PLANNING REF : 203535 PROPERTY ADDRESS : 4 Mayfields : Sindlesham, , : RG41 5BY SUBMITTED BY : Councillor Paul Fishwick DATE SUBMITTED : 25/01/2021

COMMENTS: Planning Application 203535 &65533; Western Gateway Planning Application Description: Full planning application for works at the junction of the A321 Road and Molly Millars Lane comprising replacement of the existing threearm minirou ndabout with a larger roundabout; demolition of Nos 81 and 8385 Finchampstead Road; and associated landscaping and changes to the pedestrian crossing environment. Removal of the existing lightcontrolled crossing on the A321 Finchampstead Road The exis ting lightcontrolled pedestrian crossing has been in this location for over 25 years and is heavily used by local people. The February 2020 Western Gateway Public consultation indicated that this facility would be replaced by a toucan crossing and featur es on the &65533;artists impression photo&65533; on the first page of the exhibition boards Western Gateway Wokingham Borough Council The planning application shows that this essential crossing has been removed and replaced with an uncontroll ed crossing. However, within the Design and Access statement paragraph 5.3 it states, &65533;the roundabout enhancement scheme will fundamentally ensure pedestrian and cyclist facilities are maintained.&65533; This clearly is untrue, as the remo val of the lightcontrolled crossing reduces safety on this already busy and hazardous &65533;A&65533; class road, which will become even busier when the Southern Distribution Road opens. Pedestrians will not be able to cross the road within &am p;65533;safe gaps&65533; in the traffic and take risks potentially resulting in personal injury accidents. The Road Safety Audit highlights this very point and states as follows &65533;the drawings provided show the removal of the existing sign alised crossing on Finchampstead Road (South) and replacing with uncontrolled crossings via the splitter island for the proposed roundabout. Several pedestrians were observed using the crossing at the time of the site visit and removing this facility may increase the likelihood of a pedestrianvehicle collision if pedestrians have to use the uncontrolled crossing instead.&65533; The Design and Access statement paragraph 4.4 states &65533;there is not a pedestriancyclist desire line to cross Fin champstead Road South of the roundabout.&65533; This again is simply not true, as the existing lightcontrolled crossing that has operated at that location for over 25 years is heavily used. The Design and Access statement paragraph 4.4. also states &65533;constraints on space with vehicle accesses and lack of available width on the west footway to provide a crossing in line with design standards.&65533; Yet, the figure 4 in the same document indicates land taken from the front garden of 8 9 Finchampstead Road to accommodate the new crossing. Wokingham Borough Council&65533;s Climate Emergency Plan modal shift target indicates that a quadrupling in walking and cycling is required to achieve CO2 reduction targets in the next 10 years. T his development fails to assist walking and cycling. I therefore object to this planning application due to the removal of this important Active Travel (walking and cycling) facility. Shared use facilities The Design Access Statement paragraph 4.4 stat es that in design standard terms, the final scheme has been designed in accordance with the guidance Cycle Infrastructure Design Local Transport Note 120 (LTN 120). In paragraph 10 of the LTN120 it states, &65533;New roundabouts on allpurpose roa ds should be provided with cycle facilities as recommended in this guidance, unless there are clearlydefined and suitable alternative routes&65533;. Also, in paragraph 14 it states, &65533;Appropriate cycle facilities should be provided within all new and improved highways in accordance with the guidance contained in this document, regardless of whether the scheme is on a designated cycle route, unless there are clearlydefined and suitable alternatives.&65533; This location is in an urban area close to the town centre and identified in the draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) as a designated walking and cycling route. The design in not in accordance with this latest guidance. Provision for walking and cycling is re quired on each side of the roundabout, to connect into existing and future infrastructure, and toucan crossings must be provided on each approach, not just two out of the three. I therefore object to this planning application as it has not been designed t o the latest guidance LTN 120. Wokingham Borough Council Core Policy CP1 &65533; Sustainable Development; CP2 &65533; Inclusive Communities; CP6 &65533; Managing Travel Demand; Wokingham Borough Council have a set of Core Policies and the following are relevant for this development. CP1 (Sustainable Development), it states that &65533;the development must demonstrate how they support opportunities for reducing the need to travel, particularly by private car in line with CP6 (Manag ing Travel Demand). CP2 (Inclusive Communities) states, &65533;sustainably meeting the needs of young people includes ensuring that children of primary school age have access to a school within walking or cycling distance of their home (34km) along a safe route.&65533; CP6 (Managing Travel Demand) states, &65533;that planning permission will be granted for schemes that: a) Provide for sustainable forms of transport to allow choice; b) Are located where there are or will be at the time of development choices in the mode of transport available and which minimise the distance people need to travel; c) Improve the existing infrastructure network, including road, rail and public transport, enhance facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, incl uding provision for those with reduced mobility, and other users; e) Mitigate any adverse effects upon the local and strategic transport network that arise from the development proposed; f) Enhance road safety; g) Do not cause highway problems or lead to traffic related environmental problems. For CP6 (a to f) The development has failed in this regard as highlighted above in not providing a lightcontrolled crossing on the A321 Finchampstead Road southern arm and has also not demonstrated the use of th e latest design principles LTN 120. It has introduced an uncontrolled crossing facility which is detrimental to highway users and highlighted in the Road Safety Audit &65533;may increase the likelihood of a pedestrianvehicle collision&65533;. No attempt has been made to widen the footways on either side of the A321 Finchampstead Road (South approach) to current design standard principles within the development and the widened shared footway comes to a sudden end on the corner of 89 Finchampste ad Road. This sudden change in the footway width has been identified as an issue and raised in the Road Safety Audit (Section 5 Analysis) where it states &65533;that one Departure from Standard has been identified and is due to be submitted for appro val for a reduced visibility on approach to southern entry to CD 116 para. 3.39.&65533; This poor visibility has come about as the revised design and submitted in this application no longer uses part of the front garden of 89 Finchampstead Road, wher e previously it did (see figure 4 Design and Access Statement and the Public Consultation February 2020). With reference to CP6 (g) the Air Quality Report fails to consider the harmful impact of PM2.5. The Borough Council acknowledge that there is clear e vidence that PM2.5 has a significant impact on human health, including premature mortality, allergic reactions, and cardiovascular diseases and makes this statement in its Air Quality Annual Status Report to Defra, but it does monitor any sites within the Borough, reliant on modelled data and not actual &65533;live&65533; on site information. The development