Statement of Consultation January 2020 to Accompany the Draft Local Plan Update Consultation

Statement of Consultation January 2020 To accompany the Draft Local Plan Update consultation

Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Part One: Issues and Options Consultation (August 2016) 5

3 Part Two: Homes for the Future Consultation (November 2018) 34

Appendices 65

1. Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Consultation provides a summary of consultation undertake to date to help inform the preparation of the Local Plan Update. 1.2 This statement provides details of two previous consultations:  Issues and Options Consultation on the draft Local Plan Update (4 August to 30 September 2016.  Homes for the Future Consultation on the draft Local Plan Update (12 November 2018 to 22 February 2019). 1.3 This statement explains the process undertaken, including the methods used, the people involved, the number of comments received, and a summary of the main issues raised. Background 1.4 Planning is more effective when the people it affects are an integral part of the process. Greater involvement can help shape planning solutions that maximise positive outcomes and minimise any negatives. Although some decisions are difficult, through engagement the choices will be better understood and the outcomes more likely to be suitable. Figure 1 below shows the consultation process for preparing the local plan. 1.5 The consultation undertaken to date has focused on broad issues, such as how development should be managed and what approach should be taken to specific issues such as employment and retail. The views offered through consultation are taken into account alongside technical studies and national planning policy and guidance which sets the context in which a local plan must be prepared. 1.6 In addition to consultation relating to the Local Plan Update, the council previously undertook work to prepare a standalone Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan. A decision was subsequently taken to combine this into the Local Plan Update itself, providing a comprehensive set of planning policies. Consultation responses to the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan have been used to inform the Local Plan Update.

Figure 1: Consultation Process

2. Part Two : Issues and Options Consultation (August 2016)

How people were involved in the conversation

2.1 The ‘Issues and Options’ consultation included three elements, the Issues & Options consultation document, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) report and the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). 2.2 This consultation ran for approximately 8 weeks from 4 August 2016 to 30 September 2016. This represented the first stage of formal public consultation on the draft Local Plan Update (Regulation 18) and opened discussion about what the local plan ought to contain1. We asked a number of questions about different planning issues that should be dealt with and what people saw as the future for Wokingham borough. 2.3 A letter (and/or email) regarding the consultation was sent to all consultees registered on the council’s online consultation database, in accordance with the regulations (Appendix 1 and Appendix 3)2. This included residents, agents, national bodies, organisations etc. and was continually updated with those who expressed an interest in receiving updates on the local plan and other planning policy matters. 2.4 This consultation was publicised on the Wokingham Borough Council website (Appendix 2), along with several press releases on the News Centre area of the site (Appendix 6; Appendix 9). An advert was also run in the Traveller Times (online) (Appendix 7). 2.5 This consultation was also publicised on Facebook and Twitter as part of a wider social media campaign, providing details of the consultation and promoting participation in the Local Plan Update (Appendix 5). 2.6 Staff from the council’s planning policy team attended a variety of festivals and events to publicise the consultation. Further information on this can be found in the following section.

1 Section 18(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/regulation/18/made 2 Regulation 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012

2.7 The consultation meet the requirements of the then adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)3. A summary of the council’s engagement activities and methods undertaken to demonstrate compliance is contained in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Alignment between community engagement activities for the production of the Wokingham Borough draft Local Plan ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation and the principles of engagement set out in the Wokingham Borough Statement of Community Involvement (2014)

Three main principles of engagement in the Statement of Community Involvement (2014) Inform – Let the community Minimum statutory requirement: known what is happening  Letter and/or email regarding the consultation was sent to all consultees (including residents, agents, statutory bodies) registered on the council’s online consultation database (Appendix 1)  Specific and general consultation bodies were notified of the consultation and how to make comments in accordance with Regulation 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (Appendix 1)  Details of the consultation were publicised on the Wokingham Borough Council website (Appendix 2) and were also made available at the Council’s civic offices  Key Duty to Co-operate bodies were engaged through an initial scoping exercise to understand and identify the key strategic matters to be addressed in the draft Local Plan Update (further details set out in the Duty to Co-operate Scoping Statement) and were also notified of the  ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation (Appendix 1 and 3)

Additional consultation and engagement methods:

 Details of the consultation were also publicised on the council’s Facebook and Twitter pages to promote a social media campaign (Appendix 4)  Press releases were published on the ‘News Centre’ area of the Wokingham Borough Council website (Appendix 5; Appendix 8)  Advert (electronic) was published in the Traveller Times (Appendix 6)

3 An SCI sets out the processes used by the council in involving the community in the preparation, alteration and continuing review of planning policy documents in the Development Plan and in deciding on planning applications for development

 A leaflet was distributed electronically to all consultees registered on the council’s online consultation database, and was also made available at the council offices and at meetings/events/exhibitions during the consultation period (Appendix 7)

Consult – Give the community Minimum statutory requirement: the opportunity to feed back their views  Invite representations on the Issues and Options consultation document through appropriately placed press releases, notices on the Council’s website, articles/information in Borough News and the Community Forums (Appendix 8)

Additional consultation and engagement methods:

 Several events were held across the Borough (Appendix 9)  Officers also attended several festivals in the Borough including Marvellous Festival (23 July 2016); Earley Green Fair (6 August 2016); Wokingham Festival (27 August 2016); Swallowfield Show (29 August 2016) (Appendix 9)   Targeted events were held with harder to reach groups to engage them in the local plan process including, Black and Minority Ethnic (BME), older people and younger children. The following events were held: Sessions in Secondary Schools (23 June & 5 July 2016); Involve – Community awareness which supports local charities and community groups (28 June 2016); Wokingham Black and Minority Ethnic Forum (28 June 2016); Knit, Stich & Natter Group (18 July 2016); Norrey’s Tenant Service Community Fund Day (21 July 2016); Rose Buddies drop-in session for adults with learning disabilities (1 September 2016)  A static exhibition was held in the lobby of the Wokingham Borough Council offices, Shute End from 3 August to 23 August 2016. The exhibition was also manned on 9 and 17 August 2016  Presentations and discussions took place with a number of key stakeholders including Local Borough Councillors, Town and Parish Councils, Registered Providers and Community Forums Involve – enable the Minimum statutory requirement: community to participate; influence how it develops  The ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation Document and Response Forms were made available (paper and electronic) on the Wokingham Borough Council website, at the council offices, at events, meetings, exhibitions and at a selection of local libraries across the Borough, providing  an opportunity for the community to comment on the proposals in the draft Local Plan Update (Appendix 10)

Additional consultation and engagement methods:

 A series of roadshows, events, stakeholder meetings and exhibitions were held during the consultation to inform the community of the proposals in the draft plan and the purpose of this consultation (Appendix 9)  Events asked a series of questions to initiate ideas and discussion, e.g. what does the Borough mean to you? What do you wish were different about the Borough?  The leaflet set out details of the Issues and Options Consultation (including dates for festivals/events) and how to comment/respond to the consultation document (Appendix 7)

Festivals and events 2.8 The draft Local Plan Update conversation took place at a number of festivals around the borough over the summer 2016 (Appendix 9). These included:

 Marvellous Festival @ Dinton Pastures Country Park (23 July 2016)  Earley Green Fair (6 August 2016)  Wokingham Festival (27 August 2016)  Swallowfield Show (29 August 2016) 2.9 These main festivals were supported by further targeted events for harder to reach groups, but these were not represented as well compared to the festivals. These included:

 Sessions in Secondary Schools (23 June & 5 July 2016)  Involve – Community awareness event. A Wokingham and Bracknell Forest based charity which supports other local charities and community groups. (28 June 2016)

 Wokingham Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Forum (28 June 2016)  Knit, Stitch & Natter Group @ Wokingham Library (18 July 2016)  Norrey’s Tenant Services Community Fun Day (21 July 2016)  Reminiscence Club @ Woodley Library (25 August 2016)

 Rose Buddies drop-in session for adults with learning disabilities @ The Oakwood Centre, Woodley (1 September 2016)

 Public stall in the lobby of Shute End Council Offices (3 to 26 August 2016 and manned on two days – 9 and 17 August) 2.10 The events followed a slightly different format depending on the style of the event itself. In the schools sessions we were able to spend a class session with the students working in groups. At the festivals and other outdoor events a stall was set up with deck chairs, creating an informal environment for discussion. Different maps and pictures, and whiteboards were used to capture ideas from the local community. The existing group meetings were more informal, simply discussing with those who attended. 2.11 All events were based around informing residents on the purpose of the draft Local Plan Update and why we were engaging with them. It helped to gather ideas and input into the vision and objectives for the next stage of the plan. To encourage and spark ideas and discussion, the following five questions were used at each event:

 What does Wokingham Borough mean to you?  What do you like about Wokingham Borough?  What do you wish were different about Wokingham Borough?  What should we protect in Wokingham Borough?  Why did you choose to live in Wokingham Borough? 2.12 The stalls at the events were well attended and people seemed to enjoy the experience and the information they received. Throughout the sessions we were able to gain input from a variety of people.

Social Media 2.13 ‘Question Fridays!’ were used during the consultation period as part of the social media campaign (Appendix 4). Every Friday we asked one of the above five questions on Facebook and Twitter using #WokyLPU. The responses could be viewed online by all. This was also used to advertise events

happening. Options were given for each of these questions in order to poll the answers. This sparked a great deal of discussion and those who may not have necessarily attended the events also saw these posts.

Other Conversations 2.14 Presentations and discussions took place at a number of stakeholder sessions, utilising the existing groups. These included, Local Borough Councillors, Town and Parish Councils, Registered Providers and Community Forums4 set up as part of the four major developments around the borough. Duty to Co-operate 2.15 As a public body, the council has a statutory Duty to Co-operate with specific bodies to plan for any strategic issues which cross administrative boundaries. This is a legal requirement set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (section 33 (a)) as amended by the Localism Act 2011 (section 110) and Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 212. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)5 and national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)6 provide additional guidance on the Duty to Co-operate.

2.16 We sought views from various bodies to scope out the key strategic issues where co-operation might be appropriate. This initial engagement was undertaken from 20 April to 18 May 2016 and was documented within the council’s Duty to Co-operate Scoping Statement7. This document represented the starting point to facilitate meaningful discussions about key strategic planning issues to achieve positive outcomes for the borough.

4 Community Forums were set up by the council for residents for each major development area / Strategic Development Location. They are usually attended by key officers, developers, landowners, Town and Parish Council representatives and other stakeholders. Further information on Community Forums in the Borough can be found on the council website: https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/community-and-safety/life-in-the-community/community-forums/ 5 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 24 to 27; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf 6 national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 61-009-20190315; https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-making#maintaining-effective- cooperation 7 Wokingham Local Plan Update – Duty to Co-operate Statement, July 2016; https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning-policy/planning-policy-information/local-plan- update/

2.17 The identified DtC bodies, as specified in the legislation, were consulted on the Issues and Options consultation document. Specific comments from the relevant bodies raised the following key points:

Environment Agency

 the plan’s vision and objectives should consider environmental assets, including water environment and areas of ecological value  important to adopt mitigation and adaptation measures to reduce the Borough’s contribution to causes of climate change  the location of sites should follow the sequential test for flood risk to avoid development in areas at risk of flooding. Site selection should be informed by available evidence, including the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment  timely delivery of water and wastewater infrastructure  the plan should reflect the aims of the Water Framework Directive to achieve ‘good’ ecological status in the Borough’s water bodies and be supported by an assessment of water quality  the plan should set a water consumption limit of 105 litres/household/day (l/h/d) for residential development; non-residential development of 1000sqm should meet BREEAM ‘excellent’ standards  important to deliver green infrastructure to achieve biodiversity benefits and climate change adaptation; maintain and enhance river corridors and watercourses for their ecological value  the plan should be consistent with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 for biodiversity and nature conservation  the plan should consider a policy to address contaminated land

Highways England

 any impacts on the Strategic Road Network will need to be identified and mitigated  proposed new growth will need to be considered in the context of cumulative impact on the M4

Natural England

 sought a mechanism with which Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds are collected for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA)  the plan should carry forward CP8 of the adopted Core Strategy, including wording contained in Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan

Thames Water

 the plan should include a specific policy on water and sewerage infrastructure  supported plan’s approach to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and this should be a requirement in policy for all development proposals  the plan should include a policy to require new dwellings to meet a water efficiency standard of no more than 110 litres per person per day  the plan should include policy relating to water conservation and water efficiency

Bracknell Forest Council

 supported the plan’s vision and objectives and approach to meeting the borough’s housing needs in line with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment  did not support the approach set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), which should be updated to reflect the up-to-date definition set out in the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites  welcomed the opportunity for ongoing discussions on infrastructure matters, in particular cross-boundary issues such as transport and education provision

Hampshire County Council

 welcomed the opportunity to work with the borough to enhance cross-boundary rights of way network for public amenity and sustainable transport route

Mayor of London / Transport for London

 suggested the plan may wish to take account of long term migration patterns set out in the Berkshire SHMA

 agreed that the plan should address the borough’s housing need as identified in the SHMA  suggested the Borough look closely at development opportunities associated with transport improvements e.g. London to Reading rail route, Great Western Mainline, Elizabeth Line from Twyford to Wokingham from 2019

What People Said

2.18 The following sections set out a summary of the main issues raised under different topic areas and themes. These comments have been used alongside other information and evidence to inform the preparation of the Draft Plan.

Vision, Objectives and Time Period for the Plan

2.19 A number of comments were received specifically on the vision and objectives for the plan and the future of the borough to 2036. 2.20 A number of comments were received regarding the time period for the Local Plan Update. 2.21 Thinking ahead to 2036 in Wokingham Borough, people were asked to imagine what it would be like and how it would feel, in order to create what should be aspired to and the steps we need to take through the plan process to get there. 2.22 Themes arising throughout the comments were as follows:

 Thriving businesses with flexible employment options and highly skilled, innovative workforce

 Strong communities that are lively, diverse and healthy  Open space for leisure and nature  Ease of movement and strong connections, including cycling and pedestrian routes and sustainable transport

 Housing for all and the appropriate infrastructure to support it  Achieving a work life balance

 Digital connectivity  Agreement of a balance of the environmental, social and economic pillars to guide the objective in the LPU 2.23 Through conversations at LPU events, you also told us that the following things were important to you:  To you Wokingham Borough means home, an affluent area, greenery, housing and schooling

 You like that it is a family friendly place to live  You wish that the congestion and traffic in the borough were different  You think we should protect our countryside, country parks and the separation and uniqueness of the existing towns and villages in the borough

 You choose to live in the borough because it is convenient for work, has good access to countryside and good schools

2.24 There was also a high level of agreement for the plan period to look to 2036. However, we need to ensure issues and opportunities beyond that time are considered that may impact on the plan period.

Spatial Strategy

2.25 Key issues raised around where development should go were as follows:

 Infrastructure should be provided alongside development  Brownfield (previously developed) land in areas of the Green Belt should be utilised  Consideration should be given to development at existing settlements where there is a shortage of infrastructure in order to warrant new and improved infrastructure

 Consideration should be given to lead in times for different types of developments when looking at the balance of options for development

 Settlement boundaries (development limits) are not always logical and should be reviewed 2.26 The favoured options out of those identified in the Issues & Options consultation document, were Option 6 (A combination of some / all of the approaches) and Option 1 (Continue the approach of a smaller number of larger developments that provide for their own infrastructure needs based on Garden Town/City Principles). 2.27 The majority of the responses from developers favoured Option 6, whilst responses from local residents were largely split between Options 1 and 6.

Housing

2.28 The Issues & Options consultation document included the following areas within the main topic of housing:

 Housing need  Housing mix  Affordable housing  Starter homes  Self-build and custom build  Gypsies and Travellers  Housing for older people and vulnerable groups

2.29 Key issues raised around each of these are summarised below. Housing Need  Wokingham should provide for the borough’s need as set out in the Berkshire (including South Bucks) Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2016

 Ensure there is diversity in the housing provided, including looking at different types of tenures, social, affordable, and size.

 Ensure mitigation of effects of larger developments on smaller settlements and ensure positive impact on existing communities

 Identify a range of sites in order to meet housing need  Views expressed by the development industry and landowners that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment was not fully robust and the Objectively Assessed Need for housing identified was too low Housing Mix  The market should be left to naturally dictate the mix of housing in the borough  An appropriate dwelling mix is needed in order to provide smaller, more affordable properties suitable for older and younger people

 Any policy introduced in the plan should be flexible to reflect locations of developments; certain developments will be better suited to accommodate a mix of housing Affordable Housing  Flexibility needed, including mix of tenure and size of affordable housing  Promote social integration and cohesion across developments and areas of the Borough

 Realistic targets for provision, taking into account viability Gypsies & Travellers  Wokingham Borough should meet the identified needs for gypsies & travellers  Maximise the potential of existing sites for Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showperson provision

 Further understanding is required, including the appropriate size and location of sites in the borough

 Different views expressed as to whether sites should be close to services and infrastructure, or away from settlements Starter Homes  General support for starter homes, although there is currently insufficient information available to justify a policy approach

 Developers expressed the view that starter homes should form part of the provision for affordable housing

 Support the principle for the allocation of starter homes to be integrated into larger developments

 Further understanding of the need for starter homes and government requirements are necessary to move forward Self-build and custom build  The allocation of areas for self-build and custom-build within Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) would encourage architectural variety

 Flexibility in the policy, for example to allocate plots for self-build and custom-build in large developments or ad-hoc outside of settlements

 Specify a timeframe for allocated plots not constructed to revert back to market housing Housing for older people and vulnerable groups  Consideration should be given to smaller units, rather than only care homes and sheltered accommodation

 Choice of type and tenure should not be too limited

Employment

2.30 Key issues raised around employment growth were as follows:

 Employment and working habits are changing and we need to adapt and be flexible  Employment must be supported by necessary and appropriate infrastructure e.g. sustainable transport, improved broadband, etc.

 Further focus on innovation hubs, communal spaces, starter businesses  Include other community and leisure uses within employment areas, if appropriate, rather than limiting to B Uses8

 Flexibility should not mean unsustainable locations 2.31 A general widespread understanding that employment does not just mean we should keep and build office space. We should be more creative in our thinking around employment growth and shared space solutions.

Retail

2.32 Key issues raised around retail development and main town centre uses were as follows:

 We need to understand the changes to shopping habits that have occurred and how these are likely to continue developing; and improve the flexibility of the retail experience

 Support local, independent businesses and retailers

8 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) puts uses of land and buildings into various categories known as ‘Use Classes’ as set out in https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/9/change_of_use 18

Infrastructure and Community

2.34 The Issues & Options consultation document included the following areas within this section:

 Infrastructure planning  Open space 2.35 Key issues raised around each of these are summarised below: Infrastructure planning  Provision of infrastructure to meet both physical and social needs of the community  New infrastructure should be provided before/during housing being built, rather than after

 Suggestions for necessary infrastructure provision included (but was not limited to): health, sports and leisure facilities, transport, education, retail, community facilities, digital communications, green infrastructure

 Various views were expressed towards the proposed time for developers to contribute to maintenance of infrastructure ranging from not at all, to forever, with a number of respondents stating 10 years

 Consideration of renewable energy opportunities e.g. wind turbines, solar power  Safe cycling  Need for a more consistent approach to cross-border issues regarding development Open space  Open space should only be lost if it is not fit for purpose  Any alternative provision should be better, rather than equivalent, to the provision being lost

 Any alternative provision must be local and accessible  Where respondents said ‘No’ to a continued policy approach, views expressed were largely that all open spaces in the Borough should be retained 2.36 With regard to whether developers should contribute to the maintenance of infrastructure, the majority of responses that said ‘Yes’ were from residents and Town & Parish Councils; whilst the majority of developers did not respond to this question

Flood Risk and Drainage

2.37 Key issues raised around minimising the risk of flooding were as follows:

 Views expressed were largely in agreement with a continued approach, so long as it is applied with sufficient rigor

 Take a more positive approach to flood mitigation  Utilise green infrastructure

Countryside

2.38 Key issues raised around the countryside were as follows:

 Development in the countryside should be restricted and sensitively handled  Retain separation between settlements by utilising green infrastructure  Consideration at a local level needed, based on sustainability of locations and being sympathetic to the local area

Green Belt

2.39 Key issues raised around the Green Belt and possibilities for sustainable development were as follows:

 Allow development on brownfield sites within the Green Belt  Continue to protect the Green Belt

Natural Environment

2.40 Key issues raised around the natural environment were as follows:

 Protection should be afforded to areas with no designation which support biodiversity, rather than only those with local or national designations

 Policies should have a positive impact on the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment

Heritage and the Historic Environment

2.41 Key issues raised around the historic environment were as follows:

 Take account of the significance of heritage assets through the plan making process  Give communities the opportunity to submit features that could be included in the council’s Buildings of Traditional Local Character register

 Ensure sufficient protection without being too restrictive e.g. to allow improvements

Sustainable Design

2.42 Key issues raised around water efficiency, accessibility and adaptability and internal living space were as follows:

 There is a national standard. It will be important to ensure that any departure from national standards in the plan is supported by local evidence, including viability and deliverability

 An incentive may be more appropriate

How did the comments from the ‘Issues and Options’ consultation influence the Draft Plan (January 2020)

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response Vision and A number of comments made specific reference to The Draft Plan is supported by several strategic objectives covering Objectives the vision and objectives of the plan, in particular to matters such as employment growth, health and well-being, consider matters such as flexible employment movement and connectivity and infrastructure delivery. For provision, health and well-being, movement and example, the following strategic objective is included relating to connectivity and the timely delivery of infrastructure. infrastructure delivery: ‘facilitate timely provision of new and improved infrastructure by working with providers to achieve focused investment and by securing appropriate benefits from new development’

The Environment Agency commented that the plan’s The draft Local Plan Update includes the following strategic vision and objectives should consider environmental objective: assets, including the water environment and ‘maintain and strengthen the sense of place by securing quality ecologically valued areas in the Borough. designed development through protecting and enhancing the distinctive historic environment, landscape character, townscape character and biodiversity value, assisting vibrancy, and by

keeping settlements separate.’

Bracknell Forest District Council supported the plan’s Support noted and welcomed. vision and objectives to meeting the Borough’s housing needs. General consensus from the The draft Local Plan Update covers the period to 2036, albeit responses that the plan should cover the period up there is recognition in the plan’s vision and objectives that other to 2036, but important to also consider issues and matters, such as responding to the challenge of climate change, opportunities beyond the plan period. are more long term. The plan also identifies a potential new garden town at Grazeley to deliver 15,000 homes (across Wokingham Borough and West Berkshire District), with 3,650 homes to be delivered within the plan period to 2036. It will therefore be important that development and infrastructure is appropriately planned and coordinated on this site to accommodate any future growth.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response Spatial A number of comments were received, including from The plan’s strategy proposes a range of site allocations, including Strategy – key Duty to Co-operate bodies, relating to the options a mix of smaller and larger sites to support the delivery of where should for where development in the Borough should be necessary and appropriate strategic infrastructure, to maintain a development located. healthy five year housing land supply position and to create go? diversity and competition in the housing market.

The council has followed a comprehensive approach to site Majority of responses favoured: selection, based on relevant and up-to-date evidence, including an  Option 6 – a combination of some / all of the assessment of flood risk (from all sources) contained in the approaches in option 1 to 5 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). The SFRA is published as  Option 1 – continue the approach of a small evidence alongside the Draft Plan and has informed policy number of large developments that provides development and site allocation policies in the Draft Plan. for their own infrastructure needs based on

garden town/village principles

A number of comments related to the plan’s spatial The Draft Plan is supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan strategy and approach to development, in particular which has started to identify the necessary infrastructure to consider matters such as infrastructure delivery requirements to support development for each of the proposed (new and existing), green belt and a review of current allocations in the plan. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be settlement boundaries. The Environment Agency updated and published at Regulation 19 consultation. It will commented that the location of sites should follow identify the borough’s physical, social and green infrastructure the sequential test, based on local evidence. requirements. The Infrastructure Statement / Infrastructure Delivery Plan will ensure new infrastructure provision is delivered in a timely manner to align with development and will also summarise the capacity and quality of existing infrastructure.

The adopted Core Strategy defined the existing settlements through Policy CP11 (Proposals outside Development Limits – including countryside). This policy is updated in the Draft Plan to accommodate sustainable future development and other completions. Areas outside of these settlement are designated as

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response countryside, and will ensure the separate identity of settlements continues to be protected and the quality of the borough’s environment is maintained.

The council continues to work collaboratively and proactively with Highways England commented that any impacts on Highways England and other key stakeholders to investigate and the Strategic Road Network will need to be identified mitigate against the impact of development on the M4. The Draft and mitigated and proposed new growth will need to Plan is supported by an Evaluation of Transport Impact Study using consider cumulative impact on the M4 corridor. the Wokingham Strategic Transport Model 4, which has assessed Mayor of London / Transport for London suggested the cumulative impact of growth on highways. the Borough look closely at development opportunities associated with transport improvements e.g. Elizabeth Line from Twyford to The proposed new garden town at Grazeley will be supported by a Wokingham. comprehensive strategic infrastructure package, including improvements / upgrades to junction 11 on the M4. The Grazeley garden town policy includes a requirement for developers to fund improvements to essential transport infrastructure, including the M4 and other effective measures to mitigate transport impacts of development on the strategic and local road network.

The council jointly submitted a Housing and Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid to the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for £252 million towards the upfront provision of infrastructure, including those which mitigate traffic effects, such as new public transport links.

Further detail regarding specific transport-related infrastructure requirements will be set out in the Masterplan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan SPD, working collaboratively with key stakeholders and infrastructure / service providers, including Highways England.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response

Twyford is the only settlement within the Green Belt on the Elizabeth Line. Growth is contained by flooding, best and most versatile agricultural land and the Metropolitan Green Belt. Other development options have been assessed as preferable.

Housing Housing needs Noted and support welcomed.

Bracknell Forest District Council and the Mayor of Since the Issue and Options consultation, the government has London / Transport for London supported the plan’s introduced the standard method for calculating Local Housing approach to meeting the Borough’s housing needs in Need. This supersedes the previous SHMA method. line with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The Draft Plan strategy includes sufficient capacity to exceed Local Housing Need. Notwithstanding, the council has advanced Other comments suggested that the SHMA was not a case for exceptional circumstances which justify a lower robust and the Objectively Assessed Housing Need housing requirement. identified was too low. The draft plan includes several policies to meet the housing Comments also suggested that the plan should needs of different groups through different types and tenure, ensure a diversity in the type, tenure and size of including rural exception sites, affordable housing and housing housing provision to meet different needs e.g. for vulnerable people. through a range of sites.

Housing mix

The policy approach should be flexible to reflect local circumstances. Other comments suggested that the mix of housing should be appropriate to provide smaller, more affordable properties suitable for younger and older people.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response Affordable Housing

The policy approach should be flexible in the mix of An ‘affordable housing’ policy is included in the Draft Plan, which tenure and size of affordable housing provision in the ensures on-site provision is distributed across the development Borough. Comments suggested that policy should to create mixed and balanced communities, to facilitate social seek to promote social integration and cohesion. cohesion and inclusive communities. The policy should be deliverable and consider viability.

Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople An update to the Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showperson Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) was published in September Bracknell Forest District Council commented that the 2017. The updated assessment has taken into account the evidence should be updated to reflect the up-to-date guidance and requirements set out in the Planning Policy for definition set out in the Planning Policy for Traveller Traveller Sites. The evidence has been used to inform policy Sites. development and site allocations for Gyspy, Traveller and Travelling Showpersons in the draft Local Plan Update. A General comments suggested the plan should meet ‘traveller sites’ policy is included to support the provision of new the identified need for gypsy and traveller provision, pitches or the extension of existing sites and ensures they are by expanding existing sites. The policy approach appropriately located and designed, taking into account scale, should ensure that provision is appropriate taking character and accessibility. The council has taken the approach into account size, location and access to services that provision should be well related to the existing settlement and facilities. within or adjacent to the Borough and provide a good level of access to services and facilities.

The council has produced a Boat Dwellers Accommodation Assessment (BDAA) to support a new policy in the draft plan. This is a statutory duty under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to address the need for and provision of residential moorings on Starter homes inland waterways.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response General support for starter homes in the Borough. Self-build plot allocations should be identified and integrated into larger developments. Developers suggested that this should form part of the provision for affordable housing.

Self-Build and Custom-Build

Comments suggested that the allocation of areas for The Draft Plan includes a policy relating to ‘self-build and custom such provision within SDLs would encourage housebuilding’ which identifies a specific requirement to provide architectural variety. Policy approach should be serviced plots on certain sites. The policy approach also supports flexible in the location of provision (e.g. larger the provision of plots on larger and smaller schemes subject to developments or outside settlements). proposals being consistent with policies in the Development Plan.

Housing for older people and other vulnerable groups

Policy approach to this type of housing provision The approach to the ‘Accommodation for Older People and should consider smaller units, rather than care Vulnerable Communities’ policy in the Draft Plan supports the homes and sheltered accommodation. Policy needs of vulnerable people and an ageing population by approach should be flexible in the type and tenure of encouraging self-reliance, independent living and by providing the provision. right type of homes for residential, nursing and dementia care, consistent with the council’s Housing Strategy. A proportion of specialist accommodation in development proposals should meet the optional technical standards requirements for accessibility and adaptability set out in the Building Regulations Approved Document M Part 2, which will enable people to stay in their own homes with the accessible care and support that they need.

Employment General comments were received that employment To continue to protect the existing Core Employment Areas in the provision should be sufficiently flexible and borough, the Draft Plan policy approach provides sufficient

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response adaptable, for example the policy approach should flexibility for the diversification of other uses to be considered on consider flexible space for innovation hubs and sites to ensure continued attractiveness to the market. starter businesses and other uses (e.g. community and leisure uses). The employment policies in the draft plan as a whole support the provision for flexible business space to allow buildings to adapt to their changing needs.

Retail General consensus that the plan and policy approach A Retail and Commercial Leisure Assessment was produced by should understand the changing nature of retail. Wokingham Borough Council, Reading Borough Council, Bracknell Important to support local and independent retailers Forest District Council and West Berkshire District Council in 2016, in the Borough. which sets out the need for retail and commercial uses up until 2036 (the end of the plan period). This evidence was used to inform policy development in the draft plan relating to towns, district and local centres.

Infrastructure A number of comments, including from the A ‘utilities’ policy is included in the Draft Plan which ensures new and Environment Agency, highlighted the importance for development proposals are supported by adequate water and Community the timely delivery of appropriate infrastructure (e.g. wastewater infrastructure and that the occupation of development water and wastewater). Thames Water also is aligned with the timely/early delivery of infrastructure. commented that the plan should include a policy on water and sewerage infrastructure. The site allocation policies (SDLs, Grazeley garden town) identify future infrastructure requirements to be delivered on-site or any General comments suggested that necessary improvements to existing provision via developer contributions. infrastructure provision should include health, sports and leisure, transport, education, retail, community The site allocation policies include a requirement for development facilities, broadband and green infrastructure, to contribute towards health provision in line with discussions with renewable energy (e.g. wind turbines and solar the Clinical Commissioning Group. power).

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response Bracknell Forest District Council and Hampshire County Council welcome opportunity to work with Wokingham Borough on cross-boundary strategic infrastructure matters, including (sustainable) transport/movement and education provision.

Other comments highlighted that it was important to The Draft Plan includes a policy which seeks to protect and retain open spaces in the Borough in accordance enhance open space, sports and recreation and play facilities to with national policy. ensure that they continue to remain attractive and accessible. The open space policy addresses the loss of facilities in line with the criteria set out in paragraph 97 of the NPPF. This policy also includes local planning standards for new provision.

Flooding and General comments relating to a more positive Noted. The Draft Plan includes a policy which sets out a proactive Sustainable approach to flood mitigation and utilising green approach to flood mitigation, through the appropriate use of Drainage infrastructure. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). The policy recognises the Thames Water supported the plan’s approach to role that the function of SuDS can have in development, such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and this improving water quality, addressing flood risk and supporting should be a requirement in policy for all development recreational opportunities through open space and green proposals. infrastructure provision.

The Draft Plan also provides guidance on the design, location and function of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) for all development proposals.

Countryside General comments received relating to restricted or The council recognises the importance of safeguarding the sensitive development in the countryside and separate identity and characteristics of individual settlements. retaining/maintaining the separation between The ‘Development in the countryside’ policy specifies development settlements and settlement character. which is considered acceptable in principle in countryside locations. This policy seeks to ensure the separate identity of

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response settlements is not compromised or would lead to social isolation and ensures the character and appearance of the countryside is preserved. The Draft Plan is supported by a Borough-wide Landscape Character Assessment which has identified specific features that contribute towards the visual and physical separation between settlements.

Green Belt General comments suggested the plan’s approach A policy is included in the Draft Plan which identifies the forms of should focus on utilising brownfield sites and policy development that are appropriate in the Green Belt, in line with the should continue to protect the Green Belt. requirements of national planning policy.

The council has followed a comprehensive approach to site selection based on up-to-date and available evidence, which has considered and examined fully all other options for meeting the identified need for development. Assessments of strategic scale development opportunities showed that the creation of a new garden settlement as Grazeley is the most sustainable and suitable option, to deliver a continuous supply of housing in the longer-term.

The Draft Plan is not proposing any site allocations within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The council is satisfied that it can meet its housing need outside of the Metropolitan Green Belt through identifying a new self-contained garden settlement at Grazeley and other suitable sites across the borough.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response land contributed to those purposes. The Green Belt study concluded that across Wokingham Borough, the Green Belt parcels made at least a contribution to one or more of the purposes and did not identify any areas which merited removal from the Green Belt. Furthermore, the settlements in the Green Belt were not supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities to support large scale development.

The Draft Plan has also been subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which has examined all reasonable spatial strategy alternatives, including alternative options in and outside of the Green Belt.

Natural Environment Agency commented that the plan The Draft Plan contains several polices which address biodiversity Environment should reflect the aims of the Water Framework and nature conservation, green corridors and watercourses, flood Directive and is supported by local evidence to risk and drainage. The ‘River Corridors’ policy ensures assess water quality. Environment Agency also development proposals protect or enhance the function, setting highlighted the importance to deliver green and biodiversity of watercourses. infrastructure, maintain/enhance river corridors. The plan should also be consistent with the Natural The Draft Plan is supported by a Water Cycle Study Phase 1 Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Scoping Study which assessed the impact of future development on water supply, wastewater collection and wastewater treatment. The Water Cycle Study was used to assess the existing capacity of the water and wastewater network, and identify necessary upgrades to infrastructure to accommodate new development. The site specific infrastructure requirements are set out in the

Infrastructure Statement / Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response Environment Agency also commented that the plan A policy is included that ensures development proposals should consider a policy relating to contaminated adequately consider the impact of contamination of land and land. waterways.

Natural England suggested that the plan carries The Draft Plan incorporates the approach of Policy CP8 of the forward Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy and Policy adopted Core Strategy and Policy NRM6 of the revoked South NRM6 of the South East Plan relating to the Thames East Plan relating to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). Area. The Draft Plan ensures the sufficient protection of all habitats General comments also suggested that the policy and species for nature conservation, in addition to sites approach should consider areas with no specific designated as important for nature conservation at an local or national designation and conserve and international or national level (e.g. Local Wildlife Sites and Local enhance the natural environment. Geological Sites). Furthermore, this policy ensures that a minimum 10% net gain of biodiversity is achieved on sites or as part of a larger strategic habitat restoration network.

Heritage and General comments suggested that the policy The council has followed a comprehensive approach to site the Historic approach should be flexible to allow improvements selection based on relevant and up-to-date evidence. The Environment and provide opportunities for communities to identify Berkshire Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment features in the Buildings of Traditional Local Methodology has been used to inform the selection of site Character Register. It was suggested that the allocations in the plan. This methodology sets out an approach to significance of heritage assets should be a consider constraints that limit or restrict the ability to develop a consideration in the plan-making process. site or limit or influence the type, form or capacity of a site e.g. heritage assets.

The council has taken a pragmatic approach to the historic environment and balancing this with other sustainability interests. For example, policy supports sensitive retrofitting of energy efficiency measures and micro-renewables in historic buildings, including listed buildings and buildings within conservation areas,

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response provided the special characteristics of the heritage asset are protected.

Sustainable Environment Agency commented that the plan Wokingham Borough Council declared a climate emergency on 18 Design / should implement mitigation and adaptation July 2019. The Draft Plan establishes a framework to make the Climate measures to reduce the Borough’s contribution to fullest contribution possible to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, Change climate change. climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy.

General comments suggested that implementation Climate change is integrated and embedded in the plan’s strategy of national standards should be supported by and in several core planning policies, for example through matters evidence (e.g. viability). such as green infrastructure, renewable energy, housing standards, sustainable design and construction and sustainable Environment Agency and Thames Water commented transport. that the plan should set a water consumption limit for residential and non-residential development A policy is included relating to standards for housing. In particular, proposals. Thames Water commented that the plan the policy includes a requirement for all new residential should include a policy relating to water conservation development to implement the water efficiency standard set out in and water efficiency. Building Regulations. This is supported by local evidence in the form of a Water Cycle Study.

Part Two: Homes for the Future Consultation (November 2018)

How people were involved in the consultation

3.1 The ‘Homes for the Future’ consultation followed on from the previous ‘Issues & Options’ consultation refining a number of issues previously discussed and supplementing these with additional matters. Amongst other matters, we asked where development should go, whether there were any locations suitable for higher densities and how we could use land for employment centres. People were able to see all of the land put forward for development by landowners and were provided with the opportunity to comment on their suitability. 3.2 This consultation ran for approximately 15 weeks from 12 November 2018 to 22 February 2019. This consultation gave us the opportunity to, not only seek your views on the promoted land, but also to explain changes to the national planning system on housing needs9. This was achieved through the Homes for the Future leaflet sent out to residents and the series of public events during the consultation period (see Appendix 11 and Appendix 13). 3.3 An email regarding the consultation was sent to all those registered on the council’s online consultation list through the online Mailchimp platform (a letter was sent to those who chose to be contacted via post) (Appendix 14). This included residents, planning agents, national bodies, local authorities, among others, and was continually updated with those who had expressed an interest in receiving updates on the local plan and other planning policy matters. Just under 1,200 people were notified and through the consultation many more expressed an interest in being added to our consultation list. 3.4 This consultation was publicised on the council’s website along with a press release on the News Centre area of the site (Appendix 17). An advert also ran in the Traveller Times (online) (Appendix 18).

9 Wokingham Borough Local Plan Update ‘Homes for the Future’ Consultation Document, November 2018; https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning-policy/planning- policy-information/local-plan-update/

3.5 This consultation was also publicised on Facebook as part of a wider social media campaign providing details of the consultation and promoting participation in the Local Plan Update (Appendix 16). 3.6 The council ran 8 public events across the borough during the consultation. Further information on this can be found in the following section. 3.7 All consultations on planning policy documents need to be undertaken in line with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). An updated SCI was consulted on during November/December 2018, alongside the ‘Homes for the Future’ consultation. Subsequently, in March 2019 a revised version of the SCI was adopted10. A summary of the council’s engagement activities and methods undertaken to show compliance with the current SCI is contained in Table 2 below.

10 Wokingham Borough ‘Shaping our Future’ Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), March 2019; https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning-policy/planning- policy-information/local-plan-and-planning-policies/

Table 2: Alignment between community engagement activities for the Homes for the Future Consultation and the three main principles of engagement set out in the Wokingham Borough Statement of Community Involvement (2019)

Three main principles of engagement in the Statement of Community Involvement (2019) Inform – Let the community Minimum statutory requirement: known what is happening   Letter and/or email regarding the consultation was sent to all consultees (including residents, agents, statutory bodies) registered on the council’s online consultation database (Appendix 14)  Specific and general consultation bodies were notified of the consultation and how to make representations in accordance with Regulation 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012  Details of the consultation were publicised on the Wokingham Borough Council website  Key Duty to Co-operate bodies were engaged through an initial scoping exercise to understand and identify key strategic matters to be addressed in the Local Plan (further details set out in the Duty to Co-operate Scoping Statement) and were also notified of the ‘Homes for the Future consultation’  A formal statutory notice was published in The Wokingham Paper (Appendix 15)

Additional consultation and engagement methods:

 Details of the consultation were also publicised on the council’s Facebook and Twitter pages to promote a social media campaign (including a Homes for the Future video) (Appendix 16)  Several press releases were published on the ‘News Centre’ area of the Wokingham Borough Council website (Appendix 17)  Advert (electronic) was published in the Traveller Times (Appendix 18)  A leaflet was distributed electronically to all consultees registered on the council’s online consultation database and delivered to households across the Borough. It was also made available at the council offices and at meetings/events/exhibitions during the consultation period. (Appendix 13)  A poster was published on the council’s website showing the details of the Homes for the Future consultation, including the list of events/exhibitions

Consult – Give the community Minimum statutory requirement: the opportunity to feed back their views   Invite representations on the ‘Homes for the Future’ consultation document through appropriately placed press releases, notices on the Council’s website, articles/information in Borough News and the Community Forums (Appendix 17)

Additional consultation and engagement methods:

 Eight public events were held across the Borough during the Homes for the Future consultation, at the following locations: Winnersh, Wokingham Without, Twyford, Wokingham, Arborfield, Earley and Woodley (Appendix 11)  Presentations and discussions took place with a number of key stakeholders including Local Borough Councillors, Town and Parish Councils, Registered Providers and Community Forums (Appendix 12) Involve – enable the Minimum statutory requirement: community to participate; influence how it develops   The Homes for the Future consultation document and response forms were made available (paper and electronic) on the Wokingham Borough Council website, at the council offices, events and at a selection of local libraries across the Borough, providing an opportunity for the community to comment on the proposals in the Local Plan Update (Appendix 19)

Additional consultation and engagement methods:

 Events provided an opportunity for the local community to view: consultation material on display boards; promoted areas of land and uses (e.g. housing, employment, shops etc.); policy designations (e.g. conservation areas, local wildlife sites etc.); the Homes for the Future consultation document and other supporting documents, including the Growth Scenarios Report (Appendix 11)  Events also provided an opportunity for people to ask questions and suggest ideas on the proposals in the draft Local Plan Update  The Homes for the Future leaflet set out details and the purpose for the consultation (including dates for events) and how to comment/respond on the consultation document (by online survey, email, letter etc.) (Appendix 13)

Events 3.8 The Local Plan Update conversation took place at a number of events held around the borough (Appendix 11). These included:

 Winnersh Community Centre, Winnersh (4 December 2018)  St. Sebastian’s Memorial Hall, Wokingham Without (7 January 2019)  Loddon Hall, Twyford (10 January 2019)  Wokingham Town Hall, Wokingham (16 January 2019)  Ryeish Green Sports Centre, Shinfield (22 January 2019)  Henry Street Garden Centre, Arborfield (30 January 2019)  Trinity Church, Earley (6 February 2019)  Oakwood Centre, Woodley (12 February 2019) 3.9 The events followed a format of:  Introductory boards providing information on the consultation, what different levels of density could look like and ‘why more housing?’

 Maps of the borough, showing the promoted areas of land and uses (e.g. housing, employment, shops), and council owned land for information.

 Interactive maps to look at the promoted sites alongside other information such as conservation areas, local wildlife sites, protected trees.

 Copies of the consultation documents and supporting information, including the Growth Scenario (Master planning) Reports.

 An ‘Elephant in the room’ board – to capture the questions and thoughts from people which were not focused on the scope of the consultation, but that they wished to express concerns about.

3.10 The events were well attended and many residents were able to take the opportunity to talk to officers to gain a better understanding of the issues and the aims of the local plan, correcting any misunderstanding they may have had.

Social Media 3.11 Facebook and Twitter were used throughout the consultation to promote the consultation events and provide details of the consultation, which were previously published in the Homes for the Future leaflet (Appendix 16).

Other Conversations 3.12 Presentations were made in the run up and during the consultation to provide an overview and to encourage responses. Duty to Co-operate 3.13 We sought views from various bodies to scope out the key strategic issues where co-operation might be appropriate at that stage. This initial engagement was undertaken from 20 April to 18 May 2016 and was documented in the council’s Duty to Co-operate Scoping Statement. This document represented the starting point used to facilitate meaningful discussions about strategic planning issues to achieve positive outcomes for the Borough.

3.14 The DtC bodies, as specified in the legislation, were consulted on the Homes for the Future consultation document. The bodies consulted, output of comments received and how the council is continuing to engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis with relevant duty to co- operate partners can be seen in the most recent Duty to Co-operate Statement. Specific comments from the relevant bodies raised the following points:

Bracknell Forest Council

 welcomed on-going discussions with the borough relating to the sites promoted for housing and mixed-use development that were located in proximity to Bracknell Forest Borough

 welcomed on-going discussions on cross-boundary matters including transport, education provision, infrastructure and landscape matters

Department for Education

 the plan will need to be positively prepared to meet the objectively assessed development needs and infrastructure requirements  welcomed reference in the plan for appropriate social and community infrastructure, but recommended that national policy relating to education provision is referenced or signposted in the plan  supported the principle of safeguarding land for new education provision; the plan should also seek to safeguard land for future expansion of new schools  the plan should have regard to the Joint Policy Statement on ‘Planning for Schools Development’ (2011)  policies and site allocations should seek to identify requirements for the delivery of new schools, taking into account delivery profile, site area, site characteristics and any requirements for future expansion (e.g. safeguarding land) Highways England

 any impacts on the Strategic Road Network will need to be identified and mitigated  supported proposals that considered sustainable measures to manage demand and reduce the need to travel  proposed new growth in the plan will need to consider any cumulative impacts from proposed development on the M4, in particular Bracknell and Wokingham on Junction 10

Historic England

 the site selection process should consider impacts on the historic environment taking into account factors such as heritage assets (including setting), archaeology, landscape, townscape and settlement character

 the plan’s policies and proposals should be based on an adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence base

Ministry of Defence

 housing development within ‘protected areas’ of the AWE Burghfield could constrain the current and future utility of the site, restricting the UK Nuclear Warhead Programme’s operations  essential for Wokingham Borough to work jointly with the MoD to identify an acceptable solution, that also seeks to maximise opportunity to deliver significant housing at Grazeley

NHS Berkshire West Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

 new housing development should be supported by appropriate infrastructure, including general and primary care health provision  highlighted their current work with the borough to develop an Estates Strategy to ensure CCG can commission effective health care services for residents in the future

Office for Nuclear Regulation

 highlighted their current concern regarding the effects of potential cumulative residential development if proposed in the immediate vicinity (within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone) of the AWE Burghfield site  likely to object to residential development within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone, preference should be given to land allocations outside the DEPZ  likely to object to large scale development within the Outer Consultation Zone unless West Berkshire Council (as the local authority responsible for the off-site emergency plan) provide adequate assurance that any adverse impacts can be mitigated  plan should refer to paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework relating to security and defence requirements

 provided a detailed response for each site promoted through the Home for the Future Consultation

Reading Borough Council

 general support towards the plan’s strategy to focus on major development locations to deliver strategic infrastructure  sites close to or within the Reading urban area should be supported by adequate infrastructure (e.g. public transport)  plan was silent on unmet housing needs from Reading Borough, following Examination of the Reading Borough Local Plan  the delivery of affordable housing in the borough would help to meet Wokingham Borough’s own needs, but also avoid placing pressure on affordable housing needs within adjoining authorities, such as Reading  seek to ensure that the scope to meet any unmet gypsy and traveller needs from Reading Borough will be considered in the draft Local Plan Update  plan was silent on student accommodation, in particular the University of Reading’s Whiteknights Campus, which is partly located in Wokingham Borough  supported the proposal for a new crossing of the River Thames to provide decongestion benefits to Wokingham, Reading and the wider area  the plan should continue to safeguard areas of land for improvements to the strategic transport network (e.g. Mass Rapid Transit along the A4/A329 corridors) to align with Reading Borough’s existing Central Area Action Plan and new Local Plan  supported proposals for new park & rides at Thames Valley Park, Coppid Beech and the expansion of existing facility at Winnersh Triangle  supported the principle for potential development at Grazeley to deliver housing needs in the Western Berkshire Housing Market Area, improve public transport connectivity to Reading and elsewhere (rail and bus/MRT), provided the development is supported by the timely delivery of appropriate infrastructure

Thames Water

 recommended that the plan identifies a requirement in the policy for developers to engage with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to establish, demand for water supply and network infrastructure; demand for sewage/wastewater treatment and network infrastructure and surface water drainage requirements  plan should include a policy relating to provision of water and wastewater infrastructure to service development  plan should include a policy requirement to implement the water efficiency standard of 105 litres per person per day

What People Said

3.15 In total 1,463 responses were received during this consultation, via the online survey, by post and by email. Within the responses, the number of questions answered varied, depending on the importance of different issues to individuals and organisations. 3.16 The following sections set out a summary of the main issues raised under the different sections of consultation questions. Please note: These views are from a wide range of people and these summaries broadly reflect the comments received and the conversations which took place at events.

Role of places: Concentrating or dispersing new housing

3.17 In the borough there are a range of towns and villages, with different character and access to differing levels of services and facilities. The latest settlement hierarchy set out 3 tiers of our settlements11. 3.18 In the Issues & Options consultation, you told us that you supported a range of site sizes, whilst supporting the use of larger developments to meet our needs. In this consultation we wanted to

11 Wokingham Local Plan Update – Settlement Hierarchy Assessment, November 2018; https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning-policy/planning-policy- information/local-plan-update/

understand this further – from, where the best opportunities for these larger developments could be, Q1 asked: Do you agree to how far they could be spread across the borough. that the new housing we 3.19 We wanted you to consider whether we should spread development around the Borough, concentrate need should be built in new it in fewer places, create larger communities or add to our existing communities. communities, which would 3.20 5 questions were asked in this section. be built with their own schools, road, community 3.21 We received over 1,000 responses to Q1, where just under 700 responses agreed or somewhat facilities and other agreed. associated infrastructure?

Q2 asked: Where in the borough are the best opportunities to establish new communities, which include such things as local centres, schools and improved sustainable transport links?

3.22 This question was closely linked with Q2 and whilst some people ‘disagreed’ with Q1, they provided an explanation which agreed with Q2.

3.23 We received just over 800 responses to Q2. A small proportion of these named specific locations for where these new communities would best be placed – development at Grazeley followed by Twyford were named as the most suitable locations. Everywhere within the borough was named at least once.

3.24 Almost 300 responses to this question were from Campaign to Protect Rural Wokingham (CPRW), not providing or suggesting suitable locations, but simply stating that future development should not be located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

3.25 The majority of responses to this question suggested preferences for where new communities should go. The main preferences were:

 Consider brownfield land  Good access to transport links Q3 asked: Do you agree that  Adjacent to existing settlements the borough’s future  Ensure new infrastructure is delivered upfront development needs for homes, jobs and other uses 3.26 A few comments were received to Q3 relating to the distribution of the borough’s future development should be spread across the needs for homes, jobs and other uses. The majority of responses were as follows: borough, regardless of  supported approach to distribute development across the Borough to ensure the continued whether it could be vitality and viability of settlements concentrated in new  appropriate and sustainable locations, e.g. existing settlements at Wokingham, Tywford, communities or dispersed in Spencer’s Wood and Finchampstead North were suggested existing villages and towns?  there should be a mix of smaller and larger sites, not just a reliance on major development locations

3.27 A high level of comments were received to Q4 in support of affordable housing provision in future development, with very few comments that disagreed with this provision.

3.28 Most of the comments received to Q5 suggested that the affordable housing provision to support specific types. The most popular types were key worker housing, starter homes and shared ownership, but recognition among respondents that other forms such as social rented, affordable rented and rent to buy were also important.

Role of places: Higher development densities and building heights Q6 asked: Do you agree with being more flexible with 3.29 Government planning policy places a strong emphasis on using land as efficiently as possible. We building heights, parking need to consider how we could use different densities and building heights in the borough when standards and development providing homes. densities where a range of 3.30 High quality development can be achieved at both higher and lower densities, however the type of shops or other services are homes may vary. At higher densities, homes will be smaller in size and are more likely to include taller within walking distance, such buildings, including apartments, and can be delivered using less land. At lower densities, homes can as towns and district be larger and the building heights will be lower and delivered across more land. centres? 3.31 We asked you how we might best plan for different densities in the future and where this could be appropriate. Boards at the consultation events showed examples of very low, low, low to medium and medium to high density. 3.32 There was no real consensus among respondents to Q6. Varied responses were received regarding the flexibility of building heights and development densities. However, on balance, the responses were in favour of sufficient flexibility in heights and densities within town centres and district centres. Q7 asked: Which locations in 3.33 Q7 received a wide range of responses around certain themes, rather than solely around specific the borough do you feel are suitable locations. best suited to being more 3.34 The main themes mentioned were: flexible with building heights and densities?  Urban areas  Around transport  Town centres  Ensure good design

 Many of the larger settlements were mentioned – Wokingham, Winnersh, Woodley, Earley, Twyford

 Reflect the local character – go higher where already higher  Existing commercial use  Some mention of appropriate development in rural areas – e.g. key worker housing  Some higher density to allow for smaller houses  Parking! 3.35 Not much of a link between the locations in Q7 and the types of development given for those locations within Q8 responses. 3.36 The responses given to Q8 were more general as follows:  A range of heights between 2 and 15 storeys Q8 asked: What types of  Affordable housing housing, jobs, or other uses  Mix of housing do you think are most suitable in the areas you  Apartments/flats have identified?  Local character  Town centre living  Transport

Role of Places: Concentrating employment on new or existing sites

Q9 asked: Do you agree with 3.37 The council’s current approach to employment land (office space, warehousing and storage and meeting employment needs in distribution facilities) is that the majority of employment growth will occur in specific areas known as the following locations? Core Employment Areas, such as Winnersh Triangle Business Park and Molly Millars Industrial Estate. 3.38 We have seen changes to our areas of employment over the years, with owners able to change the use to residential under national regulations without requiring planning permission from the council. We asked you to consider where employment should be and what opportunities there might be for being flexible with densities and building heights for these uses. 3.39 A clear theme of ‘brownfield first’ was evident in response to Q9. Q10 asked: Do you agree with being more flexible with building 3.40 Looking at the responses received to Q10, people were largely happy with future additional heights on existing employment employment in town centres and existing employment areas, whilst less favourable in considering estates to create more usable development on new land. space without needing to 3.41 A number of responses were received to Q11, which raised the following main issues: increase the amount of land?  Majority of people in favour of existing employment areas  Winnersh Triangle received the highest number of positive responses  Molly Millars another popular location  Thames Valley Park, Thames Valley Science Park, Green Park and other existing Q11 asked: Which employment sites all received several responses employment areas/locations  Existing town centres do you feel are best suited to  Larger number of responses for brownfield sites and regenerating disused employment being more flexible with locations building heights?  A limited number of respondents were against any employment sites increasing in height and density

 Sustainability an important criteria in selecting sites for increased heights and density

Role of land being considered for development: overview

3.42 This section of the consultation gave you a chance to look at all of the land that was suggested to us for development (whether that be for homes, offices, open space, and so on) and provide your views and opinions on what the development of these could mean for your local area and community. It also gave you a chance to provide us with some real, local information about what your community is like and what is important to you. 3.43 At the local events we had an informal chat with you, answered your questions and concerns, and got more of a feel for local issues and how they may influence views on the suggested sites. 3.44 For the purposes of the consultation, the borough was sectioned into 5 areas: the Urban West, Wokingham, the South West, the South East and the North. This was to enable you to focus in on a smaller area for discussion and many of you responded largely to the area most relevant to you (whether this be where you live, work or visit the most). 3.45 We asked you to consider the suggested land, how and where we might be flexible with densities and building heights and whether there were any more appropriate opportunities for development that had not been suggested to us. All reference numbers were available for each individual site, however, many people tended to answer more broadly based on general areas.

Role of land: Urban Western Area

3.46 This area comprises two of the borough’s larger settlements of Woodley and Earley, along with Winnersh. Between them the two principal settlements in this area hold two fifths of the borough’s population (2011 Census) and have access to a good range of services and facilities. 3.47 As this area is largely urban in nature, few sites were suggested to us, and they were located mainly to the south and east of Winnersh. 3.48 The promotion of part of the Bulmershe Site of Urban Landscape Value (SULV) caused concern locally. It was evident from the local events, additional communications and the responses received, that this was an important site to the community. The promotion of the site was subsequently withdrawn.

3.49 Key issues raised in the Urban Western area were as follows:  There was a high level of support for increased density development in this area, alongside a high level of responses against further development here

 Sustainable transport locations  Brownfield development  Support for regeneration of the area  Development around existing employment  Support for development of some sites e.g. at Woodley, Winnersh Triangle and Winnersh, but not overdevelopment

 Flooding concerns in the area

Role of land: Wokingham Area

3.50 This area comprises Wokingham town centre and its surrounding residential areas. Wokingham is the largest town in the borough and is its principal settlement. This area is home to a large proportion of the borough’s population. 3.51 Wokingham town centre has undergone major regeneration to enhance the centre as part of the masterplan12. At the time of this consultation a lot of works were taking place throughout the centre at the same time and caused some unrest locally. This was largely reflected in the comments received for this area. 3.52 The majority of the sites suggested for development were within the urban area and could come forward for development outside of the plan making process. 3.53 Key issues raised in the Wokingham Area were as follows:

12 https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/major-developments/wokingham-town-centre-regeneration/ 51

 High level of support for focusing development at the existing town centres, urban centres and district centres, but some against further development in the Wokingham/Wokingham Town Centre area  Support for development/ redevelopment at Molly Millars Lane  Densities and storey heights should respect local character of the area  Brownfield land development  Flooding concerns in the area Role of land: South Western Area

3.54 This area is divided by the River Loddon and its floodplain and the Blackwater River. It is a largely rural area with dispersed villages. The area to the west includes the villages of Shinfield, Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Swallowfield and Riseley. To the east are Arborfield, Arborfield Cross, Barkham and Farley Hill. The area further west, beyond the A33, is predominantly open farmland but includes the small village of Grazeley and borders onto West Berkshire District. 3.55 The master planning exercise considered possible growth scenarios for the land west of the A33, Barkham Square and Hall Farm. This work considered potential numbers of homes, densities, supporting facilities and infrastructure needed for new settlements or expansions of settlements in the context of the constraints of the site area. The output of this exercise was available on our website and was also available in hard copy at the public consultation events. 3.56 This area had a large number of the sites promoted by landowners for development. These included two large areas and largely surrounding the existing villages. The area also contained one of the council’s existing Strategic Development Locations and has seen substantial development as a result. The area has also been subject to speculative applications and appeals. 3.57 Key issues raised in the South Western Area were as follows:  High level support for future development of a new settlement at Grazeley from residents  High level of responses against further development in this area  Traffic and congestion associated with junctions on the M4  Support for brownfield development and making effective use of land

 Important to maintain separation between existing settlements  Sustainable transport and accessibility  Densities and storey heights should respect the local character of the area  An appropriate dwelling mix to provide more smaller homes for those wishing to downsize e.g. bungalows

Role of land: South Eastern Area

3.58 This area of the borough contains a number of villages including Finchampstead village, Finchampstead North and Pinewood (Crowthorne), which is Bracknell facing with regards to access to services. 3.59 The area has been subject to large-scale development at Arborfield Garrison which is one of the council’s existing Strategic Development Locations. 3.60 Due to the proximity of Finchampstead North to Wokingham, the area has seen a number of speculative applications recently. 3.61 The Homes for the Future consultation document included the following areas within this section:  Infrastructure planning  Open space 3.62 Key issues raised around each topic are summarised below:  High level of objections to further development in this area  Some support for higher densities around public transport hubs  Important to protect valuable green spaces and the character of the area  General support for some development at specific settlements e.g. Finchampstead and in proximity to Bracknell Forest Borough  General support for development on brownfield land, including industrial estates and business parks

Role of land: Northern Area

3.63 This area includes the villages of Twyford, Hurst, Charvil, Sonning, Wargrave and Remenham and the surrounding countryside. It is a largely rural area, which contains the borough’s share of the Metropolitan Green Belt. 3.64 Twyford is the principal settlement in the area, providing access to a good range of services and facilities including direct trains to Reading and London Paddington. The area to the east of Twyford, forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt surrounding London. A large area adjacent to Twyford in Ruscombe Parish was promoted by the landowner for development and was at the forefront of much of the engagement from residents. The area was included within the masterplanning exercise, to consider what growth scenarios could be possible and how they could benefit the community through new and improved infrastructure. 3.65 The ‘Campaign to Protect Rural Wokingham’ produced a standard response to the consultation. This was reflected in the number of responses from the RG10 postcodes, a large number of which reflected the standard response. 3.66 There was a large space to the north of this area, in Wargrave and Remenham, with no land promoted by landowners for development. This was highlighted by a lot of people who attended the public events (particularly those in other areas of the borough), stating that there did not seem to be a fair distribution of options across the whole borough. 3.67 Around 50 sites were suggested in the large rural area of Hurst, which has seen only limited development in recent years. 3.68 The Issues & Options document included following areas within this section:  Infrastructure planning  Open space 3.69 Key issues raised around each topic are summarised below:

 There were high level of objections to future development in the area and flexibility in densities and storey heights. It was suggested that development in this area should be a maximum of two storeys

 High level of objections to higher densities in this area  Densities and storey heights should be appropriate and respect the character of the surrounding area

 Important that future development in this area is supported by appropriate infrastructure e.g. highways and education

 High level objections to development in the Metropolitan Green Belt, for example at the settlements of Ruscombe and Twyford

How did the comments from the ‘Homes for the Future’ consultation influence the Draft Plan (January 2020)

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response Spatial General support received from Reading Borough Council to Noted and support from Reading Borough Council is welcomed. The Strategy – the plan’s strategy for focusing major development locations council will continue to work positively and collaboratively with where should to deliver key strategic infrastructure, but commented that Reading Borough Council and other key stakeholders to identify development sites close to or within the Reading urban area should be appropriate and necessary strategic infrastructure to support go? supported by adequate infrastructure. development in the Local Plan Update.

The Ministry of Defence highlighted concerns regarding The spatial strategy ensures that development proposals do not potential development around Grazeley and the protected prejudice the operation of AWE. No built development is proposed areas of the Atomic Weapons Establishment site at within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone. Burghfield, contrary to national policy.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation highlighted concerns The policy relating to ‘Grazeley garden town’ champions Garden regarding cumulative development within the Detailed Village/Town Principles and is also supported by a number of key Emergency Planning Zone of the AWE Burghfield site. delivery and implementation, master planning and development principles. A key principle of the site is that development proposals should not be located in the DEPZ. If the zone changes in the future, the council will work with partners to ensure that an effective off-site emergency plan is put in place. The policy seeks to avoid further development in the area beyond the proposed Grazeley garden town.

The proposed development provides Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) located on the western boundary of the site, forming separation between the development and the Atomic Weapons Establishment site at AWE Burghfield. It is considered SANG provision is an acceptable use within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response A policy is included relating to the AWE Burghfield site, which is an update to Policy TB04 in the adopted MDD, reflecting recent changes to the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2019 and latest evidence published by West Berkshire District Council as the emergency planning authority responsible for AWE Burghfield. The policy has been developed in consultation with West Berkshire District Council and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The policy ensures that development proposals do not impact on the function and operation of the AWE Off-Site Emergency Plan.

The policy also includes a commitment to work with the other authorities within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone to monitor the potential cumulative effects of any population increase.

The majority of comments agreed that development should Noted. The council has considered the comments received from be spread across the borough, provided the plan’s strategy the previous stages of consultation on the draft local plan update; considers the use of brownfield land, provides good ‘Issues and Options’ and ‘Homes for the Future’ to inform the accessibility to transport links, is adjacent to existing spatial strategy set out in the Draft Plan. The spatial strategy settlements and ensures the delivery of new infrastructure. focuses on the delivery of a large scale development at Grazeley for 3,750 homes in the plan period to 2036. Alongside this and existing commitments, the draft plan also seeks to allocate a number of smaller sites in settlements across the borough.

The council has followed a comprehensive approach to site selection, based on the latest and available evidence including the Berkshire West Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Methodology. The assessment of sites has considered factors such as access to appropriate infrastructure and existing community services and facilities.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response The council jointly submitted a Housing and Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid to the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for £252 million towards the upfront provision of infrastructure, including those which mitigate traffic effects, such as new public transport links.

The proposed new garden town at Grazeley will be supported by a comprehensive strategic infrastructure package, including improvements / upgrades to junction 11 on the M4; park and ride sites, extensions to rapid public transport network; a new railway station; a new town centre and neighbourhood centres; two secondary schools and seven primary schools, a healthcare hub and leisure and sports facilities.

Further detail regarding specific infrastructure requirements will be set out in the Masterplanning SPD and Infrastructure Delivery Plan, working collaboratively with key stakeholders and infrastructure / service providers.

Urban Western Area There was some concern associated with the promotion of The promotion of this site for leisure use was withdrawn during the part of the Bulmershe Site of Urban Landscape Value (SULV) Homes for the Future consultation. The council recognises the Site for future development, as this was recognised as an of Urban Landscape Value (SULV) at Bulmershe, as an important important feature to the local community. designation which provides an important contribution to local character and amenity, and the important separation between the settlements of Earley and Woodley. The council has reviewed existing SULVs, including at Bulmershe, through the preparation of the Draft Plan. This review has considered up-to-date evidence including the new Landscape Character Assessment. The council considers this site warrants being retained as a SULV. In addition

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response the area is considered to warrant further protection through a Local Green Space designation.

Comments suggested that future development in this In identifying the potential site allocations, the council has followed a location/area should consider maximising the potential of comprehensive approach to site selection based on the latest and brownfield land, scale of development and flood risk and available evidence, including a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment drainage matters. (SFRA) to assess flood risk (from all sources) and other drainage matters. The Draft Plan includes a policy relating to flood risk, which will be applied to all development proposals. The policy ensures developers consider sources of flood risk and the council’s SFRA in the planning application process and may require a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment to support a planning application.

The Draft Plan also includes several policies to ensure development proposals appropriately reflect the character of the surrounding area. For example, the design policies ensure development proposals consider the scale and location of development and respect the local character of the area. The design policy also encourages development proposals to make efficient and effective use of land.

Wokingham Area General support for focusing future development at existing A key strategic objective of the Draft Plan is to champion thriving town centres, urban centres and district centres and town and local centres to provide a focus for communities in both maximising the effective use of land e.g. brownfield. social and economic activity and ensuring they can adapt to future Some comments suggested that densities and storey heights challenges. Indicative capacity for future development in should be appropriate and respect the local character of the Wokingham Town Centre is identified to help to maintain the vitality area. and sustainability of local services and facilities and to strengthen Wokingham Town Centre’s role.

Some objections to future development in the Metropolitan The draft plan seeks to support the effective use of land by Green Belt. encouraging and maximising development on previously

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response developed/brownfield sites and to optimise higher densities within defined town centres and in urban locations with a good standard of public transport connectivity.

The council has followed a comprehensive approach to site selection, based on available and up-to-date evidence, including a Green Belt Study in conjunction with Bracknell Forest Borough Council. The Green Belt Study concluded that the Green Belt parcels made at least a contribution to one or more of the purposes and did not identify any areas which merited removal from the Green Belt. Furthermore, the settlements in the Green Belt were not supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities to support large scale development. The Draft Plan does not propose to allocate any sites for development within the Metropolitan Green Belt. South Western Area A high level of support for future development of a new Noted and support welcomed. The council has followed a settlement at Grazeley, but level of objections to further comprehensive approach to site selection based on up-to-date and development in this area. available evidence, which has considered and examined fully all other options for meeting identified need for development. A number of comments were concerned with traffic and Assessments of strategic scale development opportunities showed congestion associated with junctions on the M4. that the creation of a new garden settlement as Grazeley is the most sustainable and suitable option, to deliver a continuous supply of Important that any future development maintains the housing in the longer-term. separation between existing settlements Wokingham Borough Council jointly submitted a Housing and Development should support an appropriate housing mix to Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid to the Ministry for Housing Communities provider smaller homes to accommodate an ageing and Local Government (MHCLG) for £252 million towards the upfront population and those wishing to downsize. provision of infrastructure, including those which mitigate traffic effects, such as new public transport links.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response The proposed new garden town at Grazeley will be supported by a comprehensive strategic infrastructure package, including improvements / upgrades to junction 11 on the M4 and any other necessary measures to mitigate impacts on the strategic road network. Further detail regarding specific transport-related infrastructure requirements will be set out in the Masterplan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan SPD, working collaboratively with key stakeholders and infrastructure / service providers.

An integral feature of garden towns and cities is for development to enhance the natural environment. The proposed new garden town at Grazeley will establish a distinct and unique identity as a self- contained, town centre destination. The policy in the Draft Plan sets out a requirement for the new garden town to set out measures to retain the physical and visual sense of separation between the settlements of Shinfield, Spencers Wood and Three Mile Cross to maintain their existing identity and setting.

The Draft Plan seeks to ensure the separate identity of settlements is not compromised or would lead to social isolation and ensures the character and appearance of the countryside is preserved. The Draft Plan is supported by local evidence in the form of a borough-wide Landscape Character Assessment which has identified specific features that contribute towards the visual and physical separation between settlements.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response South Eastern Area High number of objections to further development in this Noted. The proposed spatial strategy is to deliver a new self- area, as it is important to protect valuable green spaces and contained garden town at Grazeley to deliver housing supply in both the character of the area. the short and longer term. This reduced the need for further large scale development on the edge of other towns and villages helping to General support for some development at Finchampstead protect their character and distinctiveness. The plan does identify and in proximity to Bracknell Forest Borough. some smaller scale site allocations, including within the South Eastern Area, recognising that some proportionate growth at these Some level of support for higher densities around public settlements can help to maintain the vitality of existing communities transport hubs. and sustainability of local services and facilities. The Draft Plan seeks to optimise higher densities within defined town centres and in urban locations with a good standard of public transport connectivity. Northern Area A number of comments suggested that there did not seem to Noted. The council has followed a comprehensive approach to site be a fair distribution of development/site options across the selection informed by the most up-to-date and available evidence borough. and taken into consideration comments received from previous stages of consultation. The plan’s vision and strategy focuses on the There were high levels of objections to further development community’s preference for development needs to be met through and allowing flexible densities and storey heights in this area. large scale developments, in the form of a new garden town at Grazeley. This also reduces the need for further large scale High level objections to future development in the development on the edge of other towns and villages helping to Metropolitan Green Belt, particularly Ruscombe and Twyford. protect their character and distinctiveness.

Notwithstanding this, the plan also identifies a range of smaller sites in settlements across the borough to meet development needs. Allocating a small proportion of development towns and villages will also help to deliver improvements to existing infrastructure, services and facilities and support the vitality and viability of existing communities and services.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response The Draft Plan does not propose to allocate any sites within the Metropolitan Green Belt, recognising that following a Green Belt Study, these parcels make at least one or more contribution to the purposes of the green belt in national policy, and given the availability of a site outside of the Green Belt at Grazeley which can meet development needs.

Housing Reading Borough Council commented that the plan is Noted. The ‘Homes for the Future’ consultation was a focused currently silent on student accommodation, in particular the consultation that scoped out some specific strategy options for University of Reading’s Whiteknights Campus. It was also development in the draft Local Plan Update. suggested that the plan should consider unmet housing needs from Reading, following the Examination of their Local Wokingham Borough Council recognises the role of the University of Plan. Reading as a national and international educational establishment of strategic importance and its contribution to the local and wider economy. The Draft Plan includes a policy relating to the Whiteknights Campus, which is partly located in Wokingham Borough. The council has worked collaboratively with the University of Reading in developing the policy.

The policy is also closely aligned with the wording contained in Reading Borough Council’s Local Plan (Policy ER2) which was recently found sound by an independent Planning Inspector following Examination. The policy supports the continued development of the Campus to meet the University’s longer term business needs for education and academic uses (including student accommodation) set out in the Whiteknights Campus Development Plan, Accommodation Strategy and Campus Capacity Study.

A number of comments suggested that there should be some Noted. The Draft Plan includes a housing mix and densities policy flexibility with building heights and densities. Specific which ensures development proposals achieve appropriate. For

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response locations were suggested around urban areas, transport example, higher densities may be achieved within the defined town interchanges/hubs, town centres and larger settlements (e.g. centres or urban locations which have good public transport Wokingham, Winnersh, Woodley, Earley and Tywford). This connectivity. Equally, lower densities may be achieved where approach was supported, provided it reflects the local development is considered detrimental to the character of the area. character of the area and has adequate parking provision. Some comments suggested the plan should support The Draft Plan includes a ‘Vehicle and cycle parking’ policy which appropriate development in rural areas (e.g. key worker ensures appropriate standards for vehicle parking provision are met housing) in development proposals.

Policy supports development in rural locations for existing agricultural, forestry or other business that requires a countryside location, recognising the need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work. A high level of comments supported affordable housing Noted. The draft plan requires developments of five or more provision in the Borough, which should address specific types dwellings to make a proportionate contribution to the provision of including starter homes, key worker housing and shared affordable housing. ownership. Employment The majority of comments were satisfied that future Noted. The strategy for employment continues to be focused on the employment growth/opportunities should continue to be intensification and expansion of Core Employment Areas and new focused in town centres, existing Core Employment Areas and employment uses within the defined town centres. However, the maximise use of brownfield land. It was suggested that policy provides sufficient level of flexibility to support other uses sustainability should be a consideration when applying where they support the character and function of the Core flexible heights and densities on certain sites. Employment Area and support flexible business space and a range of types and size of units to meet current and future employment needs. Infrastructure The Department for Education (DfE) commented that the plan Noted. The Draft Plan is supported by policies designed to ensure and should be positively prepared to meet the objectively the provision of infrastructure alongside or ahead of development. Community assessed development needs and infrastructure requirement. The DfE supported the principle of safeguarding land for new The site allocation policies (e.g. Strategic Development Locations and education provision and commented that policies and site Grazeley garden town) in the draft plan include a requirement for allocations in the plan should seek to identify requirements developers to provide financial contributions towards improvements

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response for the delivery of new schools and future expansion (e.g. to education and health care provision or identify future safeguarding land). requirements to deliver new facilities (e.g. Grazeley garden town).

NHS Berkshire West Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) commented that new housing development should be supported by appropriate infrastructure, including general and primary care health provision. CCG highlighted joint working with the Borough on an Estates Strategy to ensure commissioning of effective health care services for residents.

Thames Water recommended that the plan should identify a The Draft Plan includes a policy on utilities infrastructure, to ensure policy requirement to ensure developers engage with them at all development proposals are supported by adequate water and the earliest opportunity to establish demand for water supply wastewater infrastructure and that the occupation of development and wastewater network infrastructure. The plan should also is aligned with the timely delivery of infrastructure. include a policy relating to water and wastewater infrastructure to service development. Noted. The council continues to work collaboratively and positively Highways England commented that any impacts on the with Highways England to understand the potential impacts of Strategic Road Network will need to be identified and planned future growth on the Strategic Road Network. The mitigated and proposed new growth will need to consider proposals set out in the plan update are supported by transport cumulative impact on the M4 corridor, in particular Junction modelling work to assess the cumulative impact of growth on the 10 at Wokingham and Bracknell. highway network.

Noted and support welcomed. The Draft Plan includes a policy Reading Borough Council supported proposals for a new which safeguards a number of strategy transport infrastructure crossing of the River Thames and park & ride locations. schemes across the borough. The policy has been informed by Reading Borough commented that the plan should continue collaborative working with neighbouring authorities including to safeguard areas of land for strategic transport network Reading Borough Council, in particular to identify and safeguard a improvements. route for a potential new crossing of the River Thames and to safeguard areas for new Park and Ride sites.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response The Grazeley garden town policy also identifies specific policy requirements for the development to deliver, including the expansion of the existing Mereoak Park and Ride site and a new Park and Ride at Grazeley providing accessible links to Reading. Green Belt Campaign to Protect Rural Wokingham (CPRW) commented The draft plan does not propose to allocate any sites for that future development should not be located within the development within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Metropolitan Green Belt. The council has followed a comprehensive approach to site selection based on up-to-date and available evidence, which has considered and examined fully all other options for meeting the Borough’s identified need for development.

The council produced a Green Belt Study in 2016, in partnership with Bracknell Forest Borough Council, to review the Metropolitan Green Belt within the boroughs. The study applied the purposes of green belt to assess and determine the extent to which areas of land contributed to those purposes. The Green Belt study concluded that across Wokingham Borough, the Green Belt parcels made at least a contribution to one or more of the purposes and did not identify any areas which merited removal from the Green Belt. Furthermore, the settlements in the Green Belt were not supported by an appropriate range of services and facilities to support large scale development. The council is satisfied that it can meet its housing need outside of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The Draft Plan includes a policy to continue to protect the Metropolitan Green Belt. The policy identifies appropriate and inappropriate forms of development in the Green Belt in line with national policy.

Plan category Comment summary Officer / council response Heritage and Historic England commented that the site selection process Noted. The Draft Plan has followed a comprehensive approach to the Historic should consider impacts on the historic environment and the site selection based on the most up to date and available evidence Environment plan’s policies and proposals should be based on an such as the Berkshire West Housing and Economic Land Availability adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence base. Assessment (HELAA) Methodology. The methodology sets out an approach to consider constraints that limit or restrict the ability to development a site or would limit or influence the type, form or capacity of a site. Such constraints include the following heritage assets: Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Archaeology and locally listed buildings and parks and gardens.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Email/letter of notification sent to all consultees registered on the council’s online consultation database regarding public consultation on the ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation for the draft Local Plan Update

Appendix 2: Webpage of the ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation on the draft Local Plan Update

Appendix 3: Email/letter of notification sent to the Duty to Co-operate bodies regarding public consultation on the ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation for the draft Local Plan Update

Appendix 4: Examples of social media promotion for ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation (e.g. Facebook and Twitter)

Appendix 5: Press release published on Wokingham Borough Council’s ‘News Centre’ area on the website

Appendix 6: Electronic advert published in the Traveller Times

Appendix 7: Publicity materials for ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation on the draft Local Plan Update – leaflet

Appendix 8: Publicity material for ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation on the draft Local Plan Update – press release

Appendix 9: Event timetable for the ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation on the draft Local Plan Update

Event Dates Venue Static exhibition Wednesday 3 August 2016 to Friday 26 Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices, August 2016 Shute End Drop-in exhibition consisting of a market Saturday 23 July 2016 Marvellous Festival, Dinton Pastures stall with display boards containing a series Country Park of maps and a whiteboard to capture views Saturday 6 August 2016 Earley Green Fair, Earley Tuesday 9 August 2016 Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices, Shute End Wednesday 17 August 2016 Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices, Shute End Saturday 27 August 2016 Wokingham Festival, Market Place, Wokingham Town Centre Monday 29 August 2016 Swallowfield Show, Whitehouse Farm, Swallowfield Targeted event with secondary schools, Thursday 23 June 2016 St Crispin’s, Wokingham including a presentation to set out purpose Tuesday 5 July 2016 Bulmershe School, Earley of draft LPU. Officers worked in small groups within class sessions to facilitate discussion with school children through the use of maps. Targeted event with ‘Involve’, a Wokingham Tuesday 28 June 2016 Coppid Beech Hotel, Bracknell and Bracknell Forest based charity which supports other local charities and community groups Targeted event with Wokingham Black and Tuesday 28 June 2016 Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices, Minority Ethnic (BME) Forum Shute End Targeted event at a Knit, Stitch and Natter Monday 18 July 2016 Wokingham Library, Wokingham Group in the form of a Question and Answer Session

Event Dates Venue Targeted event at Norrey’s Tenant Services Thursday 21 July 2016 Elizabeth Park, Wokingham Community Fund Day in the form of a Question and Answer Session and interactive session with the use of whiteboards Targeted event with the Reminiscence Club Thursday 25 August 2016 Woodley Library, Woodley in the form of an interactive Question and Answer Session Targeted event with the Rose Buddies, a Thursday 1 September 2016 The Oakwood Centre, Woodley drop-in session for adults with learning disabilities in the form of a Question and Answer Session and interactive session with whiteboards Targeted event and presentation with Wednesday 28 September 2016 Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices, Registered Providers providing content on Shute End the draft LPU

Appendix 10: ‘Issues and Options’ Consultation Response Form

Appendix 11: Event timetable for the ‘Homes for the Future’ Consultation on the draft Local Plan Update

Event Dates Venue Executive Members Briefing, including Tuesday 13 November 2018 Wokingham Borough Council Civic presentation Offices, Shute End, Wokingham Briefing at Shinfield Forum, including November 2018 Three Mile Cross Church Centre presentation Drop-in exhibition containing exhibition Tuesday 4 December 2018 Winnersh Community Centre, Winnersh boards providing information on the Monday 7 January 2019 The Howard Palmer Room, St Homes for the Future consultation with Sebastien’s Memorial Hall, Nine Mile Ride the use of maps, showing land promoted for development. Copies of the Thursday 10 January 2019 Loddon Hall, Twyford consultation document and supporting Wednesday 16 January 2019 Wokingham Town Hall, Wokingham information were also made available for Tuesday 22 January 2019 Ryeish Green Sports Centre, Hyde End the public to view Road, Shinfield Wednesday 30 January 2019 Henry Street Garden Centre, Arborfield Wednesday 6 February 2019 Trinity Church, Earley Tuesday 12 February 2019 Oakwood Centre, Woodley

Appendix 12: Presentation for Member’s Briefing

Appendix 13: Publicity materials for ‘Homes for the Future’ Consultation on the draft Local Plan Update – leaflet

100

101

102

103

Appendix 14: Email/letter of notification sent to all consultees registered on the council’s online consultation database regarding public consultation on the ‘Homes for the Future’ Consultation for the draft Local Plan Update

104

Appendix 15: Formal statutory notice published in The Wokingham Paper

105

Appendix 16: Examples of social media promotion (e.g. Facebook and Twitter)

106

Appendix 17: Press releases published on Wokingham Borough Council’s ‘News Centre’ area on the website

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Appendix 18: Electronic advert published in the Traveller Times

116

117

Appendix 19: ‘Homes for the Future’ Consultation Response Form

118

119

120

121

122

123