping. CP15 Sue Smith & Graham Brown better relationship between jobs/housing. protects employment development. The SDL (FC/ARB/108) Increase in activity at Hogwood Estate approach seeks to provide a better match Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 90 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response extension. between existing employment and location of housing to reduce the need to travel. Views Mrs S.E. Boys (FC/ARB/33) Loss of views. The development is on third party land. Loss of Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) view is not a material consideration. Car Parking Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) Sufficient car parking should be available. The standard of car parking to be applied will Mr & Mrs S. Haigh (FC/ARB/29) be a detailed consideration through a planning Richard Firth (FC/ARB/178) application See previous comment on CP6 and Local Plan Appendix. Scale of Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) 1) Too large Scale of the supermarket is supported by EIP supermarket Richard Trevithick (FC/ARB/9) 2) Welcome new facilities Inspector. (See report on Council website.) Ben Borthwick (FC/ARB/121) 3) Opposition to gross floorspace as inconsistent with Core Strategy. Place Names Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) Strongly supported In SPD. No change required. F.A. Scott (FC/ARB/98) Density Elizabeth Cannon (FC/ARB/22) Figures 4.5 and 4.6 contradict each other. CHANGE – AMEND AS REQUIRED.

Design Lisa Harrop (FC/ARB/49) Various concerns about design of new The SPD encourages high quality design and Mark Turner (FC/ARB/30) buildings, including height of houses, deals with height, context and character. Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) context, character. Need to cross These matters can be dealt with through Paul Barton (FC/ARB/115) reference with Barkham Village design planning applications which will need to include F.A. Scott (FC/ARB/98) guide. a Design and Access Statement and will be Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/173) subject to public consultation. Adam Andrade (FC/ARB/170) Tony Lewis (FC/ARB/182) Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) Existing Community Andrew Witting (FC/ARB/36) There will be pressure on existing Para 2.50 etc of the CS confirms the Council’s uses Mr & Mrs R. Murfitt (FC/ARB/47) community uses and open spaces. commitment to sport, leisure and cultural Elizabeth French (FC/ARB/45) facilities. Core Strategy requires SDLs to make Maureen Atkins (FC/ARB/110) full provision for community uses including Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 91 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Ian Hall (FC/ARB/118) As above. buildings, public open space and SANG. Sergio Nogueira (FC/ARB/120) Reflected in SPD. Richard Lowrie (FC/ARB/126) Bob Poole (FC/ARB/128) These matters are covered in Appendix 7 of the Tracy Goldsmith (FC/ARB/130) CS. Lee Mackie (FC/ARB/131) Margaret Maddox (FC/ARB/136) Gill Boudier (FC/ARB/140) Wendy McKeown (FC/ARB/141) Sandy Godfrey (FC/ARB/153) Valerie Chua (FC/ARB/165) Laurent Seraphin (FC/ARB/174) Steve Bromley (FC/ARB/184) Bjorn Graabek (FC/ARB/185) Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) Schools Mr & Mrs Murfitt (FC/ARB/47) 1) Support for new secondary school. Core Strategy makes provision for new school. Lawrence Heath (FC/ARB/23) 2) Location should be resolved. SPD shows preferred location. SPD supports Richard Peat (FC/ARB/20) 3) Logic of closure of Emmbrook/Ryeish community hub approach to achieve efficiency Richard Trevithick (FC/ARB/9) Green. and community focus. Decision to relocate will Patricia Taylor (FC/ARB/4) 4) Is site large enough? be subject of a separate consultation. Maureen Atkins (FC/ARB/110) 5) Will it be delivered on time? Ian Hall (FC/ARB/118) 6) Is it suitable to locate next to Sergio Nogueira (FC/ARB/120) supermarket/district centre? Richard Lowrie (FC/ARB/126) Bob Poole (FC/ARB/128) Tracy Goldsmith (FC/ARB/130) Lee Mackie (FC/ARB/131) Margaret Maddox (FC/ARB/136) Gill Boudier (FC/ARB/140) Wendy McKeown (FC/ARB/141) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 92 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Sandy Godfrey (FC/ARB/153) As above. As above. J. Wood (FC/ARB/164) Valerie Chua (FC/ARB/165) Laurent Seraphin (FC/ARB/174) Bjorn Graabek (FC/ARB/185) Martin Rutter (FC/ARB/92) Separation of Mr & Mrs Murfitt (FC/ARB/47) Location of development within SDL will Retaining separation is a key issue. Measures settlements Mr & Mrs Eric Davies (FC/ARB/37) reduce separation between settlements. to ensure retention will be considered through Maureen Atkins (FC/ARB/110) (This issue was also raised by applications and through DPD. Ian Hall (FC/ARB/118) Finchampstead Parish Council.) Sergio Nogueira (FC/ARB/120) CHANGE – MASTERPLAN TO CLARIFY Richard Lowrie (FC/ARB/126) EXTENT OF SEPARATION. Bob Poole (FC/ARB/128) Tracy Goldsmith (FC/ARB/130) Lee Mackie (FC/ARB/131) Margaret Maddox (FC/ARB/136) Gill Boudier (FC/ARB/140) Sandy Godfrey (FC/ARB/153) Valerie Chua (FC/ARB/165) Laurent Seraphin (FC/ARB/174) Steve Bromley (FC/ARB/184) Proposed open Christopher Heyliger (FC/ARB/43) New spaces should be protected. Protection will be subject to consideration at spaces Mr & Mrs Eric Davies (FC/ARB/37) application stage. It is envisaged that S106 D.J. French (FC/ARB/25) Agreements will be used. Rosalind French (FC/ARB/103) Cycle paths, Sarah Turner (FC/ARB/12) Insufficient details. Will be part of details through planning footpaths applications. Statement of Timothy Webb (FC/ARB/1) Referred to in text but not available. The text was written in anticipation of community views availability on adoption.

Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 93 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD GARRISON (ARB)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Sustainable Sue Smith & Graham Brown Should be encouraged. Section A7.7 of CS applies and is reflected in transport (FC/ARB/108) the SPD. Sandra Woodley (FC/ARB/147) Sustainable location Sue Smith & Graham Brown Should be a sustainable development. Section A.7.6 and A.7.7 of CS Policy CP1. (FC/ARB/108) Provision of infrastructure such as school and facilities key to sustainability. Outline application Ben Borthwick (FC/ARB/121) Unachievable due to size of SDL and This is Council’s preferred route to ensure landowner interests. comprehensive development. Phasing Ben Borthwick (FC/ARB/121) Inconsistancy between Masterplan and CHANGE – TO BE AMENDED AS REQUIRED. Infrastructure SPDs (6.4.6 of SDL, Table 1 Infrastructure) Allotments Wendy McKeown (FC/ARB/141) Has provision been made for allotments? Allotments are encouraged and this is reflected in the SPD. Sustainable Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) Will provision be made for sustainable CS paragraphs 2.46 onwards make it clear that drainage drainage. effective waste and recycling forms a key element of the Council;s ‘vision’. Bus Stops Mrs K. Cowan (FC/ARB/253) What is happening to existing bus stops. There are no immediate plans to relocate bus stops. The communities will be served by new/extended bus services which will mean new bus stops will be needed.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response 129 Nash Grove P.R. Newman on behalf of Neil Briggs Land should be included for development Outside of SDL – not relevant to this exercise Lane, (FC/ARB/54) as CS has confirmed boundary – refer to Policy Finchampstead re additional housing land. Will be considered through MDD. Land north of Nine P.R. Newman on behalf of land owners Land should be included for development Outside of SDL – not relevant to this exercise Mile Ride (FC/ARB/53) as CS has confirmed boundary – refer to Policy re additional housing land. Will be considered through MDD. Land at Targetts P.R. Newman on behalf of land owners Land should be included for development Outside of SDL – not relevant to this exercise Farm, Eversley (FC/ARB/53) as CS has confirmed boundary – refer to Policy re additional housing land. Will be considered through MDD. Other land Mr & Mrs H. Row (FC/ARB/7) Land should be included in development Outside of SDL – not relevant to this exercise as CS has confirmed boundary – refer to Policy re additional housing land. Will be considered through MDD. Hogwood Farm Roger Bullworthy (FC/ARB/117) Support for Masterplan Within SDL. Hogwood Farm was originally in Consortium and has continued to be involved. Duck Nest Farm Michael Bingham (FC/ARB/151) Land should be included in the Outside of SDL – not relevant to this exercise development as CS has confirmed boundary – refer to Policy re additional housing land. Will be considered through MDD.

‘Greenfields’, Bircham Dyson Bell on behalf of Joe Land should be included for development. Outside of SDL – not relevant to this exercise Edneys Hill, Harari (FC/GEN/42) as CS has confirmed boundary – refer to Policy Barkham re additional housing land. Will be considered through MDD.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Model Farm, Michael Bingham (FC/GEN/35) Land should be included for development. Outside of SDL – not relevant to this exercise Barkham Ride as CS has confirmed boundary – refer to Policy re additional housing land. Will be considered through MDD.

Compliance with Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Plan does not make provision for a The SPD is in accordance with paragraph A7.4 Development Plan Consortium (Note that Arborfield minimum of 3,500 dwellings, nor does it of the Core Strategy. Consortium is not as described at EIP in show how additional capacity is being that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) planned for. Could physically accommodate more but (FC/ARB/122) planning for CS period.

Flexibility has been built in. Use of land Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Inefficient use of land. In particular the plan The plan does not seek to identify the specific Consortium (Note that Arborfield shows open space that exceeds that location of open space (with the exception of Consortium is not as described at EIP in required to meet CS standards and SANG). This will be left to developers to refine that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) overconcentration to north. May be in any masterplan accompanying a planning appropriate not to show ‘green corridors’ as application. specific allocations but as broad directives. Changes from last Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield No justification for changes from informal The informal consultation informed preparation consultation Consortium (Note that Arborfield consultation options. of the preferred option for statutory Options. Consortium is not as described at EIP in consultation. that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.

Infrastructure SPD Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Inconsistencies. For instance land take for CHANGE – TEXT TO BE CLARIFIED. Consortium (Note that Arborfield secondary school. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded).

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Draft Framework Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Should acknowledge that it is one The SPD provides development guidance and Masterplan Consortium (Note that Arborfield interpretation of how to masterplan the is considered the most appropriate way to Consortium is not as described at EIP in SDL. There are several other approaches achieve delivery of Core Strategy requirements. that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) that will equally deliver Development Plan Policy Requirements. SANGS Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Previous options included a dispersed The three informal options showed a grouped Consortium (Note that Arborfield solution. In contrast the draft Masterplan solution. There will be a network of walks to Consortium is not as described at EIP in shows one location to the south of the /from SANG. The Inspector also commented that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) SDL.This does not maximise links to positively. Natural England has no objection. It California Country Park. It is not the most is recognised that Natural England has no accessible location for residents to walk. objection to other locations. They may drive to an SPA as an alternative. Sports pitches Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Location could be ‘fixed’ as these mostly Amendment is not required. Appendix 4 of CS Consortium (Note that Arborfield relate to existing facilities. will apply. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Neighbourhood Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Scale may raise commercial viability issues They are not intended to compete but to serve Centres Consortium (Note that Arborfield as they should not compete with District a local need including those less able to use Consortium is not as described at EIP in Centre. Clarification is appropriate. cars. Also to discourage cars for short journeys. that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) It is for the developer to provide details of intentions. Secondary school Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield The school was not shown on any A central location is considered to be the most location Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium land in previous options. Why rational in terms of accessibility. Co-location Consortium is not as described at EIP in the change of direction? Consortium has been a consistent theme. It also reflects that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) remains committed to working with Council change associated with relocation of Nine Mile to deliver school. Ride extension that emerged through informal consultation. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 97 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – ARBORFIELD

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Primary Schools Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Concerned at location and question The locations are accessible to the new Consortium (Note that Arborfield accessibility to residents. In particular communities. Consortium is not as described at EIP in northern school would be better located to that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) north of residential area ‘B’. Density Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield At 35 dph the 114ha residential areas in The SPD is in accordance with paragraph A7.4 Consortium (Note that Arborfield draft SPD could deliver circa 4,000 of the Core Strategy. Amendment not required. Consortium is not as described at EIP in dwellings. Reducing Public Open Space that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) could produce a capacity of 4,500 dwellings. In view of overprovision of POS there is capacity to develop beyond 2026 in excess of 3,500 dwellings. Consortium supports an average density above 35dph (existing density in north is 40+dph). Lower density to the south is supported.

SPD boundary Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield The boundary is incorrectly drawn to the Boundary to be in line with Core Strategy. Consortium (Note that Arborfield west of Reading FC’s training ground. It Consortium is not as described at EIP in should be further east to encompass all that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) MOD land. Southernmost Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Does not accord with Core Strategy The SPD provides the necessary level of residential areas. Consortium (Note that Arborfield ‘Concept Plan’ and should be rectified. development guidance. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Overall Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Believe series of principles can be fixed Development Consortium (Note that Arborfield - location of District centre Principles Consortium is not as described at EIP in - links to District Centre that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) - location of neighbourhoods/centres - Public Open Space location - green links using ‘directions’ rather than areas - interface with existing residential areas New village Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Page 1 ‘Introduction’. Is it a new village? Paragraph A7.2 of the Core Strategy refers to Consortium (Note that Arborfield this as essentially ‘a large village’. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) 1.1.1 Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield “To be confirmed”? AMENDED. Consortium (Note that Arborfield Requires clarification. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) 1.1.1 and 2.3.2 Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield More explicit reference to SEP. Abolition of Regional Strategies (SEP). SPD is Consortium (Note that Arborfield Acknowledge capacity post 2026. in accordance with paragraph A7.4 of the Core Consortium is not as described at EIP in Strategy. The SPD relates to development that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) within the CS period. Figure 1.1 Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield There is no Figure 1.1. AMEND. Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Current Consortium Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Should acknowledge objection. The objection is in this statement and does not Consortium (Note that Arborfield need to be in SPD since the statement is a Consortium is not as described at EIP in relevant background paper. that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Continuity and Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Figure 3.1 plan should be revised. AMEND AS REQUIRED. enclosure Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.)

Figure 2 Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield ‘Non-Consortium’ land out of date. AMEND AS REQUIRED. Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) 2.3.6 Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Reference to Infrastructure SPD should be Noted. Consortium (Note that Arborfield ‘2010’. Consortium is not as described at EIP in AMEND AS REQUIRED. that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) DPD Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Unsure how DPD is relevant. It is relevant and is referred to throughout CS. Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Statement of Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Not yet available. This was added on basis that it would be Community Views Consortium (Note that Arborfield included in final document. Will be on Consortium is not as described at EIP in adoption. that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Consultation photos Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield 2 of the 3 photos are south of M4 SDL. Noted. They are for guidance as to the type of Consortium (Note that Arborfield event only and change is not necessary. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) SCI Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Should this be SCV? AMEND FOR CONSISTENCY AS Consortium (Note that Arborfield APPROPRIATE. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Building Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Unlikely to be completed at outline stage. AMEND TEXT. Construction Consortium (Note that Arborfield Techniques Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Configuration of Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Whose ‘SDL components’ are anticipated? CLARIFY TEXT. SDL components Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Figure 3.1 note DC Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Site size is missing. AMEND TEXT. Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Orchards Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Not previously raised. DELETE REFERENCE. Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium is not as described at EIP in Developers may wish to consider including in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) their proposals.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Allotments Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Not previously raised. Core Strategy recognises importance of Consortium (Note that Arborfield allotments based on 0.52 ha/1000 population Consortium is not as described at EIP in (Appendix 4). that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Example photos Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Examples of 2-4 storey shown. Consortium The key consideration will be how appropriate Consortium(Note that Arborfield believes appropriate but is concerned about the development is to the context. Consortium is not as described at EIP in staying within the density range for this that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) SDL. Prioritisation of Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Consortium supports principle in 6.4.2 1). Noted. The key issue is delivery of the SDL. previously Consortium (Note that Arborfield developed land. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Phasing Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Raises viability concerns. The Council has sought independent advice on Consortium (Note that Arborfield viability throughout preparing CS and SPD. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Existing Community Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Unclear how it is being dealt with since a Paragraph A7.13 of Core Strategy applies. Centre Consortium (Note that Arborfield new centre is also expected in District This seeks community buildings under Consortium is not as described at EIP in Centre. A7.13(c). that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Inclusion of Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Same in all SDLs. Concerned that this will Paragraph A7.3 of Core Strategy applies. neighbourhood Consortium (Note that Arborfield not recognise unique characteristics of the Unique characteristics are acknowledged and it guidance Consortium is not as described at EIP in SDLs. is expected this will be reflected in any D and A that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Statement and in design of development.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Superstore size Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Core Strategy says around 4,000 sq m. AMEND TO REFLECT CORRECT POSITION. Consortium (Note that Arborfield SPD says ‘up to’. Should be corrected. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Accessibility Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Are standards met on Figure 3.1? TEXT WILL BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY standards Consortium (Note that Arborfield POSITION. Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Stables Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Consortium does not consider stables are Designation as a Scheduled Ancient Monument Consortium (Note that Arborfield best built heritage in the SDL. They are a is a material consideration. Consortium is not as described at EIP in SAM. that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.) Outline application Grimleys on behalf of Arborfield Consortium agrees with para 6.1.1. Noted. Consortium (Note that Arborfield Consortium is not as described at EIP in that Hogwood Estate is now excluded.)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Schools Rikke Graabek (FC/ARB/191/L) Support Same comment as others made on time. Jim Gallagher (FC/ARB/192/L) Infrastructure Rikke Graabek (FC/ARB/191/L) Insufficient resources to mitigate traffic Same comment as others made on time. Jim Gallagher (FC/ARB/192/L) impacts Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) John D’Arcy (FC/ARB/196/L) Settlement Rikke Graabek (FC/ARB/191/L) Development will reduce settlement Same comment as others made on time. Separation Jim Gallagher (FC/ARB/192/L) separation Impact on existing Rikke Graabek (FC/ARB/191/L) Existing amenities including California Park, Same comment as others made on time. amenities Jim Gallagher (FC/ARB/192/L) will suffer as a result of new residents. Crime Gill Pearson (FC/ARB/194/L) Increase in crime. Same comment as others made on time. Scale of Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Development will exceed 3,500 dwellings. Same comment as others made on time. development Density Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Contradiction in document. Same comment as others made on time. Design Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Height must not break tree canopy. Similar comment re: height of buildings made on time. Administration Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Area should have own Parish. Same comment as others made on time. Open Space Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Should be retained in perpetuity by trust or Same comment as others made on time. similar. Road hierarchy Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Should be carefully established/considered, Same comment as others made on time. including on-street parking. Satellite Dishes Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Should be resisted in favour of broadband. Noted. Secondary School Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Can see no benefit. Community hub approach, subject to detailed proximity to design. supermarket Supermarket Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Should be on edge, not centre. Central location means equidistant for residents

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response encouraging walking for smaller purchases. Sustainable travel Robert Newman (FC/ARB/193/L) Remains unconvinced. Policy CP6 of CS applies. Greenfield Judith Taylor (FC/ARB/195/L) Should be developed before brownfield. Same comment as others made on time. Trees/wildlife Judith Taylor (FC/ARB/195/L) Concern regarding loss of trees/wildlife. Same comment as others made on time. John D’Arcy (FC/ARB/196/L)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

TOPIC RESPONDENT COMMENTS COUNCIL RESPONSE University role in planning Chris Betrand (FC/SM4/1) University building roads and proposing It is a requirement of the Core process to make vast changes to the local Strategy that developers provide infrastructure the necessary infrastructure resulting from their developments. In some cases this will be by contributions, but the Local Planning Authority does require key infrastructure such as roads to be provided directly by the developer.

Relationship between SDL College of Estate Management Given that the Science Park is going to Council had not determined and Science Park (FC/SM4/3) be the major employment focus for the application at start of consultation. SDL it is entirely inadequate to deal with The Science Park is not within the its implications in such a cursory SDL and the planning application manner. While the Science Park is for the Science Park has already outside the SDL the SPD should been submitted and approved. include:- Some of the issues raised here will - the role of the Science Park as be dealt with when the planning an employment focus for the applications are submitted and SPD issues of delivery may well need to - Public transport connections be dealt with by Section 106 between the SDL and the Agreements especially if the Science Park Science Park is not provided as - Walking and cycling connections expected. - Relationship between Area D As above. housing development to the north east of Shinfield and the Science Park

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Deficiency in the way the delivery of the new bridge over the M4 and the northern section of the Eastern Relief Road is dealt with. SPD should refer to Sec 106 on Science Park preventing occupation of the science park until both pieces of infrastructure are delivered.

Paragraph 5c(v) of the SDL SPD simply refers to the delivery of the new road with no constraint on occupation. Para 6.46 also refers to the Eastern Relief road and M4 overbridge being constructed in the first phase (2011 – 2016). This should recognise that unless the science park has delivered its Section 106 obligations those parts of the SDL which rely on the Eastern Relief Road and M4 bridge should not be occupied.

Support principle College of Estate Management Support the principle of the South of the Noted (FC/SM4/3) M4 SDL Dr Atkins (FC/SM4/174) SPD (agree) T Davy (FC/SM4/2) Agree with proposal to this plan. No Noted change needed. Sustainability K Alexander (FC/SM4/140) Has it been justified why rural land to the The principles are established east of Spencers Wood is being through the Core Strategy. targeted? Local Residents use this rural area for recreation, walking and running etc and suggested recreation spaces are As above. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 107 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS a poor compensation for removal of rural lanes, hedgerows and fields Why is a new road through rural areas needed when Hyde End Road links the two villages? Better to improve Hyde End Road than build a new one

Strongly against the creation of a new village centre in Spencers Wood. Post Office, library and village hall are the current focal points and what will happen to these when new centre created? SPD (disagree) Kate Hamilton (FC/SM4/178) Proposal is based on the least favoured The options were not mutually Jo McCulum (FC/SM4/124) option and WBC has ignored the exclusive. This was made clear in Ian Young (FC/SM4/16) preferences of local residents. The plans the Formal Consultation. Need to Mrs R. Flint (FC/SM4/96) focus mainly on development in the avoid piecemeal development R. Griffith (FC/SM4/97) south west for no clear reason and leave which does not deliver S. Cora (FC/SM4/99) land vulnerable to future development. infrastructure. J. Hunt (FC/SM4/98) J. Evans (FC/SM4/95) Unhappy that option 2 is preferred which Paragraph A7.18 of the Core J. Cavell (FC/SM4/94) appears to all but join Shinfield and Strategy requires that the Concept W. Lamb (FC/SM4/10) Spencers Wood and will eradicate the Statement should be used to guide L & M Griffin (FC/SM4/22) green space and feeling of a village. future masterplans, ie: the Core R. Hay (FC/SM4/14) Strategy does not state that the I Young (FC/SM4/16) Why does the whole exercise look developments must be located in Dr Atkins (FC/SM4/174) developer led? the three identified areas but could C Green (FC/SM4/109) be. It should also be noted that the M. Bisset (FC/SM4/128A) Small non consortium developers and separation of the three villages from J Leslie (FC/SM4/122) builders excluded. Large consortiums Reading is an issue for C Leslie (FC/SM4/123) will provide “clone” housing. Mix of consideration. P Evans (FC/SM4/108) housing would be better and not housing D Peer (FC/SM4/114) where obvious divide between affordable CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 108 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS E Butler (FC/SM4/111) and private GIVEN TO WHETHER C Hossack (FC/SM4/149) SEPARATION FULFILS CS C Hossack (FC/SM4/148) PURPOSES AND WHETHER S Morgan (FC/SM4/144) AMENDMENT COULD BE J Heggadon (FC/SM4/170) ACHIEVED WITHOUT C Bradbury (FC/SM4/166) AFFECTING DELIVERY. AS A E. Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/163) RESULT AN AMENDED V Reburn (FC/SM4/162) MASTERPLAN HAS BEEN J Seabridge & A Dalgleish PREPARED. (FC/SM4/131) M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) J & A Brice (FC/SM4/134) K Hamilton & J Pittaway (FC/SM4/178) S Robinson (FC/SM4/113) I Mayoh (FC/SM4/45) P Evans (FC/SM4/58) K Aggio (FC/SM4/56) J & C Bertrand (FC/SM4/49) P Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/60) Mr & Mrs Talbot (FC/SM4/70) S Fraser (FC/SM4/59) I Fraser (FC/SM4/76) K Gray (FC/SM4/86) J Lewis (FC/SM4/62) M Butler (FC/SM4/78) V & M Ward (FC/SM4/89) B Miller-Smith (FC/M4/92) Andrew Grimes (FC/GEN/17)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Departure from the Core S. Alexander (FC/SM4/167) Totally departs from the Core Strategy Not a departure from the Core Strategy/Separation G and W. Beal (FC/SM4/168) and practically eliminates the separation Strategy which states “ Shinfield between villages J and E. Galloway (FC/SM4/138) between Shinfield and Spencers Wood could be extended to the west, I and M. Blacker (FC/SM4/73) so area will be deluged with properties. east and north west” M. Stanton-Saringe(FC/SM4/55) G. Busfield (FC/SM4/279) Has to be possible to modify the plans to The Core Strategy also makes Robin Hay (FC/SM/14) leave some gap between the two clear that it is not the task of the Mrs R. Flint (FC/SM4/96) separate communities. Core Strategy to identify where C. Fryatt (FC/SM4/127) development should be provided, D & S Poole (FC/SM4/126) Small open space would give the that is the task of the master Robin Hay (FC/SM4/14) impression of a park within a single planning process, which tests the Dr Atkins (FC/SM4/174) conurbation and would not maintain the options. C Green (FC/SM4/109) sense of spaciousness P Green(FC/SM4/173) The Council also have an obligation M. Bisset (FC/SM4/128A) Proposed focus on south west for no to deliver houses and therefore to P Hyde (FC/SM4/129A good reason choose options which are most P Evans (FC/SM4/108) likely to be delivered. E Butler (FC/SM4/111) There will be only one field separating A Baldwin (FC/SM4/152) Spencers Wood and Shinfield with a gap The important issue of separation C Hossack (FC/SM4/149) that even University of Reading admits is between settlements has been S Morgan (FC/SM4/144) just 100 yards wide at its narrowest point carefully considered through the J Heggadon (FC/SM4/170) master planning process. This is a C Bradbury (FC/SM4/166) Should maintain copse and Rookeries matter of balance between E. Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/163) and Area of Archaeological importance separation and provision of houses V Reburn (FC/SM4/162) and has needed to consider issues J Seabridge & A Dalgleish including usual impact and (FC/SM4/131) characteristics of the separation to M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) be retained. SEE EARLIER M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) COMMENTS RE FURTHER R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) CONSIDERATION J & A Brice (FC/SM4/134 K Williams (FC/SM4/133) As above. Necessary protection measures for Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 110 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS M Hillis (FC/SM4/132) separation will be put into place G Luke (FC/SM4/179) through the planning application K Hamilton & J Pittaway process. This will include S106 (FC/SM4/178) Agreement and/or Conditions to J Walters & family (FC/SM4) ensure retention and maintenance S Robinson (FC/SM4/113) The role of school playing fields in I Mayoh (FC/SM4/45) Spencers Wood and other open P Evans (FC/SM4/58) spaces will be clarified in the text. J Feenay (FC/SM4/48) P Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/60) Mr & Mrs Talbot (FC/SM4/70) S Fraser (FC/SM4/59) I Blacker (FC/SM4/73) I Fraser (FC/SM4/76) R Hatton (FC/SM4/75) J Wait (FC/SM4/84) Z Fraser (FC/SM4/102) M Butler (FC/SM4/78) S Madigan (FC/SM4/91) V & M Ward (FC/SM4/89) B Miller-Smith (FC/M4/92) Andrew Grimes (FC/GEN/17)

SANG G. Busfield (FC/SM4/279) SANG should be one unified piece of Many of the comments were Howard Tennent (FC/SM4/181) land. Proposal parcels the space into 3 concerned with risks of future Ian Young (FC/SM4/16) areas and leaves other land marked development and a belief that Robin Hay (FC/SM/14) green space and vulnerable to future SANG will deliver additional Dr Atkins (FC/SM4/174) building which would infill villages protection. The Masterplan M. Bisset (FC/SM4/128A) envisages the land to be P Hyde (FC/SM4/129A Why are SANG’s so small when such a countryside/open space. Both P Evans (FC/SM4/108) big deal made of the separation of these will give the necessary level E Butler (FC/SM4/111) villages of protection. Paragraph 4.22 of Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 111 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS C Hossack (FC/SM4/148) SANG should be between villages for the CS requires provision of open S Morgan (FC/SM4/144) added protection space ‘in perpetuity’. Natural J Heggadon (FC/SM4/170) England have raised no objection to C Bradbury (FC/SM4/166) Sang divided by roads removing bus SANG being provided in the form E. Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/163) link. shown. V Reburn (FC/SM4/162) J Seabridge & A Dalgleish One section of SANG is on land that The purpose of SANG is to provide (FC/SM4/131) floods mitigation against any impact from M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) additional housing resulting in more M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) people visiting the Thames Basin R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) Heath SPA – it is not the purpose of M Hillis (FC/SM4/132) SANG to provide separation R Latham (FC/SM4/141) between settlements, although it is S Robinson (FC/SM4/113) recognised that this could be an P Evans (FC/SM4/58) indirect benefit. P Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/60) Mr & Mrs Talbot (FC/SM4/70) Other measures can provide S Fraser (FC/SM4/59) protection. I Fraser (FC/SM4/76) J Wait (FC/SM4/84) Any areas not shown as potential Z Fraser (FC/SM4/102) sites for development will remain M Butler (FC/SM4/78) within the countryside and S Madigan (FC/SM4/91) countryside is sufficient protection V & M Ward (FC/SM4/89) in its own right. B Miller-Smith (FC/M4/92) SANG is also about biodiversity. NE is aware of flooding issue and has no objections. House numbers Kate Hamilton (FC/SM4/178) Plans do not include the intended The Church Lane site is not one of Richard Carwana (FC/SM4/327L) houses at Church Lane and on the the preferred locations for housing Pat Baldwin (FC/SM4/169) Manor site in the 2500 house count. in the masterplan. An application Mr. and Mrs Rowe (FC/SM4297L) Ridiculous number of houses proposed. has been refused and is subject of Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 112 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Mr. P. Alford (FC/SM4/296L) Too many houses in the wrong place. an appeal. P.K. Dovaston (FC/SM4/272) Robin Hay (FC/SM4/14) Any future Conservative Government The Manor site where houses are C Green (FC/SM4/109) has said it will look again at number of proposed is not within the SDL and M. Bisset (FC/SM4/128A) houses to be built so Councils should planning permission has previously P Hyde (FC/SM4/129A delay granting further significant been approved for B1 industrial J Leslie (FC/SM4/122) planning permissions. development on the site. The P Evans (FC/SM4/108) principle of providing housing rather E Butler (FC/SM4/111) Councils should stop building houses as than B1 use was agreed if the A Baldwin (FC/SM4/152) it encourages more people to come to science park gained planning P Nozay (FC/SM4/147) England permission. There is a current C & B Stonard (FC/SM4/145) application for housing on this site S Morgan (FC/SM4/144) If 2500 houses to be allocated no single (not yet determined). C Bradbury (FC/SM4/166) development within Shinfield of more E. Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/163) than 5 dwellings should be permitted The housing numbers are V Reburn (FC/SM4/162) until 2020 confirmed by the adopted Core L Griffiths (FC/SM4/155) Strategy. It is not the purpose of C Young (FC/SM4/153) Since credit crunch population in the UK the SPDs to revisit this issue. J Seabridge & A Dalgleish has been decreasing so no need for (FC/SM4/131) more housing The five SPD’s relating to the SDL’s M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) are complementary. M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) Details not given in document of R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) proposed housing in other SDL’s N Swift (FC/SM4/136) R Latham (FC/SM4/141) More houses could be provided near C Swift (FC/SM4/137) Science Park K Hamilton & J Pittaway (FC/SM4/178) Why no housing at Mereoak Lane S Robinson (FC/SM4/113) J Blackall (FC/SM4/46) Houses could be built at Hurst/Waltham P Evans (FC/SM4/58) and Twyford J & C Bertrand (FC/SM4/49) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 113 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS J Feenay (FC/SM4/48) Should look at flats and high density S Fraser (FC/SM4/59) development in places such as V & M Ward (FC/SM4/89) Wokingham

Village/ Rural Character Cresswell Family (FC/SM4/83) Development will damage village spirit Principle of extending the three Brian Wood (FC/SM4/5) and community and will reduce villages was advanced through the Geoff Galloway (FC/SM4/151) separation between Reading and the Adopted Core Strategy and agreed Pat Baldwin (FC/SM4/169) villages. by the Inspector at the Examination A. Martin (FC/SM4/125) in Public C & P Carwana (FC/SM4/157) Object to plans to ruin Spencers Wood, E. Walmsley (FC/SM4/143) Shinfield and Three Mile Cross The proposals include the J Leslie (FC/SM4/122) requirement to provide separation C Leslie (FC/SM4/123) Volume and density of housing will of settlements from each other and D Peer (FC/SM4/114) certainly impact on the area and it is to maintain the prevailing rural A Baldwin (FC/SM4/152) very difficult to believe that the prevailing character. C Hossack (FC/SM4/149) rural character will be maintained. C Hossack (FC/SM4/148) It is not possible to identify C & B Stonard (FC/SM4/145) Preferable to build a whole new village in sufficient brownfield sites to provide L Griffiths (FC/SM4/155) the middle of fields than take away semi the required number of houses. C Young (FC/SM4/153) rural feeling of the area with its quiet M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) country lanes and distinct small R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) communities. E Brooks (FC/SM4/139) P Walsh (FC/SM4/44) Brownfield should be built on before J & A Brice (FC/SM4/134) green field K Williams (FC/SM4/133) A & E Edwards (FC/SM4/79) Must adhere to Village character J Ray (FC/SM4/29) statement M Freebury (FC/SM4/74) G Luke (FC/SM4/179) Assessment of gaps and landscape The Church land application was K Hamilton & J Pittaway states that housing needs to be located refused, inter-alia, for this reason. (FC/SM4/178) away from the top of the ridgeline but The Church land application was Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 114 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS C Hunt (FC/SM4/130) area D ignores this statement refused, inter-alia, for this reason. H & J White (FC/SM4/112) N Swift (FC/SM4/118) Ownership of green corridor should be Protection will be a key I Blacker (FC/SM4/30) given to the council to prevent further consideration. J Blackall (FC/SM4/46) development I Mayoh (FC/SM4/45) J Feenay (FC/SM4/48) Increase in size of Shinfield too much The proposals are in accordance P Pike (FC/SM4/61) with the Core Strategy. P Sedgwick (FC/SM4/69) I Fraser (FC/SM4/76) Will be facing houses rather than open This is a matter of detailed M Bunn (FC/SM4/82) space consideration. K Gray (FC/SM4/86) Z Fraser (FC/SM4/102) Air quality already poor Sustainable development is about M Butler (FC/SM4/78) reducing the need to travel, thereby V & M Ward (FC/SM4/89) Overdevelopment being forced on reducing emissions from vehicles. N Churton-Blackie (FC/SM4/88) residents ruining the area and objections It is also about fuel efficient M Blacker (FC/SM4/30) ignored buildings. M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) Houses shown on document not in Character of the area will be taken keeping with the area into account in planning applications.

Flats and commercial development not Housing will be provided in needed accordance with need. The ‘commercial’ development is only related to provision of District Centre which is a Core Strategy requirement.

Should not allow any more 3-4 storey Character of area will be taken into buildings account in determining detailed applications. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 115 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS New development joining Mrs R. Flint (FC/SM4/96) No consideration where new Any proposal will have to take existing R. Griffith (FC/SM4/97) development joins old – not for Holder account of surrounding S. Cora (FC/SM4/99) Close, Maddock Close or Grenadier. development and the character and J. Hunt (FC/SM4/98) Where new joins old it should be visual amenities of the area. J. Evans (FC/SM4/95) classified as Interface/edge and should J. Cavell (FC/SM4/94) be in line with existing development Particular account will be taken of A Hunter (FC/SM4/128) density relationship of new development to existing. Document treats the development area as an island and makes very limited reference to the surrounding boundaries of the site Schools Patricia Taylor (FC/SM4/9) Building two more primary schools to This is a Children’s Services matter W. Lamb (FC/SM4/10) add to the other six but no secondary and cannot be amended by this Robin Hay (FC/SM4/14) school. If a new secondary school is not SPD. The decision to close Ryeish G & W Beal (FC/SM4/168) provided people will move out of the Green was made before the Master E. Walmsley (FC/SM4/143) area. plan process began. There is no K. Hamilton (FC/SM4/178) decision yet on the future of the G. Galloway (FC/SM4/151) Building on two new sites and not using Ryeish Green School site. The SPD J & E Galloway (FC/SM4/138) Ryeish Green. Closing Ryeish Green refers to Ryeish Green in 2a(v) and H & J Corbett (FC/SM4/196) School and Embrook and Bulmershe acknowledges that redevelopment D. Bukin (FC/SM4/23) schools. Should make use of existing of the current built area may come J. Hunt (FC/SM4/128) school location at Ryeish Green. Object forward in the plan period. It states Dr Atkins (FC/SM4/174) to closure of Ryeish Green School. that they will be subject to separate C Green (FC/SM4/109) Should be made clear what is happening public consultation at that time. P Green(FC/SM4/173) to Ryeish Green School. M. Bisset (FC/SM4/128A) P Hyde (FC/SM4/129A Planned primary schools should be CS provided for sites in appropriate C Leslie (FC/SM4/123) available to children of Swallowfield locations. P Evans (FC/SM4/108) residents and accessible by public D Peer (FC/SM4/114) transport. Must be a new secondary As above. E Butler (FC/SM4/111) school which is also the designated Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 116 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS A Baldwin (FC/SM4/152) school for Swallowfield. Schools will be located to be within C Hossack (FC/SM4/148) easy walking distance of new S Morgan (FC/SM4/144) Why are new schools on the edge of developments. J Heggadon (FC/SM4/170) proposed housing areas and not C Bradbury (FC/SM4/166) centrally located C Young (FC/SM4/153) J Seabridge & A Dalgleish (FC/SM4/131) M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) E Brooks (FC/SM4/139) K Williams (FC/SM4/133) M Hillis (FC/SM4/132) A & E Edwards (FC/SM4/79) R Latham (FC/SM4/141) K Hamilton & J Pittaway (FC/SM4/178) C Hunt (FC/SM4/130) R Alberici (FC/SM4/47) J Blackall (FC/SM4/46) P Evans (FC/SM4/58) K Aggio (FC/SM4/56) P Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/60) Mr & Mrs Talbot (FC/SM4/70) I Blacker (FC/SM4/73) R Hatton (FC/SM4/75) M Bunn (FC/SM4/82) K Gray (FC/SM4/86) M Gessey (FC/SM4/85) M Butler (FC/SM4/78) S Madigan (FC/SM4/91) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 117 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS B Miller-Smith (FC/M4/92) As above. As above. M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) Andrew Grimes (FC/GEN/17)

Lack of information James Kirby (FC/SM4/6) Disappointed with lack of direct The Strategic Development P Green(FC/SM4/173) information. Cant understand how a Locations were proposed in the C Hunt (FC/SM4/130) development of this size can be taking Core Strategy which was the R Alberici (FC/SM4/47) place without informing residents directly subject of public consultation and N Churton-Blackie (FC/SM4/88) affected by it. the Draft SPD has been prepared following extensive consultation with the local community and other stakeholders.

The SPDs have been subject to informal and statutory consultation. Overlooking/loss of R. Aspin (FC/SM4/104) Development will have negative impact This is a matter of detailed privacy/Noise/pollution P & J Carpenter(FC/SM4/103) on existing properties, overlooking Hyde consideration. J Lewis (FC/SM4/62) End Road

Affect privacy and quality of life as currently look at fields Site for a church Huw Farmer (FC/SM4/7) Searching for a suitable site/building to There may be potential to provide establish a church and the Shinfield this as a new community facility Development would be an ideal location. although no site would be specially Would like to meet and discuss proposal identified at this stage. for a church/community building (requirements are for a 1000m2 building Consideration to be given to area. temporary use of house to ‘kick start’ community.

Impact of playing fields Mr and Mrs Roberts (FC/SM4/8) Both behind and in front would be Any impact would need to playing fields with a risk of noise and assessed when it is decided where Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 118 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS disturbance. the various facilities should be located and will be subject of The respondents property would be planning application. suitable as a community building. The SDL boundaries have been fixed by the Core Strategy. Infrastructure/Facilities Cresswell Family (FC/SM4/83) Very poor infrastructure that can’t cope The reason why the SDL is S and P. Oakes (FC/SM4/17) now – lack of decent roads, jams to get proposed is to ensure that Mrs R. Chana (FC/SM4/38) onto M4, secondary school closing satisfactory infrastructure can be Robin Hay (FC/SM/14) down, doctors over run provided to absorb impact of new Patricia Taylor (FC/SM4/9) developments – small infill J. Hunt (FC/SM4/128) Need more GP’s/dentists, more local developments in the past have not A. Atkins (FC/SM4/174) small shopping precinct, more local been able to deliver the required P Green(FC/SM4/173) transport, open space infrastructure as successfully. D Peer (FC/SM4/114) A Baldwin (FC/SM4/152) Despite large increase in population no The SDL boundary is widely drawn C & B Stonard (FC/SM4/145) firm proposal regarding location or and it is not the intention to have S Morgan (FC/SM4/144) funding to create sports facilities or built development in all parts of the V Reburn (FC/SM4/162) provide allotments. SDL’s. Potential for open space M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) and allotments is being considered. Mrs Nozay (FC/SM4/124) With all the extra roads being put around Mr. and Mrs Rowe (FC/SM4/297L) junction 11, this needs to be balanced by Provision of Section A7.14 to A7.28 G. Busford (FC/SM4/279) keeping the remaining open space that of the Core Strategy apply. Core J. Hunt (FC/SM4/128) is currently surrounding them. Strategy Appendix 4 applies. M. Bisset (FC/SM4/128A P Hyde (FC/SM4/129A Need open space and allotments. There E Butler (FC/SM4/111) should be firm proposals for allotments. M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) Welcome enhanced district facilities J & A Brice (FC/SM4/134 especially a supermarket Noted. A & E Edwards (FC/SM4/79) P & J Carpenter(FC/SM4/103) Delivery should be linked to explicit Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 119 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS S Robinson (FC/SM4/113) housing numbers as housing trajectory The Core Strategy is clear on Dr S. Wilford (FC/SM4/27) open to interpretation and difficult to housing numbers to be delivered. R Alberici (FC/SM4/47) enforce P Pike (FC/SM4/61) P Pike (FC/SM4/61) WBC seems obsessed with securing as P Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/60) much free infrastructure as possible The developers will be expected to S Fraser (FC/SM4/59) provide infrastructure in accordance P Sedgwick (FC/SM4/69) with Appendix 7. I Fraser (FC/SM4/76) Would like to see greater emphasis on M Butler (FC/SM4/78) opportunity to provide very high quality Noted. S Madigan (FC/SM4/91) fibre optic broadband V & M Ward (FC/SM4/89) N Churton-Blackie (FC/SM4/88) Employment opportunities are very F Poole (FC/GEN/39) limited at present. Mrs M David (FC/GEN/33) Need to site job and homes close Noted. together for sustainability

Inadequate foul waste infrastructure Appendix 7 applies.

Inadequate care facilities for older This will be considered as part of people detailed consideration of community facilities.

More details of shopping facilities Details will be subject of planning needed applications.

Infrastructure should be completed This will be appropriately phased. before development commences.

Re-use Industrial Cresswell Family (FC/SM4/83) Why not use vacant industrial buildings There are not enough vacant and Buildings for housing. suitable industrial buildings to Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 120 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS As above. provide the number of residential properties needed to meet the requirements of national, regional and local plan policies. Also, employment land is needed to provide jobs for the area.

Housing for vulnerable M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) Opportunity should be taken to provide CS addresses need for wide range R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) housing for the most vulnerable people of houses taking into account age, in society mobility, income (i.e. affordability). Flooding Lodden Valley Residents Association The developments should not result in The Environment Agency has been (FC/SM4/287) additional flood risk. involved at all stages including P Green(FC/SM4/173) Core Strategy and the Masterplans. P Hyde (FC/SM4/129A) As part of the process of C & B Stonard (FC/SM4/145) considering planning applications, M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) both the Environment Agency and A Ettlinger (FC/SM4/172) Thames Water would be consulted J & A Brice (FC/SM4/134) and they will set out all G & B Baker (FC/SM4/50) requirements relating to surface S Fraser (FC/SM4/59) water, flooding, etc. I Fraser (FC/SM4/76) J Lewis (FC/SM4/62) N Churton-Blackie (FC/SM4/88) F Poole (FC/GEN/39) E Gowen (FC/GEN/26) R Hart (FC/GEN/20) Mrs E Whittle (FC/GEN/19) P & J Carpenter(FC/SM4/103) Martyn Dadds (FC/GEN/16) M & L Pritchard (FC/GEN/14) Transport/Traffic Richard Carvana (FC/M4/327L) Traffic already a major issue and roads This cross relates with Ed Finch (FC/SM4/325L) already congested. Public transport is Infrastructure SPD. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 121 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS C and S Tennent (FC/SM4/161) sparse. Paragraph A7.14 - A7.28 of the CS Julie Fayers (FC/SM4/156) applies. Patricia Taylor (FC/SM4/9) More details required. Jo McCallum (FC/SM4/124) Transport modelling has been C and P. Carwana (FC/SM4/157) Transport link road dilutes the boundary undertaken. E. Walmsley (FC/SM4/143) between Shinfield and Spencers Wood. Kate Hamilton (FC/SM4/178) Any shopping facilities will be for Howard Tennent (FC/SM4/181) Even more traffic from supermarket local people with the aim to reduce Chris Bertrand (FC/SM4/1) the need to travel. A. Martin (FC/SM4/125) R. Aspin (FC/SM4/104) This is a CS commitment and is not Brian Wood (FC/SM4/5) Questions whether park and ride will be a matter for consideration here. J. Hunt (FC/SM4/128) used. Dr Atkins (FC/SM4/174) Local Centre. T Ridge (FC/SM4/115) Not clear what public transport N Salter (FC/SM4/67) interchange refers to. P Green(FC/SM4/173) Modelling has been done. P Hyde (FC/SM4/129A No transport modelling appears to have S. Miller (FC/SM4/121) been done C Leslie (FC/SM4/123) Science Park has planning D Peer (FC/SM4/114) New bypass and relief road would be permission. E Butler (FC/SM4/111) removed if Science Park not provided. C Hossack (FC/SM4/149) C Hossack (FC/SM4/148) No information on position of bypass. These issues will be subject to S Morgan (FC/SM4/144) detailed consideration. J Heggadon (FC/SM4/170) C Young (FC/SM4/153) Increase of traffic through Farley Hill These issues will be subject to M Blacker (FC/SM4/72) because of number of houses proposed detailed consideration M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) and Farley Hill will become rat run R Erdwin (FC/SM4/175) A Ettlinger (FC/SM4/172) No part of proposed new development in These issues will be subject to E Brooks (FC/SM4/139) Shinfield is within 400m walkable detailed consideration Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 122 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS J & A Brice (FC/SM4/134) distance to a centre so not sustainable This issue will be considered at M Freebury (FC/SM4/74) detailed stage. R Latham (FC/SM4/141) Area will be overwhelmed during G Luke (FC/SM4/179) construction period As above. K Hamilton & J Pittaway (FC/SM4/178) Should provide sound lessening surface, P & J Carpenter(FC/SM4/103) sound barriers and speed limit. Not a matter for the Masterplan but H & J White (FC/SM4/112) noted. R Alberici (FC/SM4/47) WBC should subsidise bus fares for J Blackall (FC/SM4/46) local people to encourage public I Mayoh (FC/SM4/45) transport use. More buses needed G & B Baker (FC/SM4/50) J & C Bertrand (FC/SM4/49) J Feenay (FC/SM4/48) P Pike (FC/SM4/61) P Ratcliffe (FC/SM4/60) M Bunn (FC/SM4/82) K Gray (FC/SM4/86) M Gessey (FC/SM4/85) J Lewis (FC/SM4/62) M Butler (FC/SM4/78) V & M Ward (FC/SM4/89) B Miller-Smith (FC/M4/92)F Poole (FC/GEN/39) E Gower (FC/GEN/26) B Stanley (FC/GEN/24) R Hart (FC/GEN/20) Andrew Grimes (FC/GEN/17) Martyn Dadds (FC/GEN/16)

Wildlife Ed Finch (FC/SM4/325L) Additional traffic would be dangerous to Any proposal would need to survey P Green(FC/SM4/173) birds and bats. Destruction of fauna and the site and provide mitigation Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 123 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS D Peer (FC/SM4/114) flora and hence habitats and existing measures if there is an impact. P & J Carpenter(FC/SM4/103) hedgerows should be protected. This will also be a consideration in M Gessey (FC/SM4/85) determining planning applications. Trees A Hunter (FC/SM4/128) Very substantial oak trees within the Tree Preservation Orders will be SDL which may be under threat. imposed as necessary. Agricultural land P Nozay (FC/SM4/147) Need more agricultural land and more This issue was considered in Core local farming to prevent food shortages Strategy process. . Designation of land B Keech (FC/SM4/28) Want to understand how development Noted. The Core Strategy sets out (address of potential site areas being dealt with. the vision for the Borough until not given) 2026. The Masterplan SPD sets With a neighbour put forward an area out the Council’s preferred option including my property for future planning which includes delivery. consideration. Responded to all the council’s requirements including an Environment Statement and incurred cost in pursuing this objective to have our land included in the final plan.

Ask that every consideration be given to including my land as an area for future development. Designation of land on east Sandra Tapping (FC/SM4/4) Request re-examination of green wedge Noted. The Core Strategy sets out side of Croft Road boundary in particular a plot of land on the vision for the Borough until the east side of Croft Road (Plot 25H159 2026. The Masterplan SPD sets between Orchard House and Sunways). out the Council’s preferred option which includes delivery. Site is surrounded on three sides by housing and housing is proposed opposite side of the road (LH-PSH53) and another 400 houses in Area B (Lock figure 3.1) on north side of Croft Road.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS No justification for continuing the plots As above. green wedge designation as no longer fulfils that purpose (eg erosion of countryside prevented, ensuring separation of settlements).

Blandford 112.14 reported this area already perceived to be within settlement of Shinfield. Lock Figures 2.2 and 3.1 of the working Draft SPD shows the plot already shaded in grey as part of settlement.

Housing on the plot would not be out of proportion. Extra 2 or 3 houses would benefit from infrastructure with the two new housing developments proposed for 400 and 335 dwellings. Anomaly of masterplanning process to leave an isolated 0.38 hectare plot surrounded by houses.

Promotion of alternative Response on behalf of Westbuild Support overall approach of the SPD. See above. Ryeish Green land. Homes (who have an option on 9.4 comment as before. acres of land next to Wilders Grove New primary school for Spencers Wood Farm, Ryeish Lane) should be provided by the Council and built on Ryeish Green School site that Carter Jonas (FC/SM4/180) has all the existing infrastructure including buildings, hardstanding and playing fields. Potential for this site to be redeveloped should not be left until a later stage. Paragraph 2a(ii) on page 28 Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 125 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS should be amended to accommodate this change.

Potential new public transport only route Detailed consideration outside could be shifted further north running scope of SPD. along Ryeish Lane. This will have implications for the Infrastructure SPD. In addition of the school is being closed down any new uses should be included in the Spatial Framework Plan.

Areas A and B are significantly smaller The proposals are in accordance than Area C and should be allowed to with Core Strategy. proceed ahead of the phasing shown, provided the infrastructure payments are received. Holding back Area B would be contrary to Government Policy and South East Plan.

Area B is next to a site with planning Separation is a key issue but permission/allocation and would be an transport links need to be extension of this area. Once this land is considered. developed only a small section of primary street would be required to open it up for housing. Potential new public transport route would only be necessary once Area C is completed – question the need for this link if Spencers Wood, Three Mile Cross and Shinfield are seen as independent settlements with their own village centres and commuting links As above. into Reading. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 126 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Recommend Para 6.4.2 and Infrastructure SPD be modified to allow Area B to be developed or alternatively split into two, whereby the western half alongside the Primary Street is developed prior to the eastern half thereby delivering the public transport route.

(Remainder of comments concern the infrastructure SPD and viability) Promotion of Land Response on behalf of three land Village centre on Basingstoke Road Paragraphs A7.22 and A7.28 of the owners (2 who own land not in the shown as being a centre to be CS apply. SDL and 1 with land within) enhanced. References at paras 2.3.3 and 3.1.6 and figures 31. and 4.2. Land owners: Despite these references there does not Cooper Estates Ltd seem to be anything which actually Mulhearn Properties Ltd suggests how and when the facilities will Mr. A Pulleyn be enhanced.

P Watson of Phillips Planning It is assumed that the Council intends to The CS sets out community Services (FC/SM4/33) seek financial contributions from provision requirements - Appendix developers to improve the existing 7. Spencers Wood centre although this is not clear. The document should seek to explain what may be required at the existing Spencers Wood local centre, how this will be funded and which body will be responsible for bringing it forward. Public open space which is needed to Noted. support the new development, landscaping, agricultural land or other Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 127 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS non intensive uses would perform the function of settlement separation that is not necessarily the function of SANG

Concerns about para 1c(vi) which states NE are supportive of approach in SANG should be provided at a maximum Masterplan. of 2 locations generally of equal size.

While it may be the Council’s preference Key consideration is provision and that land is owned by the Council and maintenance of SANG in that only one or two areas provided it is perpetuity. not a requirement of the Core Strategy. Provided SANG is maintained in perpetuity it would be inequitable to force landowners and developers who wished to do this to pay into a pooled SANG proposal rather than provide alternative, appropriate SANG in or close to the SDL. It should be left to individual landowners to decide whether to pay a contribution towards on site provision if they cannot provide SANGS within their own land or on suitable land nearby.

Response on behalf of Shinfield SPC accept the allocation of another The SPD conforms to the CS. Parish Council 2500 houses

W. G. Le-Las (FC/SM4/117) Final option departs significantly from The Formal Consultation makes it both the Inspectors Report and the Core clear that the informal options were Strategy. Pledges that the proposal not mutually exclusive. would be community led but final option Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 128 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS bears an uncanny resemblance to option As above. 2 which was the option preferred by the consortium

Why are 1005 houses concentrated to the South West of Shinfield with a token 120 to the north east? Understand that 175 houses to the north west of Shinfield is likely to be refused despite the fact a transport yard mars the area, rooflines of houses are softened by a belt of trees and it is near local facilities. Exclusion of other An area is provided landowners is contrary to the Inspectors Report SUBJECT TO FURTHER Little in the way of new housing near the CONSIDERATION. Science Park as was recommended

Inspector at pains to emphasis importance of gaps between settlements and need for SANG to be of substantial width to prevent coalescence. Draft SPD allows fragmentation of SANG, housing SW of Shinfield erodes gap to 150m and Natural England has no objection to cross route introduced which was ruled SANG with water meadows. out by Inspector.

SANG split in five fragments on the map including one in substantial area of water meadows which provide an essential service to flood prevention. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 129 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Response on behalf of Gleeson Gleeson promote housing at Strategic Land Basingstoke Road and are a key stakeholder in delivery of SDL and Broadway Malyan (FC/SM4/120) confirms support for SPD.

Vital that SPD fulfils role of facilitating See Infrastructure SPD. early delivery of housing. Considerable concern that the draft SPD does not fulfil this role. The SPD does not expressly identify and allocate land for housing development sufficient to secure the delivery of 1250 dwellings during the first phase of development upon which the councils housing trajectory and 5 year supply depends. Para 3.25 of Core Strategy states SPD will include housing allocations and para 6.4.6 of the draft SPD refers to intention to secure early development of housing on sites with planning permission and previous allocated sites including Basingstoke Road, no express provision is made for this. This creates uncertainty which could lead to delay.

It is not clear how or when housing sites for early release will be selected and allocated through the proper planning process.

Of further considerable concern that the Noted. It is for developers to make council is proposing a new policy the case why this route is not Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 130 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS requirement for an outline appropriate. The Infrastructure application/masterplan for the entire SDL SPD has been amended to be submitted and approved prior to accordingly. detailed proposals for individual housing sites coming forward. This is an additional stage in the planning process which represents a further and unnecessary obstacle to the delivery of housing which will result in additional cost and delays.

Para 6.4.6 identifies the WDLP allocated Noted. housing sites for early release because they are free standing and largely unencumbered by infrastructure and masterplanning constraints and because their suitability and ease of delivery has already been demonstrated.

This uncertainty will lead to speculative Noted planning applications for less suitable site and obtaining permission on housing Note: Application for Church Land land supply grounds. has been refused. .

Text of para 2.2.1 should be amended to These are identified on Masterplan: make clear that the SPD includes 3 Figure 3.1. housing sites which the council considers suitable for development Text of para 3.1.13 (ii) should be This change is unnecessary. amended to include the following sentence “These residential neighbourhoods will be developed on Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 131 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS the existing WDLP allocated sites, the permitted site at Three Mile Cross and the areas identified A to D on the Spatial Framework Plan

Schedule of housing areas alongside These are identified on Framework figure 3.1 should be amended by adding Masterplan. WDLP sites and permitted sites

Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8 should These are identified on Framework be amended to identify the WDLP Masterplan and can be cross allocated housing sites and an referenced. appropriate notation added to the key

Core Strategy makes no provision for an It is considered best way of outline application stage in the delivery achieving delivery. Developers can of SDL’s advance alternative strategies if this achieves delivery. Guidance in Section 6 provides justification to refuse applications even Noted. where they relate to allocated housing sites

Object to statement that SANGs be Noted. SANG will be secured in provided in a maximum of two locations. perpetuity and management be This makes them less accessible, and made subject to Section 106. relies on SANG provision wholly by consortium. Natural England guidance allows SANG to be provided in a variety of ways.

Response on behalf of King, Scott, Clients site is land lying North of Church Noted. Amendment not required as Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 132 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS MacCaffrey, Ostler and Burrell Lane proposals accord with CS.

P. R. Newman Uncertainty on level of development and delivery of houses. House numbers will not be delivered year on year as suggested. Support should be given to individual sites contained within the SDL boundary.

SDL should be planned on the basis of a Availability tested through CS & EIP minimum of 3000 houses plus existing – flexibility allowance included. WDLP allocations providing 3500 dwellings. Can’t be sure committed sites will come forward, including in other SDL’s.

Favour development to the west of Shinfield including land north of Church Lane rather than preferred option

Clients’ site does not perform a gap function

Proposals should not just conform to what consortium want

A flexible approach is required which does not presume that conflict with the existing development plan is a reason to exclude a certain site.

Continued promotion of gap policy is Policy on separation accords with Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 133 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS contrary to national and regional finding of Inspector following guidance thorough testing through EIP.

Prefer Option 3

Response of behalf of Oxford Clients own land at Church Lane The land is not considered suitable Diocesan Board of Finance for development.

Hives Planning (FC/SM4/116) Draft SPD fails to include land at Church Masterplan is in accordance with Lane for development Core Strategy.

Fails to support preferred option and does not reflect Core Strategy which states that development could be to west, east and north west of Shinfield. This does not provide the clear steer as required by PPS12 para 4.5.north west of Shinfield

Clients site is entirely suitable for development

Gap between settlements too narrow This view does not lead to use of and gap should be used for SANG as Church Land for development. required by Core Strategy.

Option proposes development within landscape area identified as an area where there should be no development.

The Draft SPD fails to provide any The Masterplan is deliverable. reasoned justification for the Masterplan. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 134 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Seeking application supported by an There is no bias. Again this does illustrative Masterplan shows bias not justify development of Church towards a single developer or a Land. consortium of developers.

There has not been proper sequencing Disagree. of the consultation process in accordance with the SEA requirements.

Response of behalf of South of the M4 Paragraph 6.4 infers applicants are It is for applicants to justify how an Consortium expected to submit outline applications alternative route will achieve the for the whole SDL which is neither infrastructure requirements of Barton Wilmore (FC/SM4/119) necessary nor practical. Distinctiveness Appendix 7. and character of each settlement within the SDL is served better by focussing on planning applications for each settlement. Noted. Detailed matter.

Within 5km to 7km distance from the SPA, an assessment must be made on a case by case basis. There can be no requirement in respect of the need for monitoring of the effectiveness of SANG providing suitable avoidance measures have been employed and secured through a Noted. See NE comments. planning permission It is a matter of common ground with Natural England that the physical requirements of SANG cannot be met within the land separating Shinfield and Spencers Wood and so a suite of SANG Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 135 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS is proposed.

Requirement for all residential CHANGE – AMEND TO ENSURE development to code 4 is inappropriate. CONFORMITY WITH Such requirements should be set out in SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND DPD’s as opposed to SPD’s. Para 4.8 of CONSTRUCTION SPD. the Core Strategy acknowledges that while the Council will seek a code for sustainable homes over and above minimum national and regional targets Agreed – see p.36. this will be justified through the Managing Development Delivery DPD rather than an SPD

Extensive changes to paragraphs and figures have been suggested in a 20 page table.

Response on behalf of client Site falls within the proposed Sites suitable for development to be (Land off Church Lane adjoining development framework for Three Mile decided through the Woodside) Cross Development Area. Client masterplanning process. Delivery supports in principle the allocation of this of overall SDL is major Douglas Bond (FC/SM4/324L) area for residential development. consideration.

The land abuts the existing settlement, As above. has an existing road frontage onto Church Lane and is contained by well established landscape features. The site would form a logical extension to Three Mile Cross and could form an expansion as part of a wider scheme. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 136 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS The site is available, deliverable and Noted. Promoter does not suitable within the terms of PPS3. The demonstrate how the site would site is available to come forward at an assist in achieving delivery of whole early stage and with the current road SDL. frontage would not prejudice development envisaged by the masterplan. An independent residential development on the site would be consistent with the pattern of development the LPA wants.

The site is beyond the 5km SPA zone Noted. and is not in isolation constrained by the need to deliver SANG. The land represents an opportunity for short term housing release.

With these points in mind the document Noted. The issue is demonstration should accept a degree of flexibility in of delivery of the SDL and appropriately located and conceived achievement of certainty.. schemes.

Promotion of Land Response on behalf of owners of site Clients land identified as existing Noted. The issue is demonstration reference 1SH140 (Address of site not development which we concur is sound. of delivery of SDL. specified) Of the view that the quality of design Noted. There is no evidence to which is sought along with the support this. Mark Leedale (FC/SM4/66) application of the Borough Design Guide standards will lead to a requirement for an expansion of the suitable residential area notation and in this context confirm that my clients land is readily available and developable with immediate effect Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 137 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Too much emphasis on separation of This is a CS requirement. settlements and retaining separate See Policy CP11. identity

Difficult to achieve transport Paragraph A7.22 of CS applies. sustainability unless there is a fundamental shift in transportation infrastructure and thinking. Car bourne travel is inevitable and concept of safe routes will not address modal shift and lack of a railway station

Not convinced the planning system has Disagree. control over tenure and this aspect should be deleted

Lack of a secondary school is of key This is a Children’s Services issue significance, has a significant effect on outside scope of this SPD. CS will sustainability and developing a provide for sufficient places in community and there should be appropriate locations. The SPDs reconsideration of closure of Ryeish do not prejudice this. Green

Interface of the countryside and Paragraph A7.27 of CS applies. expanded development areas cannot be Inspector’s report considering this properly achieved with a density of 35 issue. dph.

More land will be required to provide a Paragraph A7.27 of CS applies. soft edge to expanded villages

Difficult to see how development can sit Paragraph A7.27 of CS applies. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 138 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS comfortably with habitat protection. The This will be a key consideration objective of habitat enrichment may not through planning applications. be achievable and a more realistic objective needs to be set

Policies in terms of sports fields should Noted. Detailed matter. be far stronger. Sharing of sports fields with schools should be insisted upon, apart from junior schools

Legible frontage treatment can’t be Agreed. Developers will be achieved by off the shelf design from expected to consider context in any volume house builders detailed applications.

Questionable whether the market and CS applies. In particular housing need for apartments remains. paragraphs A7.25 and A7.26. Need for a focus on small houses in a mixed strategy

Concept of self build is flawed due to Noted. Planning permission will design taste deal with details.

No identifiable vernacular in the Borough This is considered in SPD and will so what should be identified is a design be a detailed matter. theme which is inventive and bespoke. There should be scope for innovation with materials too

School sites must be expanded but Noted. Community Hub approval needs a lot of land take supports this.

Fundamental difficulty between highway Noted. Detailed consideration. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 139 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS design alternatives and technical requirement for adoption

Bus linkages critical to success of a Noted. commuter village

Needs to be a clear statement of Noted. phasing

Sustainable construction repeats Noted. Building Regs matters. Impossible to The Council through its Sustainable enforce local sourcing of materials. Design and Construction SPD will Concept of community energy is sound expect developers to justify why but needs to be an acceptance of visual locally sourced materials cannot be effect of wind farms. used.

Agree that there should be a Noted. comprehensive outline application which should encompass additional land

Should be a clearly identified timescale Noted. for delivery in housing and infrastructure. Details of the quantum of development are critical.

Needs to be extreme caution as to Noted. It is for LPA to determine involvement of other bodies in the applications. appraisal of planning applications – our experience is that where these organisations are involved they have differing views and some delays are inevitable. The success of the SDL is Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 140 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS delivery not the seeking of the ideal design approach Promotion of Land Response on behalf of a client for a Act for owners of a site in Croft Road Sites will not be considered in site in Croft Road immediately adjoining the built up part of isolation but would need to meet Spencers Wood within the SDL the requirements of the D. J. Denham (FC/SM4/326L) boundary. masterplanning process

It appears that the client’s site now lies Noted. within an area allocated for residential development (Area B). In principle support the policies and basic form of the masterplan.

Do not consider it is necessary for Noted. access to the clients land to be taken from a new road. The client’s site has a perfectly adequate access from Croft Road. Would like arrow (Primary Street) in figure 3.1 of the Spatial Framework Plan to be removed from the final version.

Question the need to extend road Noted. northwards through Area B when improvements to existing road network might be a more efficient way of dealing As above. with additional traffic. If development of the clients land and other land to the north cannot be undertaken until this new road is built it is going to delay development unnecessarily and place burden of cost on clients to contribute to Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 141 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS construction of the road. Also allows developers who have acquired other adjacent land to hold clients to ransom for access or unnecessarily delay construction of the road or its completion up to the stage where access can be taken for similar purposes.

General Comments by Shinfield Parish Council Comments in the leaflet are summarised Answers as before. In addition to its formal Sian Patrick (FC/SM4/307L) as follows:- comments Shinfield Parish Kelly Meynard (FC/SM4/306L) See Shinfield PC formal comments Council circulated a leaflet Karla Fox (FC/SM4/305L) - If proposals are adopted there will and general residents comments. which was used in a Andrew Paul (FC/SM4/304L) only be one field left separating number of residents Helen Beales (FC/SM4/303L) Spencers Wood and Shinfield with a SUBJECT TO FURTHER responses. Andrew Wells (FC/SM4/286) gap that is just 100 yards at its CONSIDERATION. Mark Schmull (FC/SM4/285) narrowest point. This field will not be J. Hickling (FM/SM4/284) protected from further housing Andrew Prudden (FC/SM4/283) development. It will be within walking Mrs B. Woods (FC/SM4/282) distance of the proposed new primary Cheryl Kinley (FC/SM4/281) schools and will be the obvious next J. Unsworth (FC/SM4/280) place to build after 2026 merging the J. Ruddle (FC/SM4/278) two villages Mr. and Mrs Miles (FC/SM4/277) Mr. S. Darlow (FC/SM4/276) - The proposed final plan does not Miss J. Pegler (FC/SM4/275) comply with the requirements of the B. P. Evans (FC/SM4/274) Core Strategy Mr. and Mrs Taylor (FC/SM4/273) Abdul Osman (FC/SM4/271) - WBC’s proposals largely ignore local Mr. L. Silveira (FC/SM4/270) residents clearly stated preferences John Millington (FC/SM4/198) and was the least popular option with Sally Champion (FC/SM4197) no explanation why it was selected F. Lamb (FC/SM4/195) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 142 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Martin Ryan (FC/SM4/194) - Core Strategy states that As above. W. Lamb (FC/SM4/193) development should keep open Dave Godber (FC/SM4/192) countryside between Shinfield and Mr. and Mrs Brown (FC/SM4/191) Spencers Wood to retain a sense of Richard Hatton (FC/SM4/190) separation. The proposed gap is too J.Aldridge (FC/SM4/189) narrow to achieve this. Nicola Breeze (FC/SM4/188) Mrs D. Howarth (FC/SM4/187) - Proposals focus mainly expanding Mrs G. Young (FC/SM4/186) development to the south west for no Judy English (FC/SM4/185) good reason David Howard (FC/SM4/184) P. K. Dovaston (FC/SM4/272) - Core Strategy states SANG should be G. Busfield (FC/SM4/279) created between Shinfield and H and J Corbett (FC/SM4/196) Spencers Wood but split in proposals Howard Tennent (FC/SM4/181) with only green open space between Kate Hamilton (FC/SM4/178) the villages leaving the land Rob Ashfield (FC/SM4/183) vulnerable to future development J. Emmett (FC/SM4/182) C and S Tennent (FC/SM4/161) - New public transport link between Geoff Galloway (FC/SM4/151) Shinfield and Spencers Wood will John Marshall (FC/SM4/34) further dilute the separation and F and J Terry (FC/SM4/51) distinct identities of the two villages Mrs P Stone (FC/SM4/101) S and P Oakes (FC/SM4/17) - Two new primary schools are Colin Hearn (FC/SM4/15) required but instead of re-using the J. Brinkworth (FC/SM4/343L) existing school buildings at Ryeish B. Whitlock (FC/SM4/342L) Green two new sites are suggested Rebecca Hall (FC/SM4/341L) R. Dickson (FC/SM4/340L) - There are no firm proposals regarding Mrs Webster (FC/SM4/295L) the location and funding of new sports A & M Gilson (FC/SM4/294L) facilities or the provision of allotments Mr. and Mrs Turner (FC/SM4/293L) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 143 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS M. Meiler (FC/SM4/292L) - Proposals to build 130 extra houses As above L & C Judley (FC/SM4/290L) on the Manor site and 175 houses off M. Tyler (FC/SM4/291L) Church Lane are not included in the D. Brand & B. Anderson overall total of 2500 new homes (FC/SM4/289L) allowing a reduction in the size of Mr. & Mrs Rowe (FC/SM4/297L) west Shinfield Tabitha Pang (FC/SM4/289L) A & S Logie (FC/SM4/299L) M & A West (FC/SM4/300L) Karen Green (FC/SM4/301L) Mrs Patel-Kendall (FC/SM4/302L) Mr P. Alford (FC/SM4/296L) Mr G.Kinsley (FC/SM4/339L) Fay Bosley (FC/SM4/338L) James Chandlea (FC/SM4/337L) Neena Patel (FC/SM4/336L) Natasha Loralery (FC/SM/335L) Dr and Mrs Prasad (FC/SM4/334L) M. Willis (FC/SM4/333L) Ian Downie (FC/SM4/332L) Luke Chapman (FC/SM4/331L) Jo Davis (FC/SM4/330L) R & J Tunks (FC/SM4/329L) Kate Fisher (FC/SM4/328L) V Iremenger (FC/SM4/320L) Mrs F. Bamrah (FC/SM4/319L) Leonie Cordery (FC/SM4/318L) J. Spratley-Kemp (FC/SM4/317L) E. Marshall (FC/SM4/316L) N. Westbrook (FC/SM4/323L) C & M Thomas (FC/SM4/322L) Helen Newell (FC/SM4/321L) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 144 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS D. Johnson-Wait (FC/SM4/315L) As above. As above. Karen Wright (FC/SM4/314L) A. Aptenaike (FC/SM4/313L) E. Guiness (FC/SM4/312L) Elaine Lamb (FC/SM4/311L) Jackie Blow (FC/SM4/310L) D Neale (FC/SM4/309L) S Foster (FC/SM4/308L) Mrs R Flint (FC/SM4/96) R. Griffith (FC/SM4/97) R. West (FC/SM4/135) S. Cora (FC/SM4/99) J. Hunt (FC/SM4/98) C. Fryatt (FC/SM4/127) J. Evans (FC/SM4/95) J. Cavell (FC/SM4/94) R. Aspin (FC/SM4/104) J Taylor (FC/SM4/12) Mr. G Dunne (FC/SM4/11) L Fergosen (FC/SM4/26) J Lawes (FC/SM4/25) A & C Wheatcroft (FC/SM4/24) D Bukin (FC/SM4/23) L & M Griffin (FC/SM4/22) M Perrett (FC/SM4/21) M & A Sawyer (FC/SM4/20) Mrs L Nedoma (FC/SM4/19) D Peer (FC/SM4/114) M Erdwin (FC/SM4/176) K Williams (FC/SM4/133) M Hillis (FC/SM4/132) A & E Edwards (FC/SM4/79) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 145 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS W Mitchell (FC/SM4/252) As above. As above. Brault (FC/SM4/251) N Dalal (FC/SM4/250) Mr. & Mrs Dudding (FC/SM4/249) T Edmonds (FC/SM4/ 248) J Stockwell (FC/SM4/247 ) J Strong (FC/SM4/246 ) S Lawlers (FC/SM4/ 245) P Dane (FC/SM4/244 ) D Badsworth (FC/SM4/ 243) L Wells (FC/SM4/242) J Mouring (FC/SM4/241) Mrs E Spencer (FC/SM4/ 240) M & J Parlour (FC/SM4/ 239) K &D Patrick (FC/SM4/ 238) Mrs A Bell (FC/SM4/237 ) P Sprules (FC/SM4/236 ) A Baker (FC/SM4/235 ) R Reid (FC/SM4/ 234) S Thompson (FC/SM4/ 233) Mr & Mrs Ayoubi (FC/SM4/232 ) Mrs Gollop (FC/SM4/ 231) J Fretwell (FC/SM4/230 ) N Robinson (FC/SM4/ 229) M & J Nunn (FC/SM4/ 228) Mr. J Brentnall (FC/SM4/ 227) Mrs E Rowden (FC/SM4/226 ) L Voke (FC/SM4/ 225) G Luke (FC/SM4/179) K Hamilton & J Pittaway (FC/SM4/178) J Walters & family (FC/SM4/129) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 146 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS C Hunt (FC/SM4/130) As above. As above. M Voke (FC/SM4/18) R Alberici (FC/SM4/47) J Blackall (FC/SM4/46) P Pike (FC/SM4/61) M Gessey (FC/SM4/85) J Wait (FC/SM4/84) J Lewis (FC/SM4/62) S & W Davies (FC/SM4/224) L Biddell (FC/SM4/223) J Bates (FC/SM4/222) Mrs J Barker (FC/SM4/221) Mr. H Barker (FC/SM4/220) R & J Bright (FC/SM4/219) K Harwood (FC/SM4/218) E Rehill (FC/SM4/217) R Norman (FC/SM4/216) A Hyde (FC/SM4/215) Mrs Nozay (FC/SM4/214) Mrs Green (FC/SM4/213) Mrs Wignall (FC/SM4/212) R Aspin (FC/SM4/211) J Atkinson (FC/SM4/210) B Griffin (FC/SM4/209) V Martin (FC/SM4/208) H Jones (FC/SM4/207) Mrs Collett (FC/SM4/206) G Swallow (FC/SM4/205) J Hogburn (FC/SM4/204) Mr. & Mrs Wolton (FC/SM4/203) M Armstrong (FC/SM4/202) D Cooper (FC/SM4/201) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 147 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Mrs Miller-Smith (FC/SM4/200) As above. As above. Mrs Skinner (FC/SM4/199) P Baldwin (FC/SM4/169) C & P Carwana (FC/SM4/157) J & E Galloway (FC/SM4/138) C Rayner & J Jones(FC/SM4/68) M Bray (FC/SM4/42) N Hague & T Taylor(FC/SM4/41) K Turner (FC/SM4/40) J Anderson (FC/SM4/39) Mr. & Mrs Dales (FC/SM4/37) A Treymayne (FC/SM4/36) P & C Brown (FC/SM4/35) Mrs Chana (FC/SM4/38) N Mascard (FC/SM4/31) O Vasudev (FC/SM4/32) Mr. & Mrs Watson (FC/SM4/107) John Hall (FC/SM4/106) Julia Hall (FC/SM4/105) J & S Morris (FC/SM4/110) R Shearman (FC/SM4/54) P Emment (FC/SM4/53) S Emment (FC/SM4/52) H Finlayson (FC/SM4/57) R Sowden (FC/SM4/71) R Merewood (FC/SM4/79) D Shearman (FC/SM4/80) Mr & Mrs Aldridge (FC/SM4/81) D Couzens (FC/SM4/87) I Gogus (FC/SM4/90) N Newman & J Lomax (FC/SM4/93) M Woodhouse (FC/SM4/177) Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 148 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH OF M4

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS J Woodroffe (FC/SM4/146) As above. As above. Mr & Mrs Ward (FC/SM4/150) A Ablett (FC/SM4/154) Pui Chao (FC/SM4/158) Derek Wu (FC/SM4/159) R & A Prior (FC/SM4/160) T Search (FC/SM4/165) L Gale (FC/SM4/164) J Senior (FC/SM4/269) S Jones (FC/SM4/268) Mr & Mrs Pearson (FC/SM4/267) M Cooper (FC/SM4/266) R Taylor (FC/SM4/345) M Thames (FC/SM4/265) S & A Budge (FC/SM4/264) S Holmes (FC/SM4/263) D Jones (FC/SM4/262) K Holms (FC/SM4/261) R Pike (FC/SM4/260) D Brett (FC/SM4/259) P Scouse (FC/SM4/258) B Baverstock (FC/SM4/257) M Pearce (FC/SM4/256) P Studd (FC/SM4/255) Mr & Mrs Wheeler (FC/SM4/254) R Lynch (FC/SM4/253 K Alexander (FC/SM4/140)

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Housing Mrs D Haider (FC/GEN/41L) Concerned about housing development Conforms to adopted Core Strategy including Development generally and merger of settlements. Policy CP11.

Richard Francis (FC/GEN/12) Derelict land should be considered rather Volume of development required could not be than greenfield. accommodated on greenfield land.

Infrastructure Peter Harms (FC/GEN/40L) Infrastructure should come in advance of See Infrastructure Delivery SPD. development and should be delivered as no evidence of improvements based on previous contributions/council tax.

Traffic Philip Houldsworth (FC/GEN/37) The documents do not address the Conforms to Core Strategy. See traffic transport issues associated with the modelling, plus Infrastructure SPD. significant increase in population.

Richard Francis (FC/GEN/12) We have highest car ownership in country. The highway measures were discussed at the Public transport/cycle use will not resolve. Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound.

Local roads cannot handle additional traffic.

Traffic R S Ramsey (FC/GEN/5) Area cannot handle additional traffic Conforms to Core Strategy. See traffic modelling, plus Infrastructure SPD.

Charlie Johnson (FC/GEN/2) The highway measures were discussed at the Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound.

Traffic Fiona Huggett (FC/GEN/36) The extra traffic onto Coppid Beech will Conforms to Core Strategy. See traffic cause traffic jams. Local roads will become modelling, plus Infrastructure SPD. ‘rat runs’. The highway measures were discussed at the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 150 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – NOT SDL SPECIFIC

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Core Strategy EIP and found to be sound.

Emmbrook School Fiona Huggett (FC/GEN/36) What will the site be used for? Not subject to this SPD.

SANGS RSPB (FC/GEN/15) (1) Provision should be seen as a minimum Noted. SANG is subject to specific (AG) requirements in accordance with Policy CP7.

(2) Appropriateness of the quality and quantity in small parcels (SWSDL) (NWSDL) (South of M4)

Services Richard Francis (FC/GEN/12) Telephone services inadequate. Noted. Services will be included with development. Public Transport Richard Francis (FC/GEN/12) Inadequate service currently. Additional See Infrastructure Delivery SPD. Provision to development will exacerbate problems. be made in accordance with Policy CP6.

Notification R S Ramsey (FC/GEN/5) Confused by various consultations. Noted.

Separation of R S Ramsey (FC/GEN/5) Loss of separation between Wokingham Separation is a key requirement of the CS settlements and Bracknell/Arborfield. Policy CP11.

Flooding Charlie Johnson (FC/GEN/2) Question accuracy of flood zones. EA consulted.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Topic Respondent Comments Council Response SOUTH OF M4 Councillor Anthony Pollock (FC/STAT/7)

Separation of Councillor Anthony Pollock Concerned that main development is in two Conforms to CS Policy CP11. settlements blocks to west of Shinfield and East of Spencers Wood. Believe Inspector spoke of a minimum 350 metres.

Other non- Councillor Anthony Pollock Other sites could take some housing Conforms to CS. Consortium sites Shinfield Glebe, The Manor, Shinfield Junior Recommends 10-20% of development land should be in non-Consortium hands.

Primary School Councillor Anthony Pollock Ryeish Green School should be a primary Conforms to CS. school. This would allow further widening of gap between the settlements.

Eastern by-pass Councillor Anthony Pollock Eastern by-pass and bridge over M4 should Conforms to CS. See Infrastructure Delivery be a priority. SPD.

SANG Councillor Anthony Pollock This should be in a continuous area NE has no objection to proposals. between Shinfield and Spencers Wood.

Bus route across Councillor Anthony Pollock This is inappropriate. Noted. AMENDMENT PROPOSED. open space

Bus services Councillor Anthony Pollock Do not rely on people using buses. Ensure Noted. Parking to be provided in accordance sufficient car parking is provided. with Policy CP6 + Local Plan Appendix 8.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Shopping Councillor Anthony Pollock Each sub area should have shopping This is allowed for in CS. facilities. Conflict of interest Councillor Anthony Pollock What action has been taken to ensure no Not a relevant planning consideration. conflict?

NORTH Councillor Alistair Auty (FC/STAT/20) WOKINGHAM Traffic modelling Councillor Alistair Auty How up to date is modelling? Concerned See NW Technical Note. about accuracy and quality.

Ashridge Councillor Alistair Auty Principle sound but full interchange may be See NW Technical Note. Interchange appropriate, even if needed to relocate.

Northern Relief Councillor Alistair Auty Good idea but needs to have clearly See NW Technical Note. Road (NRR) defined start and end points.

Secondary School Councillor Alistair Auty Would it make more sense to build a new CS will provide for sufficient places in school in place of Emmbrook in North appropriate locations. Wokingham? NORTH Councillor Philip Mirfin (FC/NW/53) WOKINGHAM Northern Distributor Councillor Philip Mirfin Need for a full Northern Distributor road to See NW Technical Note. Road (NDR) access the North Wokingham SDL.

Alternative Ashridge Councillor Philip Mirfin Should be located in accordance with See NW Technical Note. Interchange 1970’s location between Warren House Road and Twyford Road. Alternatives suffer from heavy traffic including school buses and traffic from Toutley Industrial Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 153 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – COUNCILLOR COMMENTS

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Estate Areas.

Increased traffic in Councillor Philip Mirfin Proposals for the NDR should be revised to See NW Technical Note. town centre, take account of increased traffic along Twyford Road and Glebelands Road. Glebelands Road Emmbrook School Councillor Philip Mirfin If Emmbrook School is moved, would CS will provide for sufficient places in travel children have to be driven to a new location appropriate locations. on the Finchampstead side of town creating more traffic problems? Emmbrook School Councillor Philip Mirfin Catchment areas for schools should be CS will provide for sufficient places in carefully considered. It is also important appropriate locations. that most parents and pupils wishes are met regarding educational opportunities and standards that Wokingham is renowned for. Farmland Councillor Philip Mirfin Agricultural land should not be used for SPD conforms with CS. development. Not as sustainable as growing crops.

Increased traffic risk due to removal of a EA consulted. flood plain. SOUTH OF M4 Councillor Gould (FC/INTCON/3) Reference to South Wokingham AMEND TEXT

Separation Paragraph 2.3.4 ‘Shinfield to be expanded SPD conforms to CS which says ‘could’ be to the west and north west’ does not accord expanded. ISSUE OF IMPACT UNDER with (SA7.17(b) and 7.17(c). This focuses a FURTHER CONSIDERATION. disproportionate number of houses to the west of Shinfield. Gap is reduced to 150 Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis of issues raised will be always based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of respondents made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or where outside the scope of the SPD will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs. For the avoidance of doubt the SPD does not introduce new policies. Any policies of the Core Strategy not specifically mentioned will be applied to development within the SDL. 154 CONSULTATION SUMMARY – COUNCILLOR COMMENTS

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response metres which is ‘excessive encroachment’. As above. Options 1 and 3 were endorsed overwhelmingly through informal options. consultation not reported in SPD 2.4.7.

Bus Route Across Existing roads are adequate Open Land

Eastern Relief Road SPD 5c (u) identifies it as a requirement for Noted. it to service residential development in the east of Shinfield. This will come later and increase number of units. Church Glebe Land Development is prevented by SPD Noted. Site is not considered suitable for development.

SANG Options exhibition supported SANG in NE has no objection to proposal. Bio diversity strategic gap. This is ideal location due to is a benefit. proximity of settlement. The southern SANG is water meadow and floods regularly

Local Centre May compete with Shinfield centre in its Centre location is considered appropriate to current location. complement not compete with existing centre.

Design Principles Use of townscape illustration of urban NOTED. AMEND AS APPROPRIATE. 2 to 5 areas is of concern as the development is Character of villages and impact is a key related to villages. consideration. NORTH WOKINGHAM

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response Thames Water Councillor Brown Is within SDL but future is unclear It is not identified as a proposal as its future is Sewerage Site not clear. Development location allows for it to remain for now. Development proposals must take account of its presence. Community Important to avoid urbanisation with ‘no Noted. Community hub is a key component of Establishment heart’. this project. A Community Hub Workshop took place in June 2010. Cantley Park Councillor Brown Role of site in proposals should be Outside of SDL. Role is complementary. quantified.

Traffic Needs resolution and advised suggestions See NW Technical Note. for enhancements/changes to road system.

Community Centre Councillor Brown Should be available at beginning of Noted. Community development is a key development. consideration.

Councillor Drake (FC/STAT/18) Generally reiterates St.Nicholas Hurst Noted. See NW Technical Note. Parish Council’s comments but asks why an east facing Ashridge is being pursued.

A321 Increasing traffic on A321 is unacceptable. See NW Technical Note.

Northern Relief Understand there is some doubt about Modelling justifies partial Northern Relief Road enough money from developments for a full Road/east facing Ashridge. A northern relief Northern Relief Road. Preferred Option. road would achieve better results but not justified (NW Technical Note). A route for a full northern relief road is shown as an aspiration but would require other funding and/or CPO.

MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Topic Respondent Comments Council Response How will Wokingham Borough Council Infrastructure SPD and section 106 ensure developers meet their obligations on construction of infrastructure

What if a developer fails Permissions will run with land and s106 agreements will be binding. Publication is welcomed