ARBORFIELD CROSS RELIEF ROAD: REPORT on CONSULTATION Final Report

ARBORFIELD CROSS RELIEF ROAD: REPORT ON CONSULTATION Final Report

31/01/2014 Revised: 28/02/2014 Confidentiality: Public

Quality Management

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Final Date 03/02/2014 01/03/2014 18/03/2014 Prepared by Signature Checked by Signature Authorised by Signature Project number 10395858 Report number File reference N:\10395858 - Arborfield Bypass Transport Study\C Documents\Reports

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 2 Revised: 28/02/2014

Arborfield Cross Relief Road: Report on Consultation Final Report

31/01/2014

Client Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG40 1BN

Consultant WSP Group Mountbatten House Basingstoke RG21 4HJ UK

Tel: +44 1256 318 822 Fax: +44 1256 318 700 www.wspgroup.co.uk

Registered Address WSP UK Limited 01383511 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... 5 1 Introduction ...... 6 2 Methodology ...... 7 3 Consultation Findings - Stakeholder Meetings ...... 12 4 Consultation Findings – Feedback Forms ...... 13 5 Consultation Findings – Exhibitions & Written Responses .. 42 6 Consultation Findings – Summary ...... 53

Appendices

Appendix A: Consultation Materials Appendix B: Consultation Findings Appendix C: Figures

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 4 Revised: 28/02/2014

Executive Summary

Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) is committed to the development of 3,500 new homes at Arborfield Garrison by 2026. The Council’s Core Strategy identifies a requirement to enhance the A327 in order to effectively mitigate the traffic growth impacts that will be generated by the development of the Arborfield Garrison and the South of M4 Strategic Development Locations (SDLs). An Arborfield Cross Relief Road (ACRR) is proposed to minimise the impacts of traffic growth on the village of Arborfield Cross and surrounding rural lanes. Following a technical investigation of a number of possible alternative route alignments and junction layouts for the ACRR, the four best performing options for the relief road were identified in a study by WSP (September 2013). The Council then consulted the public on these four options (A, B, C, D) between September and November 2013,. There was a good level of response to the public consultation exercise, with some 1300 feedback forms and over 60 written responses returned. Around a third of the questionnaire responses received were from residents of the Arborfield ward. A number of residents in Wokingham, Barkham, Finchampstead, Woodley, Earley, Winnersh, Swallowfield and Farley Hill also responded to the consultation. The exercise has demonstrated strong support for Option B. This route connects the A327 west of Arborfield Cross close to Bridge Farm, west of Greensward Lane, and the Langley Common Road south of the village and close to Ducks Nest Farm. The route would form a new junction with Swallowfield Road west of Greensward Lane and Arborfield Court. Overall, 71% of those who completed a feedback form expressed support for Option B. Following this, 18% expressed support for Option A, just 8% for Option C and 3% for Option D. Support for the Option B alignment is particularly high amongst those from Wokingham, Barkham, Sindlesham, Woodley, Earley, Winnersh, Spencers Wood and Shinfield (over 80% of respondents from these areas expressed a preference for Option B). The majority view amongst Arborfield residents is also support for Option B (68%), though it is noted that there is some support for Option A (19%). In contrast, respondents from the Swallowfield and Farley Hill area (including Riseley and Eversley) are more likely to support Option A (58%) than Option B (30%). The consultation has demonstrated that the public and stakeholders have a number of concerns with all four of the options proposed, in particular the impact of the relief road on congestion, wildlife, noise, landscaping, pollution and respondents’ journeys. Analysis has also highlighted that a number of respondents considered the impact of the scheme on local businesses (notably Lockey Farm). Concerns about the potential loss of this important local business and amenity have shaped a number of responses and it is understood that there were several local campaigns to encourage respondents to express their preference for Option B over Option A, notably the ‘Save Lockey Farm’ and ‘Arborfield Action Group’ movements. In order to counter and respond to ongoing public and stakeholder concerns, the Council now needs to undertake further work to gain clarity on the deliverability, implications and costs of Option B. This will include examining land ownership issues, design and safety issues as well as thoroughly investigating the environmental mitigation measures that would be required.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background 1.1.1 Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) is committed to the development of 3,500 new homes at Arborfield Garrison in addition to those around Shinfield, Spencers Wood and Three Mile Cross by 2026. Policies CP18 and CP19 of the Council’s Core Strategy identify a requirement to enhance the A327 in order to effectively mitigate the traffic growth impacts that will be generated by the development of the Arborfield Garrison and the South of M4 Strategic Development Locations (SDLs). The Council had indicated that a relief road would provide the most effective form of mitigation against the impacts arising from the development of the SDLs. 1.1.2 An Arborfield Cross Relief Road (ACRR) is proposed to minimise the impacts of traffic growth on the village of Arborfield Cross and surrounding rural lanes. 1.1.3 Following a technical investigation of a number of possible alternative route alignments and junction layouts for the ACRR, the four best performing options were identified in a study by WSP (September 2013). The Council then consulted on these four options (A, B, C, D) for the relief road between September and November 2013.

1.2 Aims of consultation 1.2.1 The overarching aim of the consultation was to gather feedback on the four options for the proposed Arborfield Cross Relief Road and explore issues and concerns relating to each of the route options that will need to be addressed in subsequent stages of work to identify a preferred route for the proposed relief road.

1.3 Structure of this report 1.3.1 Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 sets out the details of the consultation approach and programme. The consultation findings are presented in Chapter 3 (outputs from stakeholder consultation), Chapter 4 (outputs from the questionnaire responses) and Chapter 5 (outputs from the exhibitions and detailed written responses). A summary of the findings is presented in Chapter 6.

1.4 Next steps 1.4.1 The Council will use this report summarising the outputs of the consultation to help identify a preferred scheme for the relief road. However, as well as the consultation responses, the final decision will need to consider the balance of many factors, including the ‘fit’ with policy, design, transport, viability, constraints and environmental impacts and the views of key stakeholders.

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 6 Revised: 28/02/2014

2 Methodology 2.1.1 This chapter sets out the methodology employed for the Arborfield Cross Relief Road public consultation, in terms of the methods of consultation and communication employed, timescales, and the process of recording comments and enquiries.

2.2 Stakeholder consultation approach 2.2.1 Several stakeholder meetings were undertaken prior to the start of the public consultation, the outcomes of which were used to shape and refine the options and material presented in the public consultation. 2.2.2 WBC officers consulted local stakeholders via the Arborfield Community Forum on 20 June 2013 and through a dedicated Highways Forum on 15 July 2013. Council officers also met with landowners along the proposed route of Option A, including the owners of Lockey Farm. 2.2.3 During the consultation period, meetings were held with the Environment Agency and English Heritage.

2.3 Public consultation approach 2.3.1 Wokingham Borough Council undertook public consultation on the proposals for the Arborfield Cross Relief Road between Monday 9 September and Friday 8 November 2013. A summary of the consultation approach is provided in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1: Summary of consultation approach

Element Method Aim Details To gather feedback on the proposals prior to consulting on the Stakeholder proposed scheme publicly Presentation to Arborfield Community meetings To shape and refine the options Forum 1 (prior to and and material presented at public during public Meetings with landowners, Environ- consultation consultation) ment Agency and English Heritage To gather specific feedback on the proposed scheme Distributed to 9,500 households in the To raise awareness of the consulta- Consultation wards around Arborfield Cross 2 tion and generate interest in partici- postcard Provided details of public exhibitions pating Link to website Hosted on the WBC website, providing To provide information about the access to background information and 3 Website proposed scheme technical reports Access to online feedback form Press release and media briefed about To raise awareness of the consul- Media the consultation and timescales 4 tation and generate interest in par- coverage Editorial in Wokingham Times ticipating Twitter and Facebook signposting

Element Method Aim Details To provide information about the Freepost address for feedback form Consultation proposed scheme responses 5 leaflet & feedback form To gather feedback on the pro- Leaflets and feedback forms made posals available at exhibitions and online

To provide information about the Series of 16 exhibitions held throughout proposed scheme the study area Manned 6 Leaflets & feedback forms available exhibitions To provide opportunity to discuss the options and impacts with a WBC officers on hand to discuss the member of the study team proposed scheme Exhibition material on display in WBC To provide information about the offices & Henry Street Garden Centre Unmanned proposed scheme 7 throughout consultation period exhibitions To provide access to leaflets and Leaflets & feedback forms available feedback forms Queries handled by WBC officers Dedicated WBC email address and To provide a mechanism for asking freepost postal address Email / written questions, requesting information 6 Officer responses to provide further comments and commenting on the proposed information as required scheme All enquiries logged

2.3.2 At the start of the consultation period, postcards were distributed to 9,500 households in the wards around Arborfield Cross (Arborfield, Finchampstead North, Finchampstead South, Swallowfield and Barkham). The postcard provided background on the consultation and listed the dates and locations of the public exhibitions. The postcard is shown in Figure 2-1. Stakeholder organisations were also informed about the consultation. 2.3.3 WBC officers met with local newspaper journalists resulting in an article to publicise the event in the Wokingham Times and affiliated newspapers and websites on 16 September 20131. Figure 2-1: Consultation postcard

1 http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/see-plans-new-roads-public-6029441

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 8 Revised: 28/02/2014

2.3.4 Eight two-day exhibitions were held across the consultation area throughout the consultation period. Venues included Wokingham Market Place (joint exhibition for the proposed ACRR and the North Wokingham Distributor Road), Finchampstead, Barkham, Swallowfield and Farley Hill (Table 2-2). The exhibitions were staffed by members of the WBC team, who were on hand to answer queries, provide further information and discuss concerns about the proposals. 2.3.5 In addition to the public exhibitions, two static generally unstaffed exhibition displays were made available at the Council Offices in Wokingham and at the Henry Street Garden Centre in Arborfield Cross throughout the consultation period. Council staff were available on request to discuss concerns and answer queries at the Council Offices throughout the consultation period. Table 2-2: Exhibition dates

Location Type Date WBC Council Offices Unstaffed 9 September to 7 November Henry Street Garden Centre Unstaffed 9 September to 6 November Wokingham Market Place Staffed Friday 13/ Saturday 14 September Henry Street Garden Centre Staffed Friday 20/ Saturday 21 September FBC Centre, Finchampstead Staffed Friday 20/ Saturday 21 September Henry Street Garden Centre Staffed Friday 27/ Saturday 28 September Barkham Village Hall, Barkham Staffed Friday 4/ Saturday 5 October Swallowfield Parish Hall, Swallowfield Staffed Friday 18/ Saturday 19 October Henry Street Garden Centre Staffed Friday 25/ Saturday 26 October The Victory Hall, Farley Hill Staffed Friday 1/ Saturday 2 November

2.3.6 The exhibitions comprised a set of eight A1 display panels summarising the key issues around the scheme and the respective scheme options. 2.3.7 Further information on the proposed relief road options was provided on a dedicated section of WBC’s website2 and in the consultation leaflet. 2.3.8 The leaflet provided background to the scheme, a plan showing the various route options and impacts of each, details of the public exhibitions and instructions on how to respond to the consultation. In addition, a feedback form was provided with the leaflet. A copy is included in Appendix A. 2.3.9 The leaflet was made available at every consultation event along with paper copies of the feedback form. Stocks of the leaflet and questionnaire were checked and replenished throughout the consultation period. In total, 3,000 copies of the leaflet were made available and 1,800 copies were taken. 2.3.10 Copies of the exhibition display boards and the full technical report were made available on the website, enabling those with an interest to examine the scheme in more detail. The website also contained a link to a version of the online feedback form.

2 www.wokingham.gov.uk/arborfieldreliefroad

2.4 Responses to consultation 2.4.1 Members of the public, businesses and other stakeholder organisations were invited to respond to the consultation in a number of ways. 2.4.2 As outlined above, in order to give structure to responses, a short and easy to complete feedback form was made available. This contained just nine questions but had several opportunities for respondents to add detailed comments on the proposals if they wished. A copy is provided in Appendix A. The printed questionnaire could be returned to WBC by freepost or by dropping it off at the Council’s offices. The questionnaire was also available electronically on the website. 2.4.3 Interested parties were also invited to submit detailed written or email responses on the proposals. A dedicated email address3 was made available, monitored daily by the project team. This enabled respondents to ask questions and make comments on any issues that concerned them. Where additional information was requested or supplementary questions were asked, WBC officers responded directly during the consultation period, to ensure that respondents were provided with sufficient information on which to make their formal comments on the proposals. 2.4.4 The website and email address are still active and monitored by the project team.

2.5 Feedback 2.5.1 Receiving feedback that can be incorporated into WBC’s plans for the Arborfield Cross Relief Road is a key element of the consultation. All comments and feedback received during the consultation period (questionnaire responses, letters, emails, comments expressed at exhibitions and during stakeholder meetings) have been reviewed in detail to produce this report. This report therefore provides an accurate representation of the views expressed during the consultation period.

2.6 Unintended issues 2.6.1 It should be noted that when the WBC team arrived at Henry Street Garden Centre on the afternoon of Friday 27 September, they found that part of the exhibition (the welcome board) had been moved and two, non-WBC posters had been put in its place. These posters reported the outcome of a survey undertaken by Arborfield and Newlands Parish Council, the results of which showed a strong preference for Option B over Option A. Some visitors to the exhibition commented that the posters may have influenced the public’s views. The posters were removed and were not replaced at any time during the remainder of the consultation period. 2.6.2 WBC is aware that Lockey Farm hosted its own ‘Save Lockey Farm’ campaign, which included display boards in the farm shop, notices, a Facebook campaign and an e-petition4 (which to date has received in excess of 1300 signatures). The campaign message encouraged respondents to show their support for Option B over Option A:

“Please show your support and sign this petition. It will help prove to the Council that route A (A1) is not acceptable and they MUST adopt the B (B1) proposal.”

3 [email protected]

4 http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-lockey-farm

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 10 Revised: 28/02/2014

2.6.3 It is suggested that both campaigns may have had an impact on the general public’s attitudes towards the options proposed. This has been explored in the analysis of consultation responses and is detailed in this report.

2.7 Replying to consultation responses 2.7.1 During the consultation, the Executive for Strategic Planning and Highways indicated that WBC will provide an individual response to the issues and concerns raised by respondents where one is requested or justified. These are currently being prepared by WSP.

3 Consultation Findings - Stakeholder Meetings

3.1 Overview 3.1.1 This section briefly sets out the nature of the stakeholder engagement undertaken to date as part of the consultation on the proposed ACRR and the emerging findings.

3.2 Stakeholder feedback 3.2.1 At this stage, consultation has been limited mainly to political consideration, and discussions with residents and landowners of Arborfield. Wider stakeholder consultation is anticipated during the next stages of the project, as the preferred scheme option is refined. 3.2.2 The scheme was first presented to residents of Arborfield at the Arborfield Community Forum on 20 June 2013, held at the Henry Street Garden Centre. The Council provided the following information: Ŷ Background to the study Ŷ Details of the options likely to be considered for the route Ŷ Process of evaluating the options 3.2.3 This was followed by a dedicated Highways Forum at the same venue on 15 July 2013, at which a summary of the Technical Report was provided. The public reaction to this presentation and the issues raised provided valuable feedback that enabled the project team to focus the consultation on the issues of importance to residents and those affected by the scheme. Of greatest note is the Technical Report made a ‘Technical Recommendation’ of one particular scheme, referred to as Option A. This approach was criticised during the Highways Forum such that the consultation boards and leaflet did not describe Option A as the Technical Recommendation and instead reported it and the other options using the same neutral and factually-based terminology (Options A, B, C and D).

3.3 Other stakeholder meetings 3.3.1 During the consultation period, a meeting was held with the Environment Agency on 18 July 2013 to discuss issues around flood mitigation and watercourses affected by the scheme options. On 5 September 2013 Council staff met with English Heritage, to request a formal response to issues generally relevant to scheme options, and specifically on issues related to Yew Tree Cottage, Chamberlain’s Farm and the Area of Special Character (AoSC). The consultation materials omitted to mention the AoSC even though it was included in the Technical Report – this was corrected on the exhibition boards mid-way through the consultation period. 3.3.2 Following the initial technical recommendation, Council officers met with landowners along the proposed alignment of Option A. Of note is a meeting with the owners of Lockey Farm on 30 July 2013 with whom Council officers met on site to understand how Option A could affect the business if it were to follow the alignment shown in the consultation documents. The issues raised during this meeting were summarised in the consultation material to ensure that members of the public were aware of the implications of the route option. 3.3.3 Meetings with landowners affected by Option B have taken place since the end of the consultation period and others will be undertaken during the next stages of relief road refinement.

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 12 Revised: 28/02/2014

4 Consultation Findings - Feedback Forms

4.1 Overview 4.1.1 This chapter sets out the results of the feedback form, a key element in the consultation exercise. It was a short form, designed to be easy to complete, containing just nine questions but with several opportunities for respondents to add detailed comments on the proposals if they wished. 4.1.2 To provide an overall context for attitudes towards the proposed scheme, this chapter firstly presents a summary of those who responded, in terms of the areas in which they reside, and their age and gender, before moving on to explore the public’s views on the options for the relief road, the factors that were considered, outstanding issues and concerns.

4.2 Participation in consultation 4.2.1 Overall, 1302 completed questionnaires were returned during the consultation period. Feedback forms were made available at WBC offices, the public exhibitions and online. It is apparent that while the majority of forms were returned from residents within the postcard distribution area, a number of respondents are from outside it, particularly the Woosehill area just south of the distribution area (Figure 1, Appendix C). Further details on the distribution of respondents are provided in section 4.3. 4.2.2 It should be noted that all completed forms have been included in the analysis presented in this report. As it was recognised that views within a particular household may differ, rather than limiting the level of response to one form per household, households were able to submit more than one response. 4.2.3 As mentioned above, the feedback form could be submitted online or completed as a paper questionnaire. Overall, there was a greater tendency to complete it online (57% of forms were submitted online), as shown below. Figure 4-1: Response type

Response type

Postal 43% Online 57%

% respondents (n: 1302)

Base: all feedback forms

4.2.4 In terms of how respondents found out about the proposed scheme, nearly 60% had been to one of the public exhibitions (Figure 4-2). Over 40% had reviewed the material available on the WBC website and a third (30%) had been informed by the community forum. Around a sixth of respondents (17%) had seen information in the Wokingham Times. A number of respondents had accessed information from multiple sources; for example, around a third of those who had been to an exhibition had also accessed the WBC website. 4.2.5 Of the ‘other’ answers stated, it is noted that 27 respondents specifically mentioned that they had found out about the consultation from Lockey Farm (some had been informed by multiple sources, of which Lockey Farm was one), 31 respondents had heard via Facebook and six mentioned the Arborfield Action Group. Figure 4-2: Sources of information about the project

Q4 Where have you accessed information about the Arborfield Cross Relief Road? 57

17 15

Exhibition WBC website Community Wokingham Other Forum Times % respondents (n: 1262)

Base: all who gave a response to Q4 (n). Note that respondents were able to select multiple responses. 4.2.6 Of the ‘other’ responses given, Facebook proved a popular channel, as did the display in Lockey Farm. The Arborfield Residents Action Group and coverage in local publications such as the Arborfield News and parish/community newsletters also helped raise awareness.

4.3 Distribution of respondents 4.3.1 Respondents were asked to state the name of the locality in which they currently reside. The Council acknowledged that it was unfortunate that Farley Hill had not been included in the list of pre-coded ‘location’ options (a number of complaints were received from residents of Farley Hill). However, as a space for ‘other’ locations was provided, the information was still captured. Those who did not provide a response to the question but did provide a valid postcode have been matched to the appropriate locality. 4.3.2 Analysis shows that around a third of respondents (34%, or 439 individuals) are from the Arborfield/ Arborfield Cross area (Figure 4-3). It should be noted that the large number of responses from Arborfield may impact on the consultation results if residents in this area share a particular view about the scheme which is not so apparent throughout the wider area. Around 10% of respondents

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 14 Revised: 28/02/2014

are from Finchampstead (139 individuals) and the same from Swallowfield (118). A further 6% are from Barkham and a similar number from Wokingham. Figure 4-3: Respondent profile: locality

Q5 Where do you live? Arborfield 34 Finchampstead 11 Swallowfield 9 Barkham 6 Wokingham Town 6 Lower Earley 3 Winnersh 3 Woosehill 3 Farley Hill 3 Earley 2 Woodley 2 Shinfield 2 Reading 2 Spencers Wood 2 Sindlesham 2 Riseley 1 Crowthorne 1 Bracknell 1 Emmbrook 1 Three Mile Cross 1 Twyford 1 Eversley/ Eversley Cross 1 Charvil 0 Sonning 0 Wargrave 0 % respondents (n: 1280) Other 3

Base: all who gave a response to Q5 (n)

4.3.3 GIS has been used to match respondent postcodes to wards and local authority areas. As shown in Figure 4-4, the Arborfield ward accounts for a third of all responses (32%), followed by Swallowfield (14%). 4.3.4 Respondent postcodes have also been plotted in GIS to present the overall distribution of respondents in relation to the proposed relief road. Figure 1 (Appendix C) illustrates that respondents reside in a fairly wide geographical area, with clusters in the areas shown above. Given that a number of respondents live within the same postcode (as would be expected in Arborfield itself, given the level of response), the size of the points shown on the plan is proportional to the number of responses in that unique postcode area. In addition to the large number of respondents from Arborfield itself, there are relatively large clusters of respondents from a number of locations close to the various proposed route options (e.g. Swallowfield, Farley Hill). 4.3.5 Areas have been grouped for some of the analysis presented in this report, as shown in Table 4-1.

Figure 4-4: Responses by ward

32 Ward

8 7 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1

% respondents (n: 1232)

Base: all who provided a correct postcode (n). Only those wards accounting for at least 1% of respondents are shown Table 4-1: Respondent profile: area

Frequency (no. Options selected of respondents) Arborfield 439 Wokingham Town/ Barkham/ Emmbrook/ Woosehill/ Sindlesham 229 Swallowfield/ Farley Hill /Riseley/ Eversley 174 Finchampstead 139 Woodley/ Earley/ Winnersh 137 Spencers Wood / Shinfield 50

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 16 Revised: 28/02/2014

4.4 Profile of respondents 4.4.1 Analysis shows that all age groups are represented amongst those who responded to the consultation, though those aged 35 and above were more likely to respond than younger groups. Overall, around half (49%) of all respondents are aged 35-54, and around a third (35%) are aged 55+. The remaining sixth (17%) are aged 25 and under. As shown in Figure 4-5, the profile of respondents largely mirrors the age profile of Wokingham, based on Census 2011 data, apart from a slight under-representation of 18-24 year olds and over representation of 35-44 year olds. 4.4.2 With regard to the gender of respondents, women (59%) were more likely to respond than men (41%), as shown in Figure 4-6. In the Wokingham borough as a whole, 49% of adult residents are male and 51% female, meaning that there is an over-representation of female respondents in the survey sample. Figure 4-5: Respondent profile: age

Respondent age profile (Q6) 27

22 20 20 20 20

15 15 16 13 9

2 2

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and above Respondents Census % respondents (n: 1281)

Base: all who gave a response to Q7 (n) Figure 4-6: Respondent profile: gender

Respondent gender profile (Q7)

41% Male Female 59%

% respondents (n: 1254)

Base: all who gave a response to Q6 (n)

4.5 Preferred option 4.5.1 Respondents were asked to state their preferred option for the proposed Arborfield Cross Relief Road. It should be noted that online respondents were limited to select just one option while some of those who completed the paper questionnaire selected multiple responses. Responses have been combined for the analysis, meaning that in some places the sum total of percentages slightly exceeds 100%, as the percentages are based on total respondents rather than responses. 4.5.2 As shown in Figure 4-7, respondents expressed overwhelming support for Option B, with 71% selecting this option (this equates to 919 individuals). With regard to the remaining options, 18% (239 respondents) expressed a preference for Option A, 8% (100 respondents) for Option C and just 3% (34 respondents) for Option D. A further 1% (12 respondents) stated that they had no preference while 1% (11 respondents) did not select any of the options listed. Figure 4-7: Preferred option

Q1 Which of the following options for the route of the relief road do you prefer? 71

18 8 3 1 1

Option A Option B Option C Option D No preference None selected

% respondents (n:1302)

Base: all respondents (n). Note that the sum total of all percentages slightly exceeds 100% as respondents to the paper survey were able to select multiple options 4.5.3 Further analysis shows that where multiple options were selected, the most popular combinations were options B and C (6 respondents) and A and B (4 respondents). Table 4-2: Multiple preferred options

Options selected Frequency (no. of respondents) Options A & B 4 Options A & C 0 Options A & D 3 Options B & C 6 Options B & D 1 Options C & D 0

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 18 Revised: 28/02/2014

4.5.4 It is interesting to examine the results geographically. Figures 25 and 3 (see Appendix C) and Table 4-3 illustrate that while there is strong support for Option B from across the area, there is stronger support for Option A in the Swallowfield and Farley Hill area and some support within Arborfield itself. 4.5.5 The large number of responses from Arborfield/Arborfield Cross to some extent weights the results towards the views of residents of this area. While the majority of Arborfield residents are in favour of Option B, it should be noted that there is also support for Options A and C in this area. 4.5.6 Analysis by area is presented in Table 4-3. It should be noted that some sample sizes are very small (<50) and have been provided only for an indication of the views in each area; they should not be assumed to be statistically robust. In Table 4-4, some of the key areas close to the proposed ACRR have been grouped. In both tables, some row percentages are shown to slightly exceed 100% as some respondents expressed a preference for more than one route option. The analysis indicates that: Ŷ Support for Option B is greatest amongst respondents from Woodley, Winnersh, Woosehill, Wokingham Town, Barkham, Earley and Lower Earley - over 80% of those from each area are in favour of Option B (over 90% in the case of Woodley). Ŷ Arborfield/ Arborfield Cross residents are most likely to be in favour of Option B (68% expressed a preference for Option B), though a fifth (19%) support Option A and 13% are in favour of Option C. Views amongst Finchampstead respondents are similar (68% support Option B). Ŷ In contrast, respondents from the Farley Hill and Swallowfield area tend to prefer Option A -58% of those from the Swallowfield/ Farley Hill/ Riseley/ Eversley area expressed supported for Option A and 30% for B. Table 4-3: Area by preferred option (row %)

No pref- Area by preferred option (%) Option A Option B Option C Option D Total Base (n) erence Arborfield/ Arborfield Cross 19% 68% 13% 1% 0% 101% 438 Finchampstead 17% 68% 11% 1% 2% 100% 136 Swallowfield 51% 30% 2% 16% 1% 100% 121 Barkham 10% 83% 7% 0% 1% 101% 83 Wokingham Town 10% 87% 4% 0% 0% 100% 83 Lower Earley 2% 86% 7% 2% 2% 100% 42 Woosehill 12% 85% 3% 0% 3% 103% 33 Farley Hill 79% 18% 0% 0% 3% 100% 33 Winnersh 6% 88% 6% 0% 0% 100% 33 Earley 6% 84% 3% 6% 0% 100% 31 Woodley 3% 93% 3% 0% 0% 100% 30 Overall 18% 71% 8% 3% 1% 101% 1302 *Only those areas with a minimum of 30 respondents are shown, but percentages based on anything less than 50 are provided for illustrative purposes only and should not be assumed to be statistically robust.

5 It should be noted that where views differ within the same unique postcode area, the points representing support for Option A may obscure the points representing support for Options B, C and D. Figure 3 presents the views expressed on each option separately.

Table 4-4: Grouped area by preferred option (row %)

No pref- Area by preferred option (%) Option A Option B Option C Option D Total Base (n) erence Arborfield/ Arborfield Cross 19% 68% 13% 1% 0% 101% 438 Wokingham/ Barkham/ Emmbrook/ Woosehill/ 9% 86% 5% 0% 1% 101% 228 Sindlesham Swallowfield/ Farley Hill/ 58% 30% 2% 13% 1% 103% 172 Riseley/ Eversley Woodley/Earley/ Winnersh 4% 88% 5% 2% 1% 100% 136 Finchampstead 17% 68% 11% 1% 2% 100% 136 Spencers Wood / Shinfield 4% 86% 8% 2% 2% 102% 50 Overall 18% 71% 8% 3% 1% 101% 1302

4.5.7 Further analysis (Table 4-5) also shows that within the Arborfield area itself, there are similar views amongst those in Arborfield Cross and Arborfield village, though Arborfield Cross respondents are even more likely to support Option B (76%, compared to 65% of Arborfield Village respondents) while there is some support, albeit a much lower level for Options A and C in Arborfield Village (both 16%) and in the rural Arborfield area (24% are in favour of Option A). Table 4-5: Arborfield respondents by preferred option (row %)

No pref- Area by preferred option (%) Option A Option B Option C Option D Total Base (n) erence Arborfield Village 16% 65% 16% 2% 0% 100% 92 Arborfield Cross 14% 76% 9% 1% 0% 100% 132 Arborfield rural 24% 60% 16% 1% 0% 100% 166

4.5.8 It is also interesting to look at how opinions vary according to how respondents accessed information about the consultation, to examine whether views differ by the availability of the material presented and the source of information. As Table 4-6 illustrates, the clear majority are in favour of Option B, regardless of how they accessed information about the ACRR. However, around a quarter of those respondents who visited an exhibition and a quarter of those who looked at the material on the WBC website expressed a preference for Option A, compared to ~12% of those who accessed information from the remaining sources. Table 4-6: Source of information by preferred option (row %)

Source of information by No pref- Option A Option B Option C Option D Total Base (n) preferred option (%) erence Public consultation exhibition 24% 65% 9% 2% 1% 101% 717 WBC website 21% 68% 7% 3% 1% 101% 545 Community forum 13% 79% 6% 2% 0% 101% 373 Wokingham Times 12% 80% 8% 0% 0% 100% 206 Other 14% 72% 10% 5% 0% 102% 184

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 20 Revised: 28/02/2014

4.5.9 Analysis of the views of just those respondents who had accessed information about the ACRR from Lockey Farm shows that all 27 are in favour of Option B. Of those who had been made aware of the consultation via Facebook, all but one (30 of the 31 respondents) indicated a preference for Option B. Of those who explicitly mentioned the Arborfield Action Group, 5 (of the 6) demonstrated a preference for Option B. 4.5.10 Demographic analysis (Table 4-7) illustrates that while all groups are more likely to support Option B than any of the other proposed routes, male respondents are more likely than females to express support for Option A (25% compared to 14%). Support for Option A is also higher amongst those aged under 25 (note small samples size) and over 65 (37% and 29%, respectively). Table 4-7: Demographics group by preferred option by (row %)

Demographic group by No pref- Option A Option B Option C Option D Total Base (n) preferred option (%) erence Male 25% 60% 10% 4% 1% 102% 517 Female 14% 78% 6% 2% 1% 100% 743 Under 25 37% 60% 4% 0% 0% 100% 52 25-45 10% 83% 5% 2% 0% 100% 504 45-64 21% 68% 8% 4% 1% 102% 469 65+ 29% 54% 13% 3% 1% 101% 248 Total 18% 71% 8% 3% 1% 101% 1302

4.6 Issues considered 4.6.1 Respondents were asked to state the factors that were most important to them in making their decision on the route for the proposed relief road. They were asked to select no more than three from a list of fourteen options, or cite an ‘other’ answer. It should be noted that in the paper questionnaires, some respondents selected more than three options and all those selected have been included in this analysis. In total, 1260 respondents identified 3838 issues (excluding ‘other’ answers, which are analysed in detail below). 4.6.2 As shown in Figure 4-8, above all respondents considered the impact of the proposed scheme on Arborfield Cross (49% of those who responded to the question mentioned this as a factor). 4.6.3 Other key factors include the impact of congestion (36%), and on individuals’ homes (24%) and journeys (28%). A number of environmental factors were also deemed important, such as the impact on wildlife (28%) and noise levels (22%), as well as safety (20%). However, pollution and landscaping concerns were mentioned by just 13% of all respondents, and the appearance/design of the road by just 11%. 4.6.4 The impact on cycle paths was considered a factor by just 3% of respondents and similarly, the effect on respondents’ businesses (3%).

Figure 4-8: Importance of various factors in selecting preferred route option

Q2 What factors were most important to you in making your decision?

Impact on Arborfield Cross 49 Congestion 36 Impact on wildlife 28 Impact on my journeys 28 Effect on my home 24 Noise 22 Safety 20 Cost 17 Pollution 13 Landscaping 12 Appearance/Design of the road 11 Effect on the view from my home 6 Cycle paths 3 Effect on my business 3 % respondents Other 34 (n:1260)

4.6.5 Analysis by respondents’ preferred route option illustrates that very different factors were considered (Figure 4-9). It should be noted that those in favour of Option D and exerting ‘no preference’ have been excluded from this analysis due to small sample sizes (<35). 4.6.6 In summary: Ŷ Option A: respondents selecting this option are particularly concerned about the cost of the scheme (49% of all those who prefer Option A mentioned cost as a factor), congestion (39%), and the impacts on wildlife (34%) and on Arborfield Cross (30%); Ŷ Option B: the key area of concern is the impact on Arborfield Cross (as stated by 55% of all those who prefer Option B). Other particular areas of concern are traffic congestion (31%), impacts on wildlife (28%) and the respondent’s journeys (28%). Ŷ Option C: the main area of concern amongst those opting for Option C are congestion (63%), with other frequently mentioned issues being the impact on Arborfield Cross (48%), the impact on respondents’ journeys (40%) and their homes (38%), noise (33%) and safety (26%).

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 22 Revised: 28/02/2014

Figure 4-9: Importance of various factors by preferred route option

Q2 What factors were most important to you in making your decision by preferred route option

Impact on Arborfield Cross 30 48 55 Congestion 39 31 63 Impact on wildlife 34 7 28 Impact on my journeys 22 28 40 Effect on my home 28 21 38 Noise 19 20 33 Safety 15 21 26 Cost 49 5 11 Pollution 7 13 17 Landscaping 16 5 11 Appearance/Design of the road 13 1012 Effect on the view from my home 11 Option A (n: 238) 5 11 Cycle paths 4 Option B (m: 883) 3 8 Option C (n:98) Effect on my business 3 34 Other 24 3536

% respondents in favour of each option

4.6.7 A comparison of Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9 is presented in Table 4-8, which shows the difference between the overall importance of the factors considered and their importance in relation to each of the route options (Option D has been excluded due to a small sample size). For example, overall, congestion is an important factor for 36% of all respondents, but for a much higher proportion (63%) of all those in favour of Option C (28 percentage points above average). 4.6.8 In summary, the perceived impact of the route on Arborfield Cross is less likely to have been considered important by those who prefer Option A (30%) than those in favour of Options B and C. However, Option A supporters are far more likely to have considered cost (32 percentage points above average) and the impact on wildlife is also slightly more likely to be a consideration for this group (7 percentage points above average). 4.6.9 In contrast, those in support of Option B are more likely to have considered the impact on Arborfield Cross (6 percentage points above average) and slightly less likely to have considered the impacts of congestion and cost.

4.6.10 Those in favour of Option C are more likely to have considered the impact of congestion when selecting their preferred route (28 percentage points above average), along with factors such as the impact on their home and journeys, cycle routes, noise, pollution, visual intrusion and safety. They are less likely than average to have considered cost and the impact on wildlife. Table 4-8: Importance of factors by preferred option (difference)

Importance of factors related to each Option A Option B Option C Total preferred option (difference) Impact on Arborfield Cross -19 +6 -1 49 Congestion +4 -5 +28 36 Impact on wildlife +7 0 -21 28 Impact on my journeys -5 0 +12 28 Effect on my home +5 -3 +14 24 Noise -3 -1 +11 21 Safety -5 +1 +6 20 Cost +32 -7 -12 17 Pollution -6 +1 +5 12 Landscaping +4 -1 -7 12 Appearance/ design of the road +2 -1 +2 11 Effect on the view from my home +5 -1 +5 6 Cycle paths +1 0 +5 3 Effect on my business 0 0 +1 3 Other -10 +3 +1 34 Total 238 883 98 1252

Other factors considered 4.6.11 As shown in the charts above, a large number of respondents provided ‘other’ answers. These varied in length from a few words to several written sides. The nature of the comments varied considerably, including, by means of example, justifications for the respondent’s preferred route, reasons for not supporting other route options (e.g. perceived impacts), comments on the overall strategy of providing new infrastructure and detailed comments about the design of the various route options. 4.6.12 The responses have been coded thematically to allow quantitative analysis. Given the nature of the responses, they were coded to capture the details of the route option in question, the outstanding concern itself and any perceived impacts on specific locations that were mentioned in the response (i.e. each comment was assigned three separate codes – i) the route in question, ii) the concern/issue, and iii) the location). However, it should be noted that not every response mentioned a route option, a concern/issue, and a location. Where a concern/issue related to the impact on two different locations, they were assigned two separate codes. For example, a response which expressed concerns about the impact on Lockey Farm and the impact on Chamberlain’s Farm would be coded as two separate issues (one code per location). 4.6.13 Overall, 534 respondents mentioned ‘other’ issues in the space provided at Q2. In total, they listed over 1600 separate concerns. All those mentioned in at least 20 responses are shown in Table 4-9. A full list is available in Appendix B. For ease of interpretation, they have been divided into positive and negative comments. It should be noted that some of the comments are more relevant to particular scheme options, as presented and discussed later in this section. The table also presents a

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 24 Revised: 28/02/2014

summary of those comments which were not made in relation to any particular route option (some 830 comments). 4.6.14 The most frequently arising comments relate to the perceived impact of the proposed scheme on local businesses (106 comments). In particular, 80 responses commented on the potential loss of local farms (namely Lockey Farm), and a number on the associated loss of a local attraction (e.g. 47 commented that the scheme would result in the loss of a popular asset which receives many visitors; 42 commented about the loss of a popular destination for family days out; 23 highlighted the potential loss of access to organic and fresh local produce). Table 4-11 indicates the large number of comments made specifically about Lockey Farm. 4.6.15 Potential impacts on the village and community were the source of a large number of comments, in particular the possible severance (27 comments) and the concern that villagers will leave the area (20 comments). The potential loss of recreational space including a play area is also an issue (26 comments). 4.6.16 Congestion is also a topical matter, with 70 comments expressing concern that the proposals will result in increased traffic levels in an already congested area. Many also commented on the likely impact on surrounding areas as traffic is displaced (37 comments), while a number feel that the scheme will not deter drivers from using existing routes (22 comments). However, at the same time, many expressed the view that the proposed scheme will help alleviate traffic problems (27 comments) and feel that it will relieve pressure on the village (33). 4.6.17 The environment is an important consideration for many respondents – there were 28 comments about the potential loss of countryside and green space. 4.6.18 A number of respondents commented on the difficulties of making particular journeys (the journeys in question vary by route option). Several respondents object to the principles of the proposed scheme as they feel it does not address traffic issues (24 comments). Table 4-9: Other factors affecting decision

Overall no. Unrelated to Other factors affecting decision (Q2) of comments any option Negative Concerns about impact on (local) businesses 106 80 Concerns about impact on farm(s)/closure of farms 80 68 Concerns about the impact on congestion/ would create more traffic/ already 70 31 enough traffic in this area Would affect community as a whole/ would lose a local amenity 49 34 Would lose a very popular asset /many people visit 47 43 Would affect families/ days out 42 39 Concerns about impact on surrounding areas/ would increase traffic in sur- 38 11 rounding areas Concerns about impact on countryside/ destruction of fields/ natural beauty/ 28 11 SANG/ woodland Would divide village 27 8 Would affect recreation/playground / park 26 23 Dislike idea/ disappointed that Council considering such a scheme/ scheme 24 16 does not address traffic issues Will create problems for those travelling certain routes/journeys 24 5 Concerns about impact on byways/ footpaths 23 3

Overall no. Unrelated to Other factors affecting decision (Q2) of comments any option Concerns about loss of local/ organic produce (farm shop) 23 22 Would not make any difference to traffic problem/people would continue to 22 1 use existing roads Would affect residents/local residents/will move away 20 4 Positive Would have less impact on businesses/local businesses 33 22 Would re-direct traffic/noise away from centre of village/ relieve pressure 33 8 Most sensible option/solution 31 8 Would have less impact on residents/least disruption for locals 30 14 Direct route/would bypass all of/whole village 29 10 Would result in less traffic/ congestion/ relieve traffic 27 15 Would have least impact on farm(s)/ keep farm(s) open 26 16 Integrates with other proposed routes/ would link up new relief road to other 23 4 areas

4.6.19 By means of a summary, the codes have been grouped into a number of areas, as shown in Table 4-10 below. This demonstrates that the most frequently arising comments, whether positive or negative, focus on potential impacts on traffic, local communities and businesses. Table 4-10: Other factors affecting decision - summary

Overall no. of Other factors affecting decision (Q2) – summary codes comments Positive General support 156 Positive: Traffic / roads impacts 83 Positive: Impacts on local community/ property 62 Positive: Impacts on businesses / farms 59 Positive: Impacts on village (division) 51 Positive: Environmental impacts 39 Positive: Cost issues 19 Positive: Impacts on non-car modes 6 Positive: Impacts on safety 4 Neutral Alternative route/alignment suggested 26 Requests for modifications to existing routes 6 Comments on timing 4 Requests for modifications to junction/roundabout design 2 Negative General opposition 57 Negative: Impacts on businesses / farms 311 Negative: Traffic / roads 247 Negative: Impacts on local community/ property 165 Negative: Environmental impacts 119

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 26 Revised: 28/02/2014

Overall no. of Other factors affecting decision (Q2) – summary codes comments Negative: Impacts on non-car modes 55 Negative: Supporting information / Council / consultation process 46 Negative: Cost issues 34 Negative: Impacts on village (division) 27 Negative: Junction/ roundabout design 24 Negative: Impacts on safety 17

4.6.20 With regard to the actual locations mentioned, around 370 respondents made reference to one or more locations; in total nearly 1000 locations were identified. Given the sheer number of responses, it is not possible here to set out every issue raised in relation to every location mentioned. A summary of the most frequently occurring locations (all those mentioned in at least 20 comments) is provided in Table 4-11. A full list is available in Appendix B. 4.6.21 The table shows that Lockey Farm is by far the source of the largest number of comments (365). In comparison, Arborfield generally and Arborfield Cross were each the subject of over 80 comments. The table also presents those comments which were not made in relation to any particular route option (~550 comments). Table 4-11: Other factors affecting decision – locations

Locations – Overall (Q2) Overall no. of comments Unrelated to any option Lockey Farm 365 329 Arborfield 85 22 Arborfield Cross 83 23 Mole Road 42 25 Henry Street 29 15 A327 28 9 Greensward Lane 23 5 Shinfield/ Shinfield Eastern Relief 22 Road 7 Farley Hill 21 11 Garrison/ Garrison area 21 7 Walden Avenue 20 3

4.6.22 Further analysis on the comments made by those who directly referred to Lockey Farm is shown below in Table 4-12. The table shows all those comments made on at least five occasions. The vast majority of responses (329 of the 365) did not make reference to a particular route option in the comment, though as the analysis shows, most of the comments concern the potential negative impact of the Option A alignment on the farm. Table 4-12: Comments made in relation to Lockey Farm

Overall no. of Other factors affecting decision (Q2) – All who refer to Lockey Farm comments Concerns about impact on farm/ closure of farm 65 Concerns about impact on local business /would result in people shopping elsewhere 46 Would lose a very popular asset / many people visit/I visit regularly 44

Would affect families/ days out/ loss of family attraction/ opportunity to meet other parents 38 Would affect community as a whole/ would lose a local amenity 26 Concerns about loss of local/ healthy/ organic produce (butchery, farm shop) 21 Would have least impact on farm/ would not affect farmers/ would keep farm/ shop/café 17 open Would affect recreation/ play area/ somewhere safe for children to play 16 Would lose village’s biggest/ most valuable asset 14 Dislike idea/ disappointed that Council is considering such a scheme/ scheme does not 12 address traffic issues Would lose respectable well known business/ 8 Concerns about loss of educational visits / impact on education 8

Option A 4.6.23 In total, around 300 comments related to Option A were submitted. They include perceived environmental, social, economic and traffic impacts of the proposed ACRR, both positive and negative. The issues raised on at least five occasions are listed in Table 4-13. A full list is available in Appendix B. 4.6.24 The most frequently arising area of comment referred to the potential impact of the proposed road on local businesses (20 comments), in terms of the effect on the local economy and workforce, including the belief that people would no longer come into the area for shopping if Option A is implemented. More specifically, six responses commented on the potential impact of Option A on farms in the area (namely Lockey Farm – see Table 4-11). 4.6.25 In terms of traffic impacts, a relatively large number (18 comments) referred to the potential congestion effects of the proposed route (i.e. that it would create additional traffic congestion in an area that is already heavily trafficked). Several believe that drivers will continue to use existing roads meaning that the new road will not solve traffic problems (5 comments). A similar number of responses (5) commented on the potential impact of the route in transferring traffic problems to other localities. Five responses commented that the route does not live up to the expectations of a ‘relief’ road. 4.6.26 The impact on the village of Arborfield was highlighted by a number of respondents. In all, there were 15 comments on the subject of Option A effectively severing the village, while there were 11 comments on the perceived general impact on residents of Arborfield and the knock-on effects, (e.g. that they will move elsewhere). Nine respondents commented on the loss that the community would suffer, for example in terms of amenity. The perceived impact on the unique character of the village (an area of Special Character) was highlighted in eight responses. 4.6.27 With regard to the impact on the environment, eight responses expressed concerns about the potential increased noise levels and stressed the need for noise mitigation measures (e.g. through planting). Seven expressed concerns about the impact on pollution and the environment more generally, and six referred to the negative effect that Option A would have on special characteristics such as listed buildings, trees, etc. Five responses expressed concern about the potential loss of a valuable area of green space/ fields. Eight responses referred to the potential loss of footways/ byways. 4.6.28 However, in contrast to the negative comments above, seven respondents commented that Option A is the most sensible solution, and similarly, there were several comments about this route being the most effective (5) in terms of relieving traffic congestion (6) and traffic pressures away from the village (5).

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 28 Revised: 28/02/2014

4.6.29 Six responses called for the route to be aligned further away from the village of Arborfield. Table 4-13: Other factors affecting decision - related to Option A

No. of Comments on Option A (Q2) comments Negative Concerns about impact on (local) businesses 20 Concerns about the impact on congestion/ would create more traffic/ already enough traffic 18 in this area Would divide village 15 Would affect residents/ people will look elsewhere to live 11 Would affect community as a whole/ would lose a local amenity 9 Concerns about increased noise levels (mitigation required) 8 Would ruin character of area / Area of Special Character 8 Concerns about impact on byways/ footpaths 8 Would result in more pollution/ greater impact on environment 7 Too close to/ needs to be implemented further out 6 Concerns about impact on farm(s)/closure of farms 6 Concerns about impact on listed areas (buildings, trees, land, etc) 6 Is not a “relief road”/ not as name suggests 5 Would not make any difference to traffic /people would continue to use existing roads 5 Concerns about impact on surrounding areas/ would increase traffic in surrounding areas 5 Will create problems for those travelling certain routes/journeys 5 Concerns about impact on countryside/ destruction of fields/ natural beauty/SANG/woodland 5 Positive Most sensible option/ solution 7 Would mean less traffic/ congestion/ relieve traffic 6 Would re-direct traffic/ traffic noise/ away from centre of village/ relieve pressure 5 Most effective route/ achieves objectives 5

4.6.30 Some respondents referred to particular locations pertinent to the issues raised. Table 4-14 provides a useful summary of the key locations/ areas of concern. As would perhaps be expected, the impact on Arborfield and Arborfield Cross, followed by the impact on Lockey Farm, were the most frequently cited. A full list of the locations mentioned is provided in Appendix B. 4.6.31 It should be noted that this analysis does not reflect the quantum of responses lodged in relation to Lockey Farm as seen in Table 4-11. This is because the majority of open comments did not make reference to a particular route option, presumably having selected their preferred route at Q1. Table 4-14: Other factors affecting decision – locations related to Option A

Locations – Option A (Q2) No. of comments No location/place mentioned 129 Arborfield 35 Arborfield Cross 18 Lockey Farm 17 Walden Avenue 12

Locations – Option A (Q2) No. of comments Greensward Lane 12 Winnersh 8 Henry Street 8 Reading Road 6 A327 6 Mole Road 6 Church Lane 5

Option B 4.6.32 The issues related to Option B expressed on at least five occasions are listed in Table 4-15. A full list is available in Appendix B. In total, respondents submitted over 200 comments related to option B. Responses are both positive and negative, though considerably more positive overall than the comments on the other route options. 4.6.33 In particular, respondents commented on the perceived benefits of Option B in redirecting the road away from the village and relieving existing traffic pressures (17 comments), providing a direct route which bypasses the entire village (16) and having far less of an impact on local businesses (10), farms (10), local residents (9) and village life (6). 4.6.34 Ten comments expressed support for the Option B proposal more generally and 11 respondents feel that Option B presents the most sensible solution. A number (8) commented on the potential to link Option B with other proposed new routes in the area. Six respondents commented that Option B is the ‘best of a bad bunch’. 4.6.35 However, eleven responses voiced concern about the potential traffic impacts on surrounding villages. A number of concerns about the impact on byways/ footpaths were again raised (8 responses). Table 4-15: Other factors affecting decision - related to Option B

No. of Comments on Option B comments Negative Concerns about impact on surrounding areas/ would increase traffic in surrounding areas 11 Concerns about impact on byways/ footpaths 8 Will create problems for those travelling certain routes/journeys 6 Positive Would re-direct traffic/ traffic noise/ away from centre of village/ relieve pressure 17 Direct route/ would bypass all of the village 16 Most sensible option/ solution 11 Agree with proposal/ encourage use of relief road 10 Least impact on farms /would not affect farmers 10 Less impact on businesses/ local businesses 10 Keeps village as a whole/ not divided/severed 9 Less impact on residents/ least disruption for locals 9 Integrates with other proposed routes/ would link up new relief road to other areas 8 Preserves village life/ maintains its history/ cultural past 6

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 30 Revised: 28/02/2014

Best of a bad bunch/ the next best option/ best of poor option 6 4.6.36 In terms of the areas and locations mentioned, the most frequently stated were again Arborfield Cross, Arborfield and Lockey Farm. Table 4-16: Other factors affecting decision – locations related to Option B

Locations – Option B (Q2) No. of comments No location/place mentioned 102 Arborfield Cross 30 Arborfield 21 Lockey Farm 12 A327 8 Henry Street 6 Shinfield/Shinfield Eastern Relief Road 5 Mole Road 5

Option C 4.6.37 Though fewer respondents overall expressed support for Option C, a number of respondents submitted detailed comments about the proposed route (around 150 in total). The comments raised on at least five occasions are listed in Table 4-17. A full list is available in Appendix B. 4.6.38 Both positive and negative issues were raised. In particular, 11 responses commented on the potential to link the Option C route with other proposed routes, and there is some feeling that Option C presents the most sensible solution (5 responses). 4.6.39 However, there are a number of concerns about the cost of the route (11 responses), as well as the wider impacts on congestion (9), journeys/routes (8), the environment/countryside (8) and flooding (6). Table 4-17: Factors affecting decision - related to Option C

No. of Comments on Option C comments Negative Expensive / most costly/ not cost effective 11 Concerns about the impact on congestion/ would create more traffic/ already enough traffic 9 in this area Will create problems for those travelling certain routes/journeys 8 Concerns about impact on countryside/ destruction of fields/ natural beauty/ SANG/ wood- 8 land Concerns about impact of building on flood plain (road level needs raising to prevent flood- 6 ing) Concerns about impact on surrounding areas/ would increase traffic in surrounding areas 5 Positive Integrates with other proposed routes/ would link up new relief road to other areas 11 Most sensible option/ solution 5 Would mean less impact on residents/ least disruption for locals 5

4.6.40 In terms of the areas and locations mentioned in relation to Option C, the most frequently stated this time were Farley Hill, Nine Mile Ride (and the extension scheme), Shinfield (and the proposed relief road) and the Garrison (Table 4-18). Table 4-18: Other factors affecting decision – locations related to Option C

Locations – Option C (Q2) No. of comments No location/ place mentioned 79 Farley Hill 9 Nine Mile Ride/ Nine Mile Ride Extension 8 Shinfield/ Shinfield Eastern Relief Road 8 Garrison/ Garrison area 6 Arborfield 5 Arborfield Cross 5 Winnersh 5

Option D 4.6.41 The issues related to Option D raised in at least five responses are listed in Table 4-19. A full list is available in Appendix B. Again, respondents expressed concerns about the impact of the route option on congestion (8 comments) and a number feel that the route would be ineffective (6 comments) as it would not remove traffic from existing routes (8 comments). Several respondents raised concerns about impacts on noise, pollution, the environment as well as on businesses. 4.6.42 The locations most frequently mentioned in relation to Option D are shown in Table 4-20 – Arborfield Cross and Lockey Farm are the only locations mentioned on at least five occasions. Table 4-19: Other factors affecting decision - related to Option D

No. of Comments on Option D comments Negative Concerns about the impact on congestion/ would create more traffic/ already enough traffic 8 in this area Would not make any difference to traffic / people would continue to use existing roads 8 Pointless/ would be ineffective 6 Concerns about increased noise levels (require mitigation) 5 Concerns about impact on pollution/ will have greater impact on environment 5 Concerns about impact on (local) businesses 5

Table 4-20: Factors affecting decision – locations related to Option D

Locations – Option D (Q2) No. of comments No location/place mentioned 48 Arborfield Cross 7 Lockey Farm 6

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 32 Revised: 28/02/2014

Comparison between alternatives 4.6.43 The summary codes for each option are presented side by side in Table 4-21 by means of comparison. Table 4-21: Issues raised in relation to each option (summary)

Option Commented On - No. of mentions Other factors affecting decision (Q2) – summary codes None Option A Option B Option C Option D Total selected Positive General support 25 47 28 2 54 156 Positive: Traffic / roads impacts 15 28 8 2 30 83 Positive: Impacts on local community / property 8 18 10 0 26 62 Positive: Impacts on businesses / farms 0 20 1 0 38 59 Positive: Impacts on village (division) 4 31 3 0 13 51 Positive: Environmental impacts 4 8 6 0 21 39 Positive: Cost issues 5 5 2 2 5 19 Positive: Impacts on non-car modes 0 2 1 0 2 5 Positive: Impacts on safety 1 0 0 1 2 4 Neutral Neutral comments: Alternative route / alignment sug- 8 6 0 1 10 26 gested Neutral comments: requests for modifications to exist- 1 1 0 0 4 6 ing routes Neutral comments: timing 1 1 0 1 1 4 Requested modifications to junction / roundabout de- 1 0 0 0 1 2 sign Negative General opposition 11 3 3 10 27 57 Negative: Impacts on businesses / farms 34 3 2 10 262 311 Negative: Traffic / roads 52 27 35 31 97 247 Negative: Impacts on local community / property 31 7 2 10 111 166 Negative: Environmental impacts 37 10 21 10 39 120 Negative: Impacts on non-car modes 15 9 7 1 22 54 Negative: Supporting information / Council / consulta- 13 2 1 2 25 46 tion process Negative: Cost issues 2 4 12 4 12 34 Negative: Impacts on village (division) 15 0 2 2 8 27 Negative: Junction / roundabout design 8 3 4 2 7 24 Negative: Impacts on safety 6 1 0 1 9 17 Total 298 236 148 92 829 1625

4.7 Outstanding concerns

4.7.1 Respondents were then asked to identify any outstanding issues with their preferred option for the ACRR. Again they were provided with a list of fourteen options (plus ‘other’). 4.7.2 It should be noted that fewer respondents answered this question (787, or 60% of the total respondents), which implies that the remaining 40% of respondents do not have any concerns about their preferred route. 4.7.3 As shown in Figure 4-10, the main areas of concern are related to congestion (as mentioned by 26% of those who responded to the question) and the impact on wildlife (25%). Other frequently mentioned concerns include the impact on respondents’ journeys (21%), as well as environmental factors such as noise (21%), landscaping (18%), pollution (16%) and the impact on Arborfield Cross (18%). Figure 4-10: Outstanding concerns with preferred option for ACRR

Q3 Are there any issues with your preferred option that you still have concerns about? Congestion 26 Impact on wildlife 25 Impact on my journeys 21 Noise 21 Impact on Arborfield Cross 18 Landscaping 18 Pollution 16 Safety 14 Appearance/Design of the road 13 Effect on my home 12 Cost 10 Cycle paths 8 Effect on the view from my… 3 Effect on my business 1 Other 31

% respondents (n:787)

4.7.4 Further analysis of the issues raised by the respondent’s preferred route option is illustrated in Figure 4-11. Congestion is the key concern for each of the three options, particularly so for those in favour of Option C, though it should be noted that the sample size for this group is small (69). Responses from those in favour of Option D or exerting ‘no preference’ are not shown due to very small sample sizes.

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 34 Revised: 28/02/2014

Figure 4-11: Outstanding concerns related to each preferred option for the ACRR

Q3 Are there any issues with your preferred option that you still have concerns about by preferred route option

Congestion 24 25 35 Impact on wildlife 24 20 25 Impact on my journeys 20 2022 Noise 23 14 21 Landscaping 22 14 18 Impact on Arborfield Cross 8 2021 Pollution 15 9 16 Safety 6 1415 Appearance/Design of the road 16 1212 Effect on my home 17 10 17 Option A (n: 144) Cost 15 8 13 Option B (n: 538) Cycle paths 6 99 Effect on the view from my… 1 Option C (n: 69) 3 6 Effect on my business 1 1 Other 36 29 35 % respondents in favour of each option

4.7.5 Table 4-22 shows the difference between the issues mentioned overall and in relation to each of the route options (Option D has been excluded due to a small sample size). For example, overall, congestion remains an outstanding issue for 26% of all respondents, but for 35% of all those in favour of Option C (9 percentage points above average). Similarly, noise remains a concern for 20% of respondents overall, but for 23% of all those in favour of Option A (+3 percentage points). 4.7.6 In summary, the most frequently mentioned outstanding issues are the same for all three options – congestion, impacts on wildlife, noise levels and respondents’ journeys. However, the perceived impacts on Arborfield Cross and safety are less likely to be outstanding concerns amongst those who prefer Option A (just 8% and 6%, respectively cited these as concerns). The impact of the proposed route on ‘my home’ is less likely to be highlighted as an ongoing concern amongst those who prefer Option B, and those opting for Option C are less likely have outstanding concerns about pollution, noise and landscaping.

Table 4-22: Outstanding concerns by preferred option (difference)

Outstanding concerns related to each Option A Option B Option C Total preferred option (difference) Congestion -2 -1 +9 26 Impact on wildlife -1 0 -5 25 Impact on my journeys -1 0 -1 21 Noise +3 0 -6 20 Landscaping +4 0 -4 18 Impact on Arborfield Cross -10 +3 +2 18 Pollution -1 0 -7 16 Safety -7 +2 +1 13 Appearance/design of the road +3 -1 -1 13 Effect on my home +5 -2 +6 11 Cost +6 -2 +3 10 Cycle paths -2 +1 +1 8 Effect on the view from my home -1 0 +3 2 Effect on my business 0 0 0 1 Other +6 -2 +4 31 Total 144 538 69 779

Other Outstanding Issues 4.7.7 As shown in the charts above, a large number of respondents provided ‘other’ answers. These varied in length from a few words to several written sides. The responses have been coded thematically to allow quantitative analysis. Given the nature of the responses, they were coded to capture the details of the route option in question, the outstanding concern itself and any perceived impacts on specific locations that were mentioned in the response. However, it should be noted that not every response mentioned a route option, outstanding concern and a location. 4.7.8 Overall, 283 respondents mentioned ‘other’ issues in the space provided at Q3. In total, they listed nearly 650 separate concerns. All those mentioned in at least ten responses are shown in Table 4-23. The table also presents those comments which were not made in relation to any particular route option (~400 comments). 4.7.9 Given that congestion was the most frequently mentioned outstanding issue, as reported above, it is not surprising to find that of the ‘other’ answers, concerns relating to congestion issues are the most frequently occurring. For example, 33 respondents highlighted concerns that the proposed ACRR will create more traffic in an already-congested area, while 29 expressed the view that the new road will not improve traffic conditions as drivers will continue to use existing roads. A number of respondents (20 comments) expressed concerns about the impact the new road will have on other villages if traffic is displaced. Conversely, 22 comments were of a more positive nature, expressing the view that the proposed scheme will relieve existing traffic pressures. 4.7.10 The perceived impact on local businesses (27 comments), particularly farms (19), are recurring issues, as are concerns about the environmental impacts such as noise (11), visual intrusion (13), and the impact on local communities (11).

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 36 Revised: 28/02/2014

4.7.11 In terms of the design of the scheme, a number of respondents identified issues with junction design and access issues (16 comments), and there were several requests for safer cycle routes (15 comments) and traffic calming measures (13), with or without the proposed ACRR. Vehicle speeds (10), pedestrian safety (12) and the suitability of the route to handle large volumes of traffic (12) are other key areas of concern. A number of respondents (13) suggested alternative alignments for the ACRR. Table 4-23: Nature of outstanding concerns – overall

Overall Unrelated Outstanding concerns (Q3) no. of to any comments option Negative Concerns about the impact on congestion/ would create more traffic/ already 33 24 enough traffic in this area Would not make any difference to traffic / people would continue to use existing 29 10 roads Concerns about impact on (local) businesses 27 22 Concerns about impact on surrounding areas/ would increase traffic in surrounding 20 18 areas Concerns about impact on farm(s)/closure of farms 19 16 Junction issues/ access issues (poor layout, need redesigning) 16 12 Need to improve cycling conditions /safer cycle routes 15 15 Dislike idea /disappointed that Council considering such a scheme/ scheme does 14 5 not address traffic issues Do not support additional house building/ development/ will mean more cars on the 14 14 road Traffic calming measures need to be put in place (speed bumps, narrowing of 13 12 roads, etc) Alternative alignment/route suggested 13 4 Concerns about visual impact of new route 13 4 Concerns about impact on pedestrians/ road safety for pedestrians (including chil- 12 11 dren) Concerns that the roads are not suited to large volumes of traffic/ need to design 12 10 road capable of carrying heavier traffic Would affect community as a whole/ would lose a local amenity 11 10 Concerns about peak time problems/ that will cause more problems at peak times 11 7 Concerns about increased noise levels (mitigation required) 11 4 Concerns about vehicles speeding (safety concerns/ need to reduce speed limit) 10 9 Council has not taken notice of petition/ views/ lack of respect shown by Coun- 10 8 cillors Positive Would result in less traffic/congestion/ relieve traffic impact 22 1 Integrates with other proposed routes/ would link up new relief road to other areas 13 5

4.7.12 By means of a summary, the codes have been grouped into a number of areas, as shown in Table 4-24 below. This demonstrates that the most frequently arising comments, positive and negative, again focus on potential impacts on traffic. Environmental concerns and impacts on local businesses feature strongly in the negative comments.

Table 4-24: Nature of outstanding concerns – summary

Overall no. of Outstanding concerns (Q2) – summary codes comments Positive General support 59 Positive: Traffic / roads impacts 32 Positive: Impacts on local community / property 10 Positive: Impacts on businesses / farms 8 Positive: Environmental impacts 7 Positive: Cost issues 6 Positive: Impacts on village (division) 3 Positive: Impacts on safety 2 Neutral Neutral comments: Alternative route / alignment suggested 27 Neutral comments: timing 10 Requested modifications to junction / roundabout design 9 Neutral comments: requests for modifications to existing routes 3 Negative General opposition 32 Negative: Traffic / roads 187 Negative: Environmental impacts 59 Negative: Impacts on businesses / farms 56 Negative: Impacts on non-car modes 39 Negative: Impacts on local community / property 32 Negative: Junction / roundabout design 28 Negative: Supporting information / Council / consultation process 17 Negative: Cost issues 9 Negative: Impacts on village (division) 5 Negative: Impacts on safety 4 Total 645

4.7.13 With regard to the actual locations mentioned, around 160 respondents made reference to one or more location, meaning that around 350 locations were identified. A summary of the most prominent is provided in Table 4-25. Lockey Farm is the source of the largest number of comments (as cited in 38 instances), followed by Arborfield generally (26) and Arborfield Cross (20), Mole Road (25) and Swallowfield (23). The table also presents those comments which were not made in relation to any particular route option (~200 comments). Table 4-25: Location of outstanding concerns – overall frequency

Locations – Overall (Q3) Overall no. of comments Unrelated to any option Lockey Farm 38 32 Arborfield 26 14 Mole Road 25 8

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 38 Revised: 28/02/2014

Locations – Overall (Q3) Overall no. of comments Unrelated to any option Swallowfield/ Swallowfield Road 23 21 Eversley 22 16 Arborfield Cross 20 11 A327 17 9 Church Lane 13 9 Farley Hill 13 7 Garrison/ Garrison area 11 8

4.7.14 The outstanding issues have also been broken down by route option. Only those mentioned in at least four comments are shown in the tables below. 4.7.15 As Table 4-26 illustrates, the recurring issues relevant to Option A are related to the impact on the character of the area, noise levels and on local businesses, the impact on congestion (particularly Mole Road), and peak time constraints, and issues with junction design and access. Table 4-26: Outstanding concerns – Option A

Concerns – Option A (Q3) Overall no. of comments Would ruin character of area / Area of Special Character 5 Concerns about the impact on congestion 4 Concerns about peak time problems 4 Concerns about increased noise levels 4 Junction issues/ access issues (poor layout, need redesigning) 4 Concerns about impact on (local) businesses 4 Locations – Option A (Q3) Overall no. of comments Mole Road 10 Arborfield 5 Arborfield Cross 5 Lockey Farm 4

4.7.16 In terms of the outstanding issues specifically related to Option B, there are mixed views as to whether it will help alleviate traffic congestion, or make little difference if drivers do not change their routes (Table 4-27). Table 4-27: Outstanding concerns – Option B

Concerns – Option B (Q3) Overall no. of comments Would result in less traffic/ congestion/ relieve traffic impact 5 Would not make any difference to traffic / people would con- 4 tinue to use existing roads Alternative alignment/route suggested 4 Agree with proposal/ encourage use of relief road 4 Would re-direct traffic/ traffic noise/ away from centre of vil- 4 lage/ relieve pressure Locations – Option B (Q3) Overall no. of comments Mole Road 5

Concerns – Option B (Q3) Overall no. of comments Arborfield 5 Greensward Lane 4 Shinfield/ Shinfield Eastern Relief Road 4

4.7.17 Those respondents who commented further on Option C also took the opportunity to express the view that it would have a positive impact on traffic congestion and while expensive, would be ‘money well spent’ if the scheme proved to be effective. However, there were also some concerns about the visual impact of the route, particularly the elevated section over the River Loddon flood plain (Table 4-28). Table 4-28: Outstanding concerns – Option C

Concerns – Option C (Q3) Overall no. of comments Would result in less traffic/ congestion/ relieve traffic impact 7 Although expensive, still the best option/ money well spent 4 Concerns about visual impact (elevated section, etc) 4 Locations – Option C (Q3) Overall no. of comments Farley Hill 6 Garrison/Garrison area 3

4.7.18 Respondents stated very few outstanding comments in relation to Option D (there were four comments in total). Two responses expressed concern about the visual impact of the route, while one felt that it would be the best option despite the expense.

Comparison between alternatives 4.7.19 The summary codes for each option are presented side by side in Table 4-29. Table 4-29: Outstanding concerns raised in relation to each option (summary)

Option Commented On - No. of mentions Outstanding concerns (Q3) – summary codes None se- Option A Option B Option C Option D Total lected Positive General support 6 18 11 0 24 59 Positive: Traffic / roads impacts 1 17 10 0 4 32 Positive: Impacts on local community / property 0 5 3 0 2 10 Positive: Impacts on businesses / farms 0 3 3 0 2 8 Positive: Environmental impacts 4 2 1 0 0 7 Positive: Cost issues 1 0 4 1 0 6 Positive: Impacts on village (division) 0 2 0 0 1 3 Positive: Impacts on safety 0 2 0 0 0 2 Positive: Impacts on non-car modes 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 40 Revised: 28/02/2014

Option Commented On - No. of mentions Outstanding concerns (Q3) – summary codes None se- Option A Option B Option C Option D Total lected Neutral Neutral comments: Alternative route / alignment 2 10 2 0 11 25 suggested Neutral comments: timing 0 0 1 0 9 10 Requested modifications to junction / roundabout de- 1 0 0 0 8 9 sign Neutral comments: requests for modifications to exist- 0 1 0 0 2 3 ing routes Negative General opposition 7 4 1 1 18 31 Negative: Traffic / roads 16 17 3 0 141 177 Negative: Environmental impacts 14 9 13 2 21 59 Negative: Impacts on businesses / farms 7 1 0 0 48 56 Negative: Impacts on non-car modes 2 0 2 0 35 39 Negative: Impacts on local community / property 4 0 1 0 26 31 Negative: Junction / roundabout design 7 1 0 0 20 28 Negative: Supporting information / Council / consulta- 1 2 1 0 13 17 tion process Negative: Cost issues 1 1 4 0 3 9 Negative: Impacts on village (division) 2 0 0 0 3 5 Negative: Impacts on safety 0 0 0 0 4 4 Total 76 95 60 4 396 631

5 Consultation Findings – Exhibitions & Written Responses

5.1 Overview 5.1.1 This section presents a summary of the views expressed and comments raised during the exhibitions and in the detailed written responses that were submitted during the consultation period.

5.2 Exhibitions

5.2.1 Approach 5.2.2 As described in Chapter 2, eight staffed public exhibitions were held during the consultation period. Exhibition staff were on hand to answer questions, listen to concerns and provide more detail about the scheme options. The exhibitions proved to be popular, with a good level of turn out overall, though it is not possible to estimate the total number of visitors. 5.2.3 The launch event was held in Wokingham’s Market Place on Friday 13 and Saturday 14 September 2013 between 10am and 4pm on both days. The display included exhibition boards for both the Arborfield Cross Relief Road and North Wokingham Distributor Road schemes. The display was busy on both days and for the entire period, despite the generally cool and damp weather. Four staff attended this consultation. 5.2.4 Similar attendance was achieved at the first staffed Henry Street Garden Centre event, which was attended by three members of the project team. The other events were staffed by two team members. They were visited by fewer people but are still considered to have been useful in collating responses and giving residents an opportunity to discuss their concerns, points of view and to challenge the technical recommendations with Council officers.

5.2.5 Issues raised 5.2.6 Comments made by attendees of the staffed consultation events reflected many of the issues detailed on the questionnaire responses. General queries and comments raised by visitors which were clarified and answered by the WBC team have not been included in the analysis set out in this chapter; it therefore demonstrates only outstanding concerns. 5.2.7 The main issues arising during the staffed exhibitions are summarised as follows:

5.2.7.1 General comments Ŷ There were several enquiries as to the current position regarding the planning application to develop Arborfield Garrison SDL. Officers explained that while development at the Garrison is dependent on the relief road being provided, the development itself does not form part of the consultation. Ŷ General view that the relief road should be built before housing development commences. Ŷ Queries about the actual cost of each option and the source of funding. Ŷ Queries about the length of each route option.

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 42 Revised: 28/02/2014

Ŷ Queries about timescales for building the relief road. Ŷ Questions about whether the scheme is a Relief Road or a Bypass, and how they differ. Ŷ Questions about whether the Council will use its compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for the relief road and the level of compensation that will be made available. Ŷ Comments on the need for the Council to ‘look at the bigger picture’, as none of the options ‘achieves anything’. Ŷ Some praise and positive comments were received, for example “I live locally and am not a NIMBY. I support everything you are trying to do”. A further example: “We need homes and schools for our children and grandchildren”.

5.2.7.2 Comments on traffic issues Ŷ Comments on the immediate need to improve traffic conditions on Barkham Road as traffic is ‘bad enough now’ (i.e. prior to the SDL development). Queries as to whether the pinch points at the bridges on Barkham Road and Barkham Street will be improved to accommodate the additional traffic.

5.2.7.3 Comments on perceived negative impacts of the proposals Ŷ Concerns about the impact of Option A on Lockey Farm, Yew Tree Cottage and Chamberlain’s Farm. Ŷ Concerns about access arrangements to Henry Street Garden Centre from Arborfield Cross with Option A. Ŷ Concerns that existing problems with poor visibility at Walden Avenue and Greensward Lane junctions with the A327 Reading Road would be made worse by the relief road traffic, and that from the Arborfield Garrison development (residents are unable to safely exit the junctions in their present form. Some Greensward Lane residents wishing to turn right actually turn left and then U-turn in the Bridge Farm access where visibility is better).

5.2.7.4 Comments on provision for other road users Ŷ General concerns about the impact on public footpaths and bridleways, and particular concerns about severance of these routes by the relief road. Ŷ There is a perception that the existing roads in the area are not safe for cycling and consequently a perceived supressed demand for cycling. Ŷ Concerns about cyclists being at risk at new roundabout junctions. Ŷ Queries about public transport provision (need better buses and more frequent services). Ŷ Comments that the scheme should include more bus lay-bys on the route and upgraded bus stops.

5.2.7.5 Comments on design issues Ŷ Concerns that the proposed T-Junction at Yew Tree Cottage in Option A will not be able to accommodate HGVs and farm traffic ; a roundabout would be preferred.

5.2.7.6 Comments on consultation Ŷ Concerns that that some people in the village are still unaware of the planning application and the relief road scheme.

Ŷ Concerns about the language used in description boxes within the display material, for example a ‘shallow cutting’ (where this is over 6 metres), and the differing degrees of impact, for example it was unclear as to the difference between ‘impact’ and ‘severely impacts’. Ŷ There were a number of comments about the inaccuracy of some of the information on the display boards, e.g. place and road names missing and typing errors, such as a reference on the boards to ‘Kelly’s Farm’ rather than Kenny’s Farm, and the omission of the Area of Special Character. Ŷ Comments that the traffic flows (both existing and resulting from the relief road) should be on display for everyone to see. Ŷ Some comments that the Council has reneged on its promise (at an Executive Council Meeting) to contact all affected landowners prior to going to a public consultation. Ŷ Concerns that the Council has already made its mind up in favour of Option A because the landowners that would be affected by the other three options had not been consulted. Ŷ Concerns that the consultation process could be corrupted by multiple questionnaire returns by the same few people favouring a certain route option. Other concerns about the Council’s security procedures in this respect. Ŷ Complaints about ‘rogue’ posters introduced by a third party being used to influence those attending to support a particular option. This was a reference to an additional display that was placed next to the Council’s exhibition boards leading up to the staffed event on Friday 27 September summarising the results of Arborfield Parish Council’s own survey of Arborfield residents that favoured Option B compared to Option A. This contrasted with the Council’s neutral display boards that did not direct consultees to express any particular view. The posters were removed during the event and were not replaced at any time during the remainder of the consultation period. Ŷ Queries about what will happen with regard to the proposed scheme following the consultation.

5.2.7.7 Comments on other schemes/local issues Ŷ The need for a relief road to connect to Eversley bypass and other schemes in Hampshire. Ŷ The (urgent) need for a link road to Nine Mile Ride. Ŷ The need for improvements to California Crossroads. Ŷ Concerns about traffic from Hogwood Industrial Estate. Ŷ The need for WBC to review speed limits in the area (the proposed new road would have a speed limit of 40 mph yet Mole Road has a range of limits of 30 mph, 40 mph and 50 mph). Ŷ Concerns that mini-roundabouts on Barkham Road heading into Wokingham are to be replaced with traffic signals.

5.3 Written responses 5.3.1 As described in Chapter 2, postal and email contact addresses were available throughout the consultation period for members of the public to request information, ask questions about the proposed scheme and submit their comments. The nature and detail of written responses were logged in a database and these records have formed the basis of this analysis. Written responses (letters and emails) about the proposed scheme and comments made face to face by visitors to WBC’s offices have been recorded in the same fashion. 5.3.2 Over three-quarters of the letters received were from members of the public, though the responses summarised within this chapter do include a number from businesses (5) and stakeholder organisations (9), as shown in Table 5-1.

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 44 Revised: 28/02/2014

Table 5-1: Type of respondent

No. of responses Percentage of total Business 5 8% Organisation 9 14% Individual 49 78% Total 63 100%

5.3.3 The responses have been coded thematically to allow quantitative analysis. The vast majority of responses raised a number of issues/concerns. For example, a response may have included comments on the potential environmental impact of the scheme as well as questioned the likely impact on traffic flows. The subsequent analysis is therefore based on the total number of comments made rather than the number of written responses. In all, nearly 700 separate comments were contained within the 63 detailed written responses. The comments have been categorised into around 150 thematic groups (or codes) for analysis. For comparability, the same code frame has been used to analyse the verbatim responses included in the questionnaires and the written responses. The outputs of this analysis are summarised below. 5.3.4 The coding exercise has captured the details of the route options in question, the outstanding concerns and any perceived impacts on specific locations that were mentioned in the response (i.e. each comment was assigned three separate codes – i) the route, ii) the concern/issue, and iii) the location). However, it should be noted that not every response mentioned a route option, a concern/issue, and/or a location. Where a concern/issue related to the impact on two different locations, they were assigned two separate codes. For example, a response which expressed concerns about the impact on Lockey Farm and the impact on Chamberlain’s Farm would be coded as two separate issues (one code per location). 5.3.5 It should be noted that some respondents submitted written responses as well as completed questionnaires. All of these responses have been included in the analysis. However, where a respondent submitted multiple letters, they have been coded as one response, in that where the same issues or concerns were raised in several iterations of the letter, the issues have been coded only once to avoid duplication.

5.3.6 Issues raised by statutory and key stakeholders 5.3.7 Following the meeting with WBC officers on 5 September 2013, English Heritage (EH) submitted a formal response to the consultation. This urges WBC to progress the ‘least harmful practical route’, which EH considers to be either Options B or D. Option A is considered the ‘most harmful’, notably for its adverse impact (in terms of visual intrusion and noise impact) on the setting of the Grade II listed Yew Tree Cottage and Chamberlain’s Farmhouse. 5.3.8 While Options B and D would affect the rural character and quality of the wider landscape around other listed buildings, EH does not feel that the impacts would be as significant as Option A. Visual and noise mitigation measures would, however, be required to limit the adverse impacts of Options B and D. EH also requests the reinstatement of the historic form of the junction of the A327 and B3349 to the Arborfield Conservation Area as a heritage benefit regardless of the option pursued. 5.3.9 Of the nine responses received from stakeholder organisations, three were from the local parish councils; Arborfield and Newland, Barkham and Winnersh. All three expressed support for route Option B.

5.3.10 The responses raised a number of concerns with the proposed route options, notably the impact of increased traffic congestion, particularly towards Sindlesham if route Option A is progressed, and the potential environmental and noise impacts on the Arborfield and Barkham areas. The responses highlight the need for the route to be able to serve the proposed Garrison development, which they feel could be best achieved with Option B. 5.3.1 The responses submitted by key and statutory stakeholder organisations have been included in the analysis presented within this chapter. However, in summary, the organisations made the following notable comments: Ŷ British Horse Society and Mid and West Berks Access Forum – expressed concerns about the impact of route Option A on public rights of way north of Arborfield; Ŷ University of Reading – expressed concerns about the likely traffic impacts and is keen to see route options A and B taken forward for further study; Ŷ John Redwood MP - summarised the opinions of his constituents; Ŷ Arborfield Action Group - a local action group set up specifically to campaign against route Option A and support route Option B.

5.3.2 Comments expressed in written responses - overall analysis 5.3.3 Table 5-2 lists the recurring issues in the written responses. Only those issues mentioned in at least five responses are shown (a full list is available in Appendix B). As shown, the majority of the comments expressed are of a negative stance. 5.3.4 Aside from general expressions of support for and objection to one or more of the proposals, the most commonly occurring theme in the written responses is again congestion (32 comments relate to concerns about the impact of congestion). Other findings mirror the questionnaire results – such as the number of concerns about the impact on local businesses (27), particularly farms (5), and the possible loss of local employment (5). 5.3.5 Concerns about the potential impacts on the built and natural environment are the source of a number of comments – for example, 18 comments expressed concern about the loss of countryside and an area of natural beauty, 19 mentioned the impact on listed buildings/areas and 16 referred to the potential increase in noise levels. The impact on the community itself is a recurring theme, with a number expressing concerns about the divisive nature of the relief road; the loss of a community amenity; and impact on the character of the area. 5.3.6 Several responses expressed concerns about the impact public rights of way (13 comments) and equestrian access (5) and there were 9 comments about the need to consider a bridge or tunnel to maintain access to PROWs. There are also concerns about the impact of the scheme on road safety (18 comments) and the need for measures to reduce or better manage traffic speeds (9 comments), and improve pedestrian safety (5). 5.3.7 The consultation itself was the subject of a number of negative comments (19) and there was a similar number of comments about the actual need for the scheme (e.g. 11 comments focused on the view that people will continue to use existing roads; 12 commented on the scheme being a waste of taxpayer’s money). 5.3.8 In terms of the positive comments received, a number of respondents mentioned the benefits of the scheme in relieving traffic congestion and (10 comments) and redirecting traffic away from the village (12).

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 46 Revised: 28/02/2014

Table 5-2: Issues arising (overall)

Overall no. of Issue/comment comments Support scheme / option 64 Object to scheme / option 61 Negative Concerns about the impact on congestion/ would create more traffic/ already enough traffic 32 in this area Concerns about impact on local businesses / result in people shopping elsewhere 27 Concerns about impact on listed areas (buildings, trees, land, etc) 22 Would divide village 19 Negative comments on consultation 19 Safety issues / concerns 18 Concerns about impact on countryside / destruction of fields / natural beauty, SANG / 18 woodland Concerns about increased noise levels (mitigation measures required) 16 Concerns about impact on PROW 13 Concerns about impact on pollution / the environment 12 Waste of money / tax payer's money 12 Would not make any difference to traffic problem / people will continue to use existing 11 roads Would affect community as a whole /would lose a local amenity 10 Concerns about impact on area / area of special character 9 Worst route / should have looked at other solutions that would be less detrimental 6 Longer route / Would make my journey take more time 6 Concerns about impact on properties /devaluation of house prices 6 Would impact on recreation / playground / park / safe place for children to play 6 Map / plan / exhibition material is not up-to-date 6 Would affect residents / people would move elsewhere 5 Expensive / most costly / not cost effective 5 Concerns about impact on surrounding areas/ would increase traffic in surrounding areas 5 Concerns about T-junction / Would cause more problems / be dangerous 5 Would result in loss of open space / opportunity for people to spend time outdoors / 5 Would lose largest employer / would result in unemployment / loss of earnings 5 Concerns about impact on pedestrians / would be less safe for pedestrians 5 Concerns about impact on horse riders / bridle paths 5 Concerns about impact on farms / farmers 5 Positive Would re-direct traffic / noise of traffic away from centre of village / relieve pressure 12 Most cost effective / cheapest option / value for money 10 Would mean less traffic/ congestion/ relieve traffic 10 Direct route / would bypass all of / whole village 8 Would affect families / days out / loss of family attraction 8 Would have less impact on local businesses 6

Overall no. of Issue/comment comments Other positive / neutral answers 6 Would have less impact on pollution / the environment 5 Would have less impact on residents / less disruption for locals 5 Other Suggest need for traffic calming measures 11 Suggest need for tunnel or bridge for PROW 9 Alternative alignment / route suggested 6

5.3.9 By means of a summary, the codes have been grouped into a number of areas, as shown in Table 5-3 below. This demonstrates that the most frequently arising comments received are negative, and have a strong focus on potential impacts on the environment and traffic flows/congestion. Table 5-3: Issues commented on - summary

Overall no. of Nature of comment – summary codes comments Positive General support 64 Positive: Environmental impacts 12 Positive: Traffic / roads impacts 29 Positive: Impacts on non-car modes 2 Positive: Impacts on village (division) 13 Positive: Impacts on businesses / farms 6 Positive: Impacts on local community / property 14 Positive: Cost issues 10 Positive: Impacts on safety 3 Neutral Neutral comments: Alternative route / alignment suggested 12 Requested modifications to junction / roundabout design 3 Neutral comments: timing 3 Neutral comments: requests for modifications to existing routes 10 Neutral comments: alternative solutions to building new road 2 Negative General opposition 63 Negative: Environmental impacts 91 Negative: Traffic / roads 73 Negative: Impacts on non-car modes 37 Negative: Impacts on village (division) 15 Negative: Impacts on businesses / farms 43 Negative: Impacts on local community / property 42 Negative: Cost issues 28 Negative: Impacts on safety 21

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 48 Revised: 28/02/2014

Overall no. of Nature of comment – summary codes comments Negative: Junction / roundabout design 9 Negative: Supporting information / Council / consultation process 34 Total 639

5.3.10 In terms of the locations mentioned, 44 respondents commented on a total of 199 locations. Table 5-4 shows all those mentioned at least five times. The most frequently mentioned locations were Mole Road (29 comments; many of which were related to concerns about increased congestion) and Lockey Farm (27; related to concerns about the impact on the farm), followed by Arborfield (20) and Arborfield Cross (20). A full list is available in Appendix B. Table 5-4: Locations commented on

Location Overall no. of comments

Mole Road 29 Lockey Farm 27 Arborfield 20 Arborfield Cross 20 Reading Road 13 South Winnersh Road 12 Farley Farm 11 Greensward Lane 8 Jennets Park 7 Henry Street 6 Farley Hill 5

5.3.11 In terms of the route options that were the subject of comment, as shown in Table 5-5, Option A was the source of the greatest number of comments (246). There were similar numbers of comments on Options B and D (115 and 100, respectively), and fewer (69) on Option C. In total, 53 respondents gave 530 comments on the route options. Table 5-5: Route option commented on

Location Overall no. of comments

Option A 246 Option B 115 Option C 69 Option D 100 No option in particular 163 Total comments 693

Option A 5.3.12 Of the 246 comments recorded in relation to route Option A, all those mentioned on at least 4 occasions are shown in Table 5-6 below. A full list is provided in Appendix B.

5.3.13 It is evident that the perceived impact on local businesses is again the greatest area of concern amongst those commenting on Option A (20 comments). The impacts on congestion, listed buildings and severance of the village are also key reasons for objection to this route alignment. 5.3.14 Other concerns include increased noise, pollution and visual intrusion and anxiety that Option A will create road safety issues and result in more accidents. There are also a number (4) concerns about the design of the T-junction (on Swallowfield Road). 5.3.15 Several respondents took the opposite view (12 expressed support for Option A), the main reasons being the cost-effectiveness of this option (6 comments) and the positive effect it would have on redirecting traffic away from the centre of the village (7). Table 5-6: Issues arising – Option A

Overall no. of Issue/comment – Option A comments Negative Concerns about impact on (local) businesses 20 Object to route option 19 Concerns about the impact on congestion/ would create more traffic/ already enough traffic 14 in this area Concerns about impact on listed areas (buildings, trees, land, etc) 14 Would divide village 12 Concerns about safety issues/ increase in accidents/danger 10 Concerns about increased noise levels (mitigation required) 9 Concerns about increased pollution/ greater impact on environment 8 Would ruin character of area / Area of Special Character 7 Would affect community as a whole/ /would lose a local amenity 5 Would affect recreation/ playground / somewhere safe for children to play 5 Worst route option/should have looked at other solutions that would be less detrimental 5 Concerns about impacts on house prices 4 Concerns about T-junction /will cause more problems/ be dangerous 4 Concerns about visual impact (e.g. for residents) 4 Positive Support for route option 12 Would re-direct traffic/ noise away from centre of village/ relieve pressure 7 Most cost effective/ cheapest option/ value for money 6 Would result in less pollution/ less impact on environment 5 Would result in less traffic/ congestion/ relieve traffic impact 4 Would have less impact on businesses/ local businesses 4

Option B 5.3.16 Of the 115 comments recorded in relation to route Option B, very few were mentioned on 4 or more occasions (Table 5-7). A full list of comments is provided in Appendix B. 5.3.17 As shown, 26 respondents expressed support for this option (while 6 are opposed). The route alignment, allowing the village of Arborfield to be bypassed, is the most frequently cited reason for

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 50 Revised: 28/02/2014

supporting this option (5 comments), followed by the lesser impact this option would have on residents (4 comments). 5.3.18 The negative responses included comments on the potential loss of open space and countryside and the cost of the scheme (4 in each case). Table 5-7: Issues arising – Option B

Overall no. of Issue/comment – Option B comments Negative Object to route option 6 Concerns about impact on countryside/ destruction of fields/ natural beauty 4 (SANG/woodland) Waste of money/taxpayers’ money 4 Would require traffic calming measures to be put in place 4 Positive Support for route option 26 Direct route/ would bypass all village 5 Less impact to residents/ least disruption for locals 4

Option C 5.3.19 Of the 69 comments focusing on route Option C, very few were mentioned on 4 or more occasions (Table 5-8). A full list of comments is provided in Appendix B. 5.3.20 As shown, 13 respondents stated that they are opposed to Option C; the main reasons being the potential loss of countryside and the cost of the scheme. However, 8 responses expressed support for the Option C alignment. Table 5-8: Issues arising – Option C

Overall no. of Issue/comment – Option C comments Negative Object to route option 13 Concerns about impact on countryside/ destruction of fields/ natural beauty 5 (SANG/woodland) Waste of money/taxpayers’ money 4 Positive Support for route option 8

5.4 Option D 5.4.1 Given the relatively low level of support for Option D, it is not surprising to find that the majority of the comments submitted in relation to this alignment were negative. Of the 100 comments related to route Option D, those mentioned on at least 4 occasions are shown in Table 5-9Table 5-6. A full list of comments is provided in Appendix B.

5.4.2 Fifteen responses expressed an objection to Option D. The main reasons included the perceived impact on local traffic congestion (6 comments) and noise levels (6), as well as the impact on local businesses (5). Several comments (4) referred to the additional journey time and distances the route would create. Table 5-9: Issues arising – Option D

Overall no. of Issue/comment – Option D comments Negative Object to route option 15 Concerns about the impact on congestion/ would create more traffic/ already enough traffic in this area 6 Concerns about the impact on noise levels (would require mitigation) 6 Concerns about impact on (local) businesses 5 Would not make any difference to traffic problem/ people would continue to use existing roads 5 Concerns about impact on listed areas (buildings, trees, land, etc) 4 Concerns about impact on countryside/ destruction of fields/ natural beauty (SANG/woodland) 4 Waste of money / taxpayers’ money 4 Longer route/ would increase my journey time 4

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 52 Revised: 28/02/2014

6 Summary

6.1 Overview 6.1.1 This chapter sets out a brief summary of the consultation findings and highlights the key outstanding area of concern.

6.2 Participation in consultation 6.2.1 The varied approach to the consultation, which ensured that interested parties had easy access to a range of consultation materials at public exhibitions and on the internet, along with a widespread communications campaign to raise awareness of the consultation, has resulted in a good level of response to the public consultation exercise, with some 1300 feedback forms and over 60 written responses returned to date. 6.2.2 Around a third of the questionnaire responses received were from residents of the Arborfield ward. A number of residents in Wokingham, Barkham, Finchampstead, Woodley, Earley, Winnersh, Swallowfield and Farley Hill also responded to the consultation. The age profile of respondents is fairly closely aligned to the overall profile of Wokingham residents, though it is noted that women were more likely to respond than men. 6.2.3 It is understood that there were several local campaigns to encourage respondents to express their preference for Option B over Option A, notably the ‘Save Lockey Farm’ and ‘Arborfield Action Group’ movements. 6.2.4 Responses were not limited to one per household as it is fair to accept that residents within the same household may have different views. However, the number of returns by postcode sector has been examined and it has been concluded that, with regard to those questionnaires where address data was provided, there does not appear to have been any concerted attempts to influence the results of the exercise by entering large amounts of duplicate data. 6.2.5 It is recognised that some respondents submitted multiple written/detailed responses but care has been taken to ensure that in coding the responses received, the issues raised have not been double- counted. Notwithstanding this, it is possible that some interested parties may have expressed their views at an exhibition, as well as submitted a questionnaire and a detailed written response. Double counting is not considered to be an issue here because the results of the various elements of consultation have been reported separately within this report.

6.3 Key findings 6.3.1 The exercise has demonstrated strong support for Option B. This route connects the A327 west of Arborfield Cross close to Bridge Farm, west of Greensward Lane, and the Langley Common Road south of the village and close to Ducks Nest Farm. The route would form a new junction with Swallowfield Road west of Greensward Lane and Arborfield Court. Overall, 71% of those who completed a feedback form expressed support for Option B. Following this, 18% expressed support for Option A, just 8% for Option C and 3% for Option D.

6.3.2 Support for the Option B alignment is particularly high amongst those from Wokingham, Barkham, Sindlesham, Woodley, Earley, Winnersh, Spencers Wood and Shinfield (over 80% of respondents from these areas expressed a preference for Option B). The majority view amongst Arborfield residents is also support for Option B (68%), though it is noted that there is some support for Option A (19%). In contrast, respondents from the Swallowfield and Farley Hill area (including Riseley and Eversley) are more likely to support Option A (58%) than Option B (30%). 6.3.3 In making their decision on the preferred option for the ACRR, around half of all respondents considered the impact of the proposed scheme on Arborfield Cross (49%). This is not surprising given the level of response from the Arborfield area. Other factors considered include the impact on traffic congestion (36%), on individuals’ homes (24%) and journeys (28%) as well as environmental considerations (e.g. the impact on wildlife, 28% and noise levels, 22%). Analysis of verbatim comments has also highlighted that a number of respondents considered the impact of the scheme on local businesses and farms (notably Lockey Farm). Concerns about the potential loss of this important local business and amenity have shaped a number of responses. 6.3.4 The consultation has demonstrated that the public and stakeholders have a number of concerns with all four of the options proposed, in particular the impact of the relief road on congestion (as mentioned by 26% of those who responded to the question), wildlife (25%), noise (21%), landscaping (16%), pollution (16%) and respondents’ journeys (21%).

6.4 Next steps 6.4.1 Given the support for Option B, but also the number of concerns about the proposed ACRR in general, there are a number of issues which should be further investigated. 6.4.2 In order to counter and respond to ongoing public and stakeholder concerns, the Council needs to undertake further work to gain clarity on the deliverability, implications and costs of Option B. This will include examining land ownership issues, design and safety issues as well as thoroughly investigating the environmental mitigation measures that would be required.

Project number: 10395858

Dated: 31/01/2014 54 Revised: 28/02/2014

Appendices