South Wokingham (Swspd)

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

South Wokingham Strategic Development Location SPD – Consultation Responses Theme 1: THE SDL DEVELOPMENT – Topic: Availability of land for development / Greenfield development / Scale of development / Separation of settlements Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Availability of land for development FC2/SW/7 Mark Leedale Planning Waterloo Crossing Cottage lies within the identified settlement. Land has not been made available for Summary the major housing site. House builders have no objection to the land and property being developed Requests for the inclusion of Knoll Farm in in its own right. Please amend key diagram to the SDL and the exclusion of Waterloo accurately reflect the available land. Crossing Cottage from the SLD. The former FC2/SW/1E Robert Plester No-one wants these developments. Tell the would bring benefits in terms of highway government to build any extra houses away from safety and strategic flood risk assessment. the already crowded South East of England The latter can be developed independently FC2/SW/44 Michael Bingham My clients have engaged with the consortium of of the SDL. housebuilders/developers who control the South of Wokingham SDL. The talks have been positive, to the WBC Response extent that the consortium would be interested in including the land at Knoll Farm within the development area. The The SDL boundary has been established, land is currently sandwiched between existing built development to the north, with the allocated development consulted on and agreed through the Core land to the south. As such, it would make sense for the Strategy process. The SPD cannot amend site to be included as part of the SDL development area, the SDL boundary as it cannot amend the rather than to leave a small farm operating amidst the content of policy documents. Knoll Farm is surrounding development. inside the SDL boundary

Clear benefits to including the land – existing access to Recommendation: No change the site could be closed off, dramatically improving the recommended highway safety aspects. Furthermore, all farm related traffic would no longer use Gipsy Lane. Including Knoll Farm within the SDL boundaries would allow for a comprehensive flood risk assessment to be carried out. Clearly, any development on Knoll Farm would respect the existing watercourses by not developing within the associated flood zones.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Greenfield development FC2/SW/4 Andy Fairclough Once green belt and green space is destroyed it is gone forever for future generations. The local Summary council seems hellbent on destroying and ruining [it] forever against the wishes of the local populace. Concern is expressed about the loss of FC2/SW/9 Colin Knight Building 650 houses will erode the previous Green open countryside and green space in and Belt between Wokingham and Bracknell and destroy around Wokingham. the rural image on the approach to Wokingham from the East. Objection to Greenfield development taking FC2/SW/23 Helen Dodsworth Brownfield land should be used before Greenfield place in advance of Brownfield land. development. Considerable land is available FC2/SW/24 Marion Knowles Brownfield land should be used before Greenfield at Reading to accommodate homes on land. Brownfield land. FC2/SW/25 Nina Bell-Williamson Brownfield land should be used before Greenfield land. WBC Response FC2/SW/26 and Gareth Rees Brownfield land should be used before Greenfield FC2/SW/03 land. The SDL boundary has been established, FC2/SW/34 Martin Bloomfield The loss of green space will completely change the consulted on and agreed through the Core look and feel of the area. Strategy process. The SPD cannot amend FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith Brownfield land should be used before Greenfield the SDL boundary as it cannot amend the land. content of policy documents. FC2/SW/48 Mary Williams Oppose any future homes development on Greenfield space. Wokingham has access to a The scale of housing to be developed within large area of Brownfield locations, which should be the Borough cannot be accommodated on used so that Greenfields are not destroyed. Brownfield land. The Council cannot seek to FC2/SW/88 Ralph and Rosalind Further development such as the new Keephatch deliver housing outside the Borough Hardy area, other than infill where suitable, should be boundary. dismissed entirely unless local residents vote for it. There are areas the other side of Reading with more In accordance with the Core Strategy the brown-field sites whereas Wokingham is dying of SWSPD makes provision for open space suffocation. and SANG to meet the needs of the FC2/SW/89 Kim Russell and Philip Unable to find any substantial countryside left in the proposed SDL and the SDL also includes Fitness whole project. It all seems to be about squeezing as areas that will be retained and covered by countryside designation. many homes onto as small an area as possible, Wokingham is to be a town of concrete Recommendation: No change Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

monstrosities with pocket-handkerchief gardens for recommended the masses. FC2/SW/93 Leslie Skinner It addition we have the proposed rail link between Reading and Heathrow coming through Wokingham, more supermarkets and the last bit of greenery in town, Elms Road to be built on plus the Cricket Ground – please stop this madness to a historic market town.

Scale of development FC2/SW/2E Simon Daughters Need to move the boundary for rural interface development further north to start parallel to Long Summary Patch and White Horse Cottage to be more sympathetic to existing development. Confirmation Objection to the new development is that Long Patch is included in the new settlement expressed on the grounds that new sites do boundaries is requested. not need to be designated and there is no FC2/SW/9 Colin Knight No need to build more houses for next 5 years as need for new houses as there are planning approval has been granted for 1900 outstanding consents within the Borough. houses, and Jennet Park remains undeveloped. FC2/SW/15 Patricia Green All windfall sites as well as reserved sites for houses The view is expressed that housing must be counted towards the total number for the numbers should be reduced, and the impact Borough. There is no need to designate any further of development in Wokingham and sites. Bracknell, including traffic impact, should be FC2/SW/23 Helen Dodsworth Housing numbers should be reduced, and other considered together. areas within commuter distance to Wokingham should be considered. Need to look at total impact The infrastructure in Wokingham cannot of all developments in Wokingham and Bracknell cope with this scale of development. rather than considering each separately, particularly in relation to traffic modelling. The scale of the development will change FC2/SW/24 Marion Knowles Housing numbers should be reduced, and other the character of the town. areas within commuter distance to Wokingham should be considered. Need to look at total impact WTC broadly support the SDL and agree of all developments in Wokingham and Bracknell with the infrastructure funding requirements. rather than considering each separately, particularly Impact from development across the in relation to traffic modelling. Borough should have been assessed.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/25 Nina Bell-Williamson Housing numbers should be reduced, and other areas within commuter distance to Wokingham Opposition is expressed on the grounds that should be considered. Need to look at total impact the Government is calling for greater local of all developments in Wokingham and Bracknell decision making; local views should be rather than considering each separately, particularly canvassed. in relation to traffic modelling. FC2/SW/26 and Gareth Rees Housing numbers should be reduced, and other WBC response FC2/SW/03 areas within commuter distance to Wokingham The adopted Core Strategy is informed by should be considered. Need to look at total impact the Housing Needs Assessment, which of all developments in Wokingham and Bracknell indicates need for new homes within the rather than considering each separately, particularly Borough in the period to 2026. This report is in relation to traffic modelling. available to view. Housing numbers are now FC2/SW/29 Colin George Infrastructure around Wokingham cannot cope with fixed in the Core Strategy and cannot be this massive development. changed in the SWSPD. FC2/SW/34 Martin Bloomfield The loss of green-space, and the transport and infrastructure changes required to support these The transport model that has now been proposed housing numbers will completely change completed is based on the whole of the and alter the current look and feel of the area. Borough and accounts for some cross- FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith The plan to build 660 houses on the Buckhurst boundary movement. On this basis, the Farm site is totally unacceptable and numbers impact of all development will be should be reduced and relocated to a non understood. The IDC SPD addressed Greenfield site. Borough-wide requirements as well as FC2/SW/48 Mary Williams Opposes the number of houses in Wokingham and those within the SDL boundaries. New surrounding areas. There are plenty areas within infrastructure is aimed at achieving “nil- commuting distance of Wokingham which could be detriment” across the network by 2026. used to locate new housing. FC2/SW/53 Rebecca Harrison No consideration given to the impact of the traffic The character of the town will alter as a that the new development will bring. The town result of large scale development, but the already suffers from traffic congestion. SW SPD is aimed at ensuring high FC2/SW/61 Peter Hession Proposed house density should be reduced. standards of design. FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan – Wokingham Town Council broadly agrees with WBC Wokingham Town development strategy, where projected SDLs Recommendation: No change Council housing numbers are no greater than the average of recommended the past 20 years; it notes that control of development will enable developers' contributions to

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

fund infrastructure to a substantially greater degree than has been achieved previously. However, it has concerns on the actual infrastructure proposed and (see above for summary, WBC response its phasing. and recommendations on this issue)

We are concerned that by considering each SDL separately, we miss the overall impact that these developments will have in totality, never mind the additional impact of Wokingham town centre redevelopment & Bracknell Forest's Jennetts Park and other developments. Of particular concern is the combined traffic impact on London Road, the Coppid Beech, roundabout, Finchampstead Road and the "school run" to St Crispin's School. FC2/SW/79 Olga Hughes Whilst acknowledging the need for new houses we are concerned that the large development of houses proposed at Arborfield and TRL in Bracknell have been made without due consultation between the two authorities, namely WBC and Bracknell Forest Council and how these developments will affect the lives of the people already living in these areas. FC2/SW/80 Malcolm Hughes Whilst acknowledging the need for new houses we are concerned that the large development of houses proposed at Arborfield and TRL in Bracknell have been made without due consultation between the two authorities, namely WBC and Bracknell Forest Council and how these developments will affect the lives of the people already living in these areas. FC2/SW/88 Ralph and Rosalind We oppose the development of the proposed Hardy number of houses in Wokingham and the surrounding areas. The government has said that local residents should decide whether or not their locality should undergo further development, and our views should be canvassed and adopted.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

If it goes ahead, then the numbers of houses should be reduced further to leave at least 50% of the present open country undeveloped and with public (see above for summary, WBC response access equivalent to at present. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/SW/89 Kim Russell and Philip Housing already increased dramatically in the area. Fitness FC2/SW/90 P Illsley I write in support of the South Wokingham SDL. I fully support the Buckhurst Farm development as I believe Wokingham needs more new houses especially for the younger generation. FC2/SW/91 Mr and Mrs Oliver We write in support of the South Wokingham SDL which includes Buckhurst Farm development as we think that the younger generation of Wokingham do need these new houses. FC2/SW/93 Leslie Skinner In support of Priest Ave Residents association endeavour to lessen the number of houses being built on Buckhurst Farm. Separation of settlements FC2/SW/16 Ms S L Brown Development will erode green gap between Wokingham and Bracknell and result in loss of Summary countryside. FC2/SW/21 Eric and Evangeline To keep green gap between Bracknell and A large number of respondents object to the Thompson Wokingham need to build further back from the road reduction in the strategic gap between to give the impression of green fields as you travel Wokingham and Bracknell. Opposition to along London Road. development at Buckhurst Farm is FC2/SW/23 Helen Dodsworth Wokingham in danger of merging with Bracknell. expressed, as this will have a visual impact FC2/SW/24 Marion Knowles Wokingham in danger of merging with Bracknell. on the perception of separation. If St Anne’s FC2/SW/25 Nina Bell-Williamson Wokingham in danger of merging with Bracknell. manor is developed there will no separation FC2/SW/26 and Gareth Rees Wokingham in danger of merging with Bracknell. south of London Road. FC2/SW/03 FC2/SW/30 Robert G L Gunn If St Anne’s Manor site is redeveloped there will be Green spaces around the town have been no separation from Bracknell on southern side of eroded; objection to further erosion is London Road. Need to maintain separation of expressed. settlements. FC2/SW/33 Great Langborough The "Landscape Character Assessment" in Section 1; There is no justification for the SDL which

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Residents' Association Holme Green Pastoral Sandy Lowland includes most will lead to merging of settlements. of the Southern SDL area. Under Key Issues: Built Development it states: Demand for residential Development at Jennets Park will further development is continuing to push towards the reduce strategic gap. amalgamation of adjacent areas. Under Associated Guidelines, it states: “Protect the individual identity of Support is expressed for Core Strategy settlements by conserving the rural character of the CP21 settlement separation designation on landscape between adjacent towns and village centres the constraints plan (Figure 2.2). and avoiding amalgamation of these settlements. This is particularly important in this area which is close to Support is expressed for Principle 1a(iii) in Wokingham. relation to the maintenance of gaps. FC2/SW/37 Patricia Gunn If St Anne’s Manor site is redeveloped there will be

no separation from Bracknell on southern side of WBC Response London Road. Need to maintain separation of The Council is committed to the retention of settlements. strategic gap as confirmed in CP21 of the FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith Buckhurst Farm is of strategic importance as the Core Strategy. development of this site would erode the gap

between Wokingham and Bracknell. The SPD identifies SANG at the eastern FC2/SW/45 Bob Gunn How the separation of settlements between side of the SDL to support the separation Wokingham and Bracknell is to be maintained. between Wokingham and Bracknell. SANG FC2/SW/48 Mary Williams Wokingham is in danger of merging with Bracknell in this location is supported by Natural and other nearby towns. England and Bracknell Forest Borough FC2/SW/59 Anne & Gordon Wall Reduction in the "Green Gap" between Bracknell Council. and Wokingham, and the proposed "Ring Road "through the centre of the development will Alternative options to the SDL were undoubtedly cause a traffic hazard to the new considered at the Core Strategy stage and residents were subject to an SA/SEA to determine FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan – Developments in both North Wokingham and South appropriateness. The Core Strategy Wokingham Town Wokingham, Wokingham is in danger of merging Inspector found the SA/SEA to be sound. Council with Bracknell, with the possibility of its having no SANG on its western flank, and other nearby towns The SM4 Consortium are supportive of the and losing its distinctive character. SANG and the recognition of the strategic FC2/SW/65 Broadway Malyan – on We note additional elements have been added at gap within the SWSPD. behalf of South Para 2,3,5 which refers to the importance of Wokingham Consortium maintaining separation of Wokingham from Note: Jennet’s Park is within BFBC Binfield/Bracknell, Crowthorne/Pine and boundary Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Finchampstead North settlements, It is for this reason and in accordance with Core Strategy Policy Recommendation: No change CP21 (4), that the provision of SANG land to the Recommended south and east of the SDL, in addition to areas defined as 'Potential Green Open Space' have been (see above for summary, WBC response identified in the master plan to provide the and recommendations on this issue) appropriate measure to maintain the separation from existing settlements, The retention of these areas of land in an undeveloped form or as SANGS will ensure the continued separation of the aforementioned settlements, FC2/SW/67 Peter & Wendy Dacey The SPD mentions a distance of 25m from the new developments to the houses at the in Priest Avenue, but this is little more than the width of Clay Lane and adjoining undergrowth itself and would provide only a limited buffer. FC2/SW/72 Patricia Clark Has promise of green gaps been inserted into SPD? Very unhappy about area becoming urban sprawl and loss of identity. FC2/SW/78 Sarah Warr No justification as to why the sites were selected, and what options or alternatives were considered.

Object to the merging of villages, where the green space dividing communities has been marked for development. Crowthorne will be engulfed into a sprawl.

With regard to green gaps, there was a promise of a network of greenways to connect into Wokingham Town, this has been omitted from the revised Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) - I request that it is reinstated.

I would like you to reconsider the plan to avoid "joining" towns, although Pinewood may not be

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

considered a green area, it is a gap that provides space, building on it is not the correct action. FC2/SW/81 John Reekie Concern over the reduction of green space between Wokingham & Bracknell. There is currently limited (see above for summary, WBC response green space between Wokingham and Bracknell, and recommendations on this issue) with Jennets Park recently reducing this further. The proposed SPD to the south of Wokingham will further reduce that green space dramatically.

FC2/SW/86 T Lown If the council is concerned about separation of settlements then no building would be allowed on Buckhurst Farm as the distinguishing line between Bracknell and Wokingham is being eroded. FC2/SW/88 Ralph and Rosalind It is essential that the few green spaces around Hardy Wokingham are preserved. The town has deteriorated tremendously in recent years from the remorseless increases of traffic and population. Wokingham HAS merged with Winnersh; there is grave danger now that it will merge with Bracknell. FC2/SW/89 Kim Russell and Philip We are interested to know who was responsible for Fitness deciding on how the separation of Binfield/Bracknell, Crowthornel/Pinewood and Finchampstead North works. Looking at the proposed situation it would appear that the plan is to join Jennetts Park onto Wokingham, blurring any division and wiping out each towns character. FC2/SW/93 Leslie Skinner If plan for Buckhurst Farm goes ahead it will literally be joined with Wokingham at Coppid Beech Roundabout. FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley The introduction of the 'settlement separation' Associates designation from Core Strategy CP21 (referred to as CP18 in error) on to the Constraints Plan at Figure 2.2, and the related paragraph 2.3.5 are welcomed.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

The Landscape and Visual Appraisal work undertaken in support of the Phase 1 outline application at Buckhurst Park confirms the land between Wokingham and Bracknell that best (see above for summary, WBC response performs this function, and has assisted in and recommendations on this issue) identifying the appropriate eastward extent of development on the south side of the A329 London Road.

The Amen Corner SPD (adopted March 2010) and the Preferred Options Site Allocations DPD January 2011) are promoting significant development at Amen Corner, Jennetts Park and Crowthorne. The developments need also need to be taken into account, more particularly because of the implications on maintaining settlement separation and the impact on existing and proposed transport infrastructure within Wokingham.

FC2/SW/99L Max Baker – Bracknell Need to maintain gaps between Wokingham and Forest Borough Council Binfield/Bracknell and Crowthorne/Pinewood. Acknowledgment of WBC's commitment to the gap between Wokingham and Bracknell in Design Principle 1a(iii) is welcomed. OTHER

FC2/SW/67 Peter & Wendy Dacey Financial implications from developers in producing WBC Response the site will mean high costs. How will these be recovered given that 35% of the developments is to CP5 determines the level of affordable be affordable housing. housing within the SDLs. Affordable housing will be part of the package of contributions arising from the planning consent and will therefore be accounted for by the developers.

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

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

recommended

Theme 2: IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENT & AMENITY - Topics: Impact on wildlife/loss of trees/Biodiversity / SANG / Proposed open spaces / Views / Pollution / Flooding / SUDS / Allotments / A sustainable location Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Impact on wildlife/loss of trees / Biodiversity FC2/SW/6 Stephen and Barbara Clay Lane hedgerows, ditches and paths need to be Smith preserved, and so does access for old and new Summary residents, although not to such an extent that it is overused. The lane should not be “modernised”. Clay Lane and its features will need to be FC2/SW/8 Edouard Mee Meadowland area of Buckhurst Farm is of great protected. There are mature trees that value to dog walkers and ramblers and allows should be afforded the protection of a TPO. children to play in the countryside. Protect local Clay Lane will be cut-off from other open plant and wildlife especially the wild deer. spaces and its ecological value FC2/SW/9 Colin Knight Clay Lane should be fully protected. undermined. FC2/SW/20 Mr and Mrs Peel What legislation is in place to protect Clay Lane? This needs to be robust. Buckhurst Farm gives access to countryside FC2/SW/22 Andrew Pettit How will Clay Lane be protected? SANG should be and wildlife. Wildlife and ecology must be adjacent. protected and the impact of development FC2/SW/23 Helen Dodsworth Impact on existing local nature reserves. should be mitigated. Doubt is expressed as FC2/SW/24 Marion Knowles Impact on existing local nature reserves. to whether the ecological value of the site FC2/SW/25 Nina Bell-Williamson Impact on existing local nature reserves. can really be enhanced as a result of built FC2/SW/26 and Gareth Rees Impact on existing local nature reserves. development. Local nature reserves must FC2/SW/03 be protected. FC2/SW/29 Colin George Impact on wildlife. FC2/SW/28 S N Cockroft Natural appearance of the area will be changed WBC Response

forever. Careful consideration must be given to ensure harmful effects of the development are The Council is committed to protecting Clay mitigated. lane. A Tree Preservation Order is in place to protect the trees. The SWSPD has been FC2/SW/32 Kay Pettit How will Clay Lane be protected? SANG should be amended to include a minimum of 25m adjacent. between new and existing development to FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith The erosion of the final gap between Wokingham ensure Clay Lane is protected. SWSPD and Bracknell would have a detrimental effect on Appendix C provides illustrative guidance in wildlife. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The Ib(ii) seems to be guilty of a contradiction, in that it relation to this. Wokingham Society sees the need to mitigate built development in a manner which 'enriches and enhances the overall SWSPD paragraph 6.1.4 makes it clear that habitat'. You really cannot build on land and thereby any planning application is likely to require improve it as a natural habitat. We would of course the completion of an Environmental Impact like it to happen, since we have enjoyed this part of Assessment (EIA), which will be based on the countryside for many years, but we regard it as detailed site surveys. The EIA will establish totally unfeasible, and an indication that insufficient the anticipate impact of development and thought has been given to the real issue of will propose measures to mitigate against protecting the local environment. It can of course be these. an achievable aim in the SANGs and green open spaces, but that has nothing to do with the built Recommendation: No change areas. recommended. FC2/SW/55 Ben Dudley Should Clay Lane be improved to the extent that it forms a standalone amenity in its own right. The minimum distance of 25 metres from new properties to the existing fence line on Priest Avenue includes existing Clay Lane trees and hedges, grass, and road/pavement - this appears to mean that there is no net increase in trees on Clay Lane and it is likely that Clay Lane will degrade over time due to it's fragmentation from other green areas. Would like to see a larger minimum distance and additional native tree planting to widen the woodland corridor which would enhance the natural environment. FC2/SW/75 Peter and Susan Dawe A Tree Preservation Order must be placed upon the existing trees lining Clay Lane, if they are not already so protected. FC2/SW/85 Mr W Williams Please make sure that Clay Lane and its trees will not be infringed by the new housing. FC2/SW/86 T Lown Important that the trees in Clay Lane are protected and that the new houses are not too close to them. So that if the SANG can not be moved next to Clay Lane I would please ask that you ensure a decent gap between the edge of the canopy of trees and the development, for example, the width of the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

canopy plus the same distance again. SANG FC2/SW/9 Colin Knight Country Park SANG should be to the west adjoining Clay Lane. It would preserve a small but preferred Summary rural look. FC2/SW/10 Colin Mitchell SANG would be of more benefit if located closer to The SANG should be located on the Priest Avenue, and a SANG nearer Clay Lane western part of the Buckhurst Farm site would help with natural drainage. adjacent to and including Clay Lane. This FC2/SW/11 Janice Mitchell SANG would be of more benefit if located closer to will benefit existing residents and ensure Priest Avenue, and a SANG nearer Clay Lane the retention of existing access to open would help with natural drainage. space for recreational purposes. It will also FC2/SW/16 Ms S L Brown SANG should be next to Clay Lane. avoid the need to cross the SDR to reach FC2/SW/17 Mr Povey SANG should be repositioned from the south east to the SANG. northwest of development. How else would Clay Lane and its trees be protected? Some residents concerned that the Council FC2/SW/18 Mrs J A Povey SANG should be repositioned from the south east to had committed to SANG adjacent to Clay st northwest of development. How else would Clay Lane at public meetings (Exec Meeting 21 Lane and its trees be protected? October 2010). FC2/SW/19 C. W. Griggs Why can’t SANG be adjacent to the rear of Priest Avenue. How will Clay Lane be protected? Other respondents feel that SANG should be located to the west of the development where it will be more accessible. This will ensure that it fulfils its role more than if it were located in the east.

Further respondents believe the current SANG location is critical to the maintenance of the strategic gap between Wokingham and Bracknell.

Reassurance is sought about the management of the SANG once it is in place, and that it will be protected from future building.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Contributions to SAMM measures are requested.

FC2/SW/20 Mr and Mrs Peel Why can’t the SANG be located alongside Clay WBC Response Lane? Safer and closer access and would break up the development with a green space. The Council has identified the SANG FC2/SW/21 Eric and Evangeline SANG should be on the western side of the location in order to reinforce the continued Thompson development. separation of settlements. This view FC2/SW/22 Andrew Pettit Why is SANG located on the far side of the remains, but the Council is committed to the development where fewer people can access? protection of Clay Lane as a green feature, FC2/SW/23 Helen Dodsworth SANG should be moved next to Clay Lane to and requires a minimum of 25m stand-off by ensure recreation area is still within walking any new development in this location. distance. FC2/SW/24 Marion Knowles SANG should be moved next to Clay Lane to The quantum of SANG is calculated ensure recreation area is still within walking according to a specified formula (Principle distance. 1c(vi)) established by English Nature, so the FC2/SW/25 Nina Bell-Williamson SANG should be moved next to Clay Lane to amount of SANG to be provided, as well as ensure recreation area is still within walking the criteria for SANG are established; no distance. further SANG can be required. FC2/SW/26 and Gareth Rees SANG should be moved next to Clay Lane to FC2/SW/03 ensure recreation area is still within walking The SPD does not currently set out any distance. responsibilities for management of the SANG, unlike SM4SPD which indicates that the Council and the Parish Council may play a role. The SPD could be amended to be consistent with SM4SPD.

Principle 1c(vii) requires open spaces and SANGs to remain in perpetuity in keeping with the requirements of the Core Strategy.

FC2/SW/27 Julian McGhee SANG should not be next to St Anne’s Manor as Recommendations: Summer people will need to cross a busy distribution road to access. SANG should be adjacent to Clay Lane. If Recommendation: Text changes to

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

necessary SANG at St Anne’s should be reduced paragraph 1c(vii) to acknowledge the and additional land used at Clay Lane. requirement for maintenance and FC2/SW/28 S N Cockroft SANG should be on the western side of the management costs and to refer to the development adjacent to Clay Lane. This would need for maintenance to be in keeping increase access and reduce the number of car with the quality and quantity standards journeys made to access the SANG. It would also of Natural England. enhance the area, and provide a more established atmosphere making it look less man made. Would Recommendation: Text addition to also help with flooding to have SANG next to Clay Section 6.5 “The successful Lane. maintenance of public open space and FC2/SW/30 Robert G L Gunn Why is SANG located on the far side of the green infrastructure is as important as development where fewer people can access? How the design and creation of the spaces will Clay Lane be protected? and landscape. It is therefore essential FC2/SW/32 Kay Pettit Why is SANG located on the far side of the that measures are put in place to ensure development where fewer people can access? the long-term effective management and FC2/SW/33 Great Langborough The SANG areas will not meet their key objectives if WBC will expect developers to engage in Residents' Association the public access is limited. We see no details of discussions about the management of planned access points or routes. Grazing land not public open space either by a open to the public does not meet these needs. management company or community FC2/SW/37 Patricia Gunn Why is SANG located on the far side of the development trust, or by the Borough or development where fewer people can access? How Town Council where it might be will Clay Lane be protected? appropriate for these public sector FC2/SW/43 Paul Armitage It seems very odd to me that the SANG is not being organizations to adopt the land; this is located midway between the existing settlement and likely to apply to the ongoing the new. Not only may this help with drainage, it would stewardship and management of SANG also provide easy access for old and new residents. for instance.” The area is currently used for recreation by old residents so it would seem sensible to maintain the present arrangement. This point has been made numerable times so it is difficult to understand why the developers persist in proposing something less useful. FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The There is no indication of how the SANGs and open Wokingham Society green spaces within the SDLs will be managed after completion of the developments, nor is there any statement assuring their preservation from future building.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/46 Peter Must The requirement at 1f(i) for management of the SANGs and other landscape elements needs to (see above for summary, WBC response include local representation on whatever decision and recommendations on this issue) making structure is chosen. As part of this process, we would reiterate the need for the long-term protection of these open spaces to be guaranteed by assignment as town parks or other conservation status. FC2/SW/48 Mary Williams The SANG proposed in Buckhurst Park to be moved to alongside Clay Lane, thereby ensuring that the small amount of recreation area left to us is still within walking distance. FC2/SW/59 Anne & Gordon Wall The position of the SANG proposed in Buckhurst Park does not make sense, surely it would be better for the SANG to separate the older development of Priest Avenue and the new development of modern houses and also allow both sets of resident to access it, especially if the distribution road were to be sited at the opposite end of the development. The majority living in this area believes this suggestion to be the most sensible, yet it appears that our views are being ignored and overridden by only two councilors, apart from St Anne's Manor I believe that there is only one other property at that end of Buckhurst Farm, do they have a bigger claim to the SANG than the residents of Priest Avenue and London Road? If so could you offer a satisfactory explanation as to why this is. FC2/SW/50 Simon Royle The park or SANG should be developed as a quality recreational area and be located at a site where it will be within the shortest possible average walking distance for the majority of residents of East Wokingham. This will reduce the use of cars driving onto the new development to access the SANG thereby reducing congestion; pollution and

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

accidents. FC2/SW/52 Lynn Harrison I consider the proposed location of the SANG, in the (see above for summary, WBC response south East corner of the development to be wrong. If and recommendations on this issue) this SANG were positioned on the Western side of the development it would serve the existing community better, (easily accessible without using a car and adding to traffic problems.) The proposed SANG would not fall within a walkable distance for residents of the surrounding residential areas. FC2/SW/53 Rebecca Harrison The proposed SANG is too distant from the existing communities to be truly accessible. FC2/SW/59 Phil Chicester - We support the aims of the SPD and the intention of the client is to work with the Council to deliver its aims and objectives. We have also raised specific concerns with points of detail in the SPD such as the level of POS and SANGS which should also be addressed at this stage. FC2/SW/61 Peter Hession The SANG should be placed next to Clay Lane so as to preserve and enhance Clay Lane's existing rural character and also to enable easier access to the

SANG by current local residents for their enjoyment.

FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan _ No indication of how the SANGs and open green

Wokingham Town spaces within the SDLs will be planned before and

Council managed after completion of the developments. These are highly significant issues and we would ask that they be addressed at an early stage so that both existing and future residents can be reassured that the landscape within the SDLs will not be subject to further development.

The role of the SANG location in the South Wokingham development in ensuring the clear separation in perpetuity between Wokinqham and Bracknell/Crowthorne is critical. FC2/SW/67 Peter & Wendy Dacey The proposed SANG north of the railway line appears to be as far from the majority of housing, both existing and proposed, as possible, and will require all users to Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

cross the SDRI/Spine Road. It would be better placed to the west of the spine road allowing better access for (see above for summary, WBC response all. and recommendations on this issue) FC2/SW/70 N L Riches Move the SANG to the western side of the development as not easily accessible to any body except those living on the new development. If moved to the opposite side it would be available to people living in Wescott ward without having to walk along a busy main road or having to cross the spine road of the new estate. This road in time will form a very busy part of the proposed Southern by-pass. FC2/SW/74 Carrie Temple - RSPB We are concerned therefore that the SPDs for the four SDLs do not clearly and consistently reflect the requirement for the provision of SANG and complementary contributions towards SAMM. The Arborfield Garrision, South of Wokingham and North of Wokingham SPDs do not appear to mention the need to contribute towards SAMM at all. We strongly recommend that to avoid any doubt the SDL SPDs should clearly and consistently set out the need for SDLs to contribute towards SAMM measures, as well as providing bespoke SANGs in perpetuity; FC2/SW/82 Monica Madsen The proposed position of Country Park at Buckhurst Farm would mainly benefit the residents of the new estate and not the existing residents. Locating the new country park adjacent to Clay Lane would seem less penalising towards existing residents and would offer both new and existing residents the immediate enjoyment of the country park. FC2/SW/83 Mark Leadeham The proposed position of Country Park at Buckhurst Farm would mainly benefit the residents of the new estate and not the existing residents. Locating the new country park adjacent to Clay Lane would seem less penalising towards existing residents and would offer both new and existing residents the immediate Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

enjoyment of the country park. FC2/SW/85 Mr W Williams At a council meeting in March last year we were told that the SANG could be located alongside Clay (see above for summary, WBC response Lane. This makes sense because a green area and recommendations on this issue) would be within a close distance of present and future development. However, this has now been changed so that it would be located on the eastern side of the new houses. I think, most or all of the present residents who attended the meeting and who would be affected, want the SANG next to Clay Lane but their wishes are being dismissed. FC2/SW/86 T Lown The majority of residents living next to Buckhurst Farm would like the SANG next to Clay Lane and although David Lee originally said this was could be done the latest proposal will put the SANG to the east of the new development. The reason given that a green gap needs to be maintained between Wokingham and Bracknell Look at the proposal, however, and the houses would begin just after St Ann's Manor so you won’t see it from the London Road but if you stand on top of a train passing by you may be able. Also, doesn't it make sense to put a recreational area where it can be accessed easily from the London Road, Priest Avenue and the new residents?

FC2/SW/87 Jeanette Lown As most of the residents wish for the SANG to be located next to Clay Lane it makes no sense for it to be placed on the far side where it will be made much less use of. If it were placed next to Clay Lane this would also protect this area and its trees. FC2/SW/92 A Reynolds I think I have attended every meeting where it was suggested that the SANG be on the West of the Buckhurst Farm development, to adjunct Clay Lane. Votes were taken and there was a unanimous vote

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

that this be so. The voice against this, again and (see above for summary, WBC response again, was of Councillor Angus Ross who wanted and recommendations on this issue) the SANG to be on the East of the development to adjunct the grounds of the Hilton Hotel and a neighbouring house. As previously written that the SANG to the West of the site, would not only benefit existing residents of Wokingham generally but also new residents/

The developers are not opposed to this and neither is English Nature (stated by David Lee at an Extraordinary Meeting of the Executive on 21st October 2010). At this meeting Councillor Julian McGhee-Sumner put forward a motion regarding the SANG, which was seconded. Councillor Angus Ross then interrupted proceedings and the motion was not voted upon. So the democratic process was not fulfilled. Surely it is not right for a' Councillor who is not even the Ward Councillor for the area, to have such influence. FC2/SW/97L Heather and Adrian Why must the SANG be located to the far side of Mcleod the development where fewer residents can make use of it? How will Clay Lane be protected? FC2/SW/99L Max Baker – Bracknell The proposed location of the SANG within the SDL Forest Borough Council is supported as this will help maintain the gap between the settlements of Wokingham and Bracknell. However, where Design Principle 1c(vi) states that SANGs "should" be maintained in perpetuity this should be amended to "must" or "will", in order that the SDL is self-mitigating and avoids increased pressure upon recreational facilities and open space capacities (including SANGs) within Bracknell Forest. Views FC2/SW/33 Great Langborough We believe that the distribution of dwellings and the

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Residents' Association route of the distribution road within the Southern Summary SDL should be reviewed to protect the value of the view from the footpath from the railway foot bridge Concern is expressed that the route of the off Gipsy Lane. Residents value very highly the rural SDR will interrupt views from the railway view from this footpath. It is heavily used by residents bridge to the open countryside. This is a from our area and other parts of the town. The map valued view. If the route were moved to be shows Phase 4 near Chapel Green containing a small immediately adjacent to the railway it would area of development immediately to the west of the not obliterate the view in the same way. path. This would obscure from users of the path this much treasured rural view. We do not believe that a Also, concern is expressed that pockets of partial view between properties will compare with the housing at Gipsy Lane and Chapel Green quality of the current aspect with Its gentle counters to Farm will obscure views. the Emm Brook and beyond to Lucas Hospital. This is probably the highest value rural view within 1 km of the The SWSPD stages key views should be town centre. The Relief Road layout illustrated In the Phase 4 area would run through the middle of the view maintained but the preferred spatial from the path, thus destroying Its rural nature. framework plan does not allow this. However, if the road route was closer to the railway in this area, the view could be effectively preserved. The New text is requested (as previously footpath would be the most natural pedestrian route to promised) regarding the benefit of views in the town centre for residents in the Phase 3 and 4 and out, between development and developments. This Increases the value of maintaining countryside. an open rural view. Redistribution of houses in Phase 4 to occupy more of the area currently shown as the No follow-up on request for the land to be SANG in S4 and part of the SANG in S3 would enable considered for conservation area status. the housing total to be maintained at its current level. Also the impact of the road on the rural view to the WBC Response south of the Waterloo railway. FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The The requirement in 3.1.2 of 'maintaining key views Both the route and the role of the SDR have Wokingham Society both in and out, between the development and the been carefully considered during the open countryside'. We fully concur with this aim, but SWSPD preparation. The SDR is intended do not consider that it has been applied in respect of to act as a “connector” rather than a the proposed housing to the west of the Gipsy Lane separator of areas within the development, - Ludgrove footpath, where the most significant and to provide a focus for the outlook over open country would be obliterated. neighbourhood centres. It cannot achieve this if it is moved to the northern periphery Inappropriate photographs from largely urban of the SDL. Principle 5a sets out design Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

developments elsewhere in the country do not criteria for the SDR. properly reflect the need for local, sensitive solutions to landscape and building design issues. Similarly, areas indicated for development In our view they should be withdrawn from the are to ensure the delivery of 2,500 dwellings SPDs. The response to the previous consultation and the required level of open space and said this aspect would be reviewed but nothing has social infrastructure on the site, taking changed. account of the known site constraints. FC2/SW/46 Peter Must Design principle 2a says that' a smaller pocket of development can be accommodated in the west of Paragraph 3.1.2 recognises the challenge the site, close to Chapel Green Farm'. This is in involved in maintaining views to the open contradiction to requirement stated of 'maintaining countryside. key views both in and out, between the development and the open countryside'. In its Previous omissions regarding the response to concerns expressed in the previous importance of views can to be added. consultation, the Council said that it would 'add text to all SDLs regarding benefit of incorporation of Recommendations: Design Principle 1e views of landmarks, distant views, etc'. This text can be expanded to acknowledge the cannot be found and should be inserted as a importance of visual connectivity minimum. between the town, the development and the countryside. An additional The Council also said that it would 'refer request for requirement can be added at 1e to Conservation Area status [for this land] to require development proposals to Conservation Team for consideration'. There is no identify and incorporate view corridors evidence this has been done from the railway bridge to the countryside beyond into the development layout.

Pollution

Summary FC2/SW/29 Colin George Increased pollution levels due to increase in traffic. FC2/SW/75 Peter and Susan Dawe Bridge Crossing over the Railway Line as the traffic The development will lead to increased on the SDR will be elevated as it approaches, pollution including noise and air pollution passes over and leaves the bridge, specific Noise

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Abatement Measures will be required to reduce WBC Response noise pollution for new and existing residents. Noise and air quality will be addressed FC2/SW/81 John Reekie The increased noise to existing residents from the through the EIA required at paragraph new development. 6.1.4, and will be subject to the Noise and Air Quality Regulations.

Recommendation: No change recommended

Flooding FC2/SW/10 Colin Mitchell Waste water drainage will be worsened by new development. Summary FC2/SW/11 Janice Mitchell Waste water drainage will be worsened by new development. The development will lead to increase flood FC2/SW/5 Phiala Mehring on There is very little comment in SPD’s regarding risk as a result of concreting over green behalf of LVRA managing flood risk both on and off site (three of the field land. proposed SDLs already have flood issues associated with them). This should be included in The area has a history of flooding. Parts of the environmental section of the SPDs and also the the area (for example close to Tesco) and infrastructure (sic). A water management strategy existing streets (Priest Avenue, Waterloo should be put in place. Also ground water conditions Road, Osterley Close, Finchampstead Road should be analysed and factored into the flood risk are mentioned) already suffer from flooding. analysis of each site. Both Shinfield Link Road and Buckhurst Farm gets waterlogged. SANG are in the flood plain and should be consulted upon asap. There will be a risk of surface water run-off FC2/SW/6 Stephen and Barbara Priest Avenue and Osterley Close should be to Priest Avenue. SANG at this location Smith included in Table 4 (SA/SEA) in terms of planning would help to alleviate this. against floods. FC2/SW/10 Colin Mitchell Risk of flooding – Buckhurst Farm and Clay Lane Request is made for the scope of the flood frequently waterlogged, and also Priest Avenue. protection measures to be set out. FC2/SW/11 Janice Mitchell Risk of flooding – Buckhurst Farm and Clay Lane frequently waterlogged, and also Priest Avenue. Flood alleviation and attenuation measures FC2/SW/16 Ms S L Brown Moving the SANG adjacent to Clay Lane would help are welcome but management and with flooding problems on Priest Avenue. maintenance of these features has not been

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/17 Mr Povey South eastern side of Priest Avenue flood risk. The good in the past. The Council needs to flood run off risk must be increased substantially. ensure good management. FC2/SW/18 Mrs J A Povey South eastern side of Priest Avenue flood risk. The flood run off risk must be increased substantially. Mitigation against flooding should be a FC2/SW/19 C. W. Griggs The development would increase the risk of priority. flooding. FC2/SW/20 Mr and Mrs Peel A soak away pond is not sufficient in mitigating flood Has a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment risk. (SFRA) been carried out; what did the FC2/SW/22 Andrew Pettit What are the potential added flood risks as a result results show? of the land being concreted over? FC2/SW/28 S N Cockroft Risk of flooding. Run off risk to those living on the The EA support the general approach but south eastern side of Priest Avenue as a result of look to work collaboratively with the Council the new development. and developers to refine the location of FC2/SW/30 Robert G L Gunn Potential run off risk for those living on the south flood alleviation measures. The eastern side of Priest Avenue from development. development presents an opportunity to Has a full flood risk assessment been undertaken look for longer term solutions to the site. and what were the findings? FC2/SW/32 Kay Pettit What are the potential added flood risks as a result The SM4 Consortium acknowledges flood of the land being concreted over? alleviation but as these will benefit the wider area they cannot be solely responsible.

FC2/SW/37 Patricia Gunn Potential run off risk for those living on the south WBC Response eastern side of Priest Avenue from development. Has a full flood risk assessment been undertaken The SWSPD identifies flood risk as a key and what were the findings? constraint that has and will continue to FC2/SW/39 Phiala Mehring for Flood risk as areas of site lie within flood zones 2 inform the SWSDL and future planning LVRA and 3. Areas beyond the site already suffer from applications for the SWSDL. flooding. SANG·- the EA must be consulted ASAP in regard The planning and design of the preferred to SANG to ensure flood risk is managed effectively. spatial framework plan for South FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith With the history of flooding, coupled with the Wokingham has been informed by known massive increase in run-off from the development, risks from flooding. This is reflected through the risk of flooding will be increased substantially. the location of new development outside of FC2/SW/46 Peter Must The footpath close to Chapel Green Farm is subject areas of high flood risk and to help protect the residential quality from risks of flooding, Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

to frequent flooding from its high water table and the SWSPD recommends at Principle 1c(ii) water feeds from below the surface of the land. that a comprehensive system for water Home involved should be distributed elsewhere on management will need to be provided that the site. includes at least: FC2/SW/61 Peter Hession It must be ensured that the development does not • proposals for effective sustainable urban increase the flood risk for residents at the Waterloo drainage, drawing on evidence from other Road end of Priest Avenue given that the adjacent developments; part of the development is the lowest point in the • measures to avoid flood risk; development. Any drainage ponds in the South • new ponds, which can enhance the Western part of the development must be properly recreational and visual qualities of the SDL; managed, for example so that they are not allowed and, to become stagnant. • wetland areas.

This implies a SFRA will be required, but as this is not explicit in the text it can be added.

The SWSPD also draws attention to the existing network of watercourses, ponds and drainage ditches that should be considered within overall flood attenuation and open space strategy (paragraph 5.2.4).

The Council welcomes the EA response and will continue to collaborate with the EA and developers to identify an optimum solution.

FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan – “standard" statements on flood protection, but what Recommendations: Wokingham Town is the process for deciding what is required in both Council North and South Wokingham developments? The Text be added at SPD Principle 1.c(ii) to only obligation on developers is to "ensure volumes make it clear that a Strategic Flood Risk and peak flow rates of surface water leaving the Assessment will be required in relation SDL are no greater than the rates prior to the to any proposed development within the proposed development". SDL boundary. WBC is urged to think again about what provision Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

will be made for flood protection, outside the scope In order to ensure the optimum flood of developer contributions, given the problems protection measures are implemented in caused by peak flow rates in July 2007. the SDL it is recommended that the FC2/SW/65 BroadwayMalyan – on We acknowledge the inclusion of the potential flood Council note that the Wokingham Core behalf of South alleviation measures on the master plan. However Strategy Appendix 5 makes provision for Wokingham Consortium given the benefits of this are primarily for the wider monitoring. This ensures the Council will area outside of the SDL and not a prerequisite of the monitor and where necessary review the SDL per se, the Consortium cannot be solely adopted SPD and supporting responsible for its delivery and funding. SA/SEA/HRA documents (as necessary) FC2/SW/66 Carol Harraway Concerned you have not realised how dangerous over its anticipated 15 year lifespan in the area was during the July 2007 floods. The relation to key issues that arise to volume and force of currents in the fast-flowing ensure it provides the optimum guidance waters that surrounded flats near Tesco, meant that based on the best information available being washed away by these high-force currents at that time, and taking into account any was a likely outcome Our property is the still development and infrastructure as it derelict property (having been destroyed by those occurs, in order to achieve the best floods) opposite these flats, and bordering the possible outcome from the Development tributary stream that runs under Finchampstead Rd Management process. bridge by the roundabout. With all the planned development, the pressure on this flood basin area is bound to increase. The surrounding fields and farms - which you have ear-marked for houses - became a lake of some c.5ft depth during the floods. Your flood risk plain should be larger - it is out of date - and your development plans should have flood planning and mitigation as a priority. It would also be helpful if all new houses in this area were built on stilts to minimise the damage and devastation of future floods, which obviously will occur again.

We (and our neighbours) have also visited and called the council, and EA, on numerous occasions because Wokingham council do not adequately maintain flood defences, and the ditches and waterways are not properly cleared. You are Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

routinely instructed by the EA to take action, but cite lack of funding to oblige. I hope you will take flood (see above for summary, WBC response mitigation more seriously than is currently evident in and recommendations on this issue) your proposals. FC2/SW/67 Peter & Wendy Dacey The SPD mentions areas subject to flood risk but does not identify these. Buckhurst Farm already holds water during rainy periods and clearly covering Buckhurst Farm with houses will increase the risk of flooding to houses in Priest Avenue and the surrounding roads. FC2/SW/71 Mr Jack Moeran – Areas around Finchampstead Road along the Emm Environment Agency Brook, and also north of the railway line near Wood’s Farm have experienced some historical flooding. By working with you and Thames Water some short-term, temporary solutions have been implemented. The development of this site offers an ideal opportunity to look for a longer term solution that would benefit the local area.

We support the identification of a potential flood alleviation option on the framework plan (figure 3.1). This is not necessarily the most appropriate location and so should not be taken literally and we are very keen to work collaboratively with your Authority and the developer to identify specific causes and possible solutions to this on-going problem. FC2/SW/85 Mr W Williams Flooding, where water ran off Buckhurst Farm, was a problem a few years ago. A storm drain was installed but if a large area is going to be concreted has provision been made to compensate for the possibility of future flooding. FC2/SW/86 T Lown With large areas being concreted or having tarmac where Buckhurst Farm would have been, would you please ensure adequate provision is given to avoid flooding.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/87 Jeanette Lown Has been some very serious flooding at the end of Priest Avenue near the level crossing and that even houses in Osterley Close had water passing their (see above for summary, WBC response doors. Can we be assured that the concreting over and recommendations on this issue) of farmland will not exacerbate this problem in the future? FC2/SW/97L Heather and Adrian Potential run off risk from the Buckhurst Farm Mcleod development. Anyone living on the south eastern side of Priest Avenue must be concerned bearing in mind the flood history locally? The flood run off risk must be substantially increased? FC2/SW/99L Max Baxter – Bracknell The SDL contains a flood risk area which extends Forest Borough Council across the boundary into Bracknell Forest. Have cross boundary issues been considered in terms of avoiding increased risk of flooding within Bracknell Forest? Sustainable drainage FC2/SW/5 Phiala Mehring on Promotes the correct planning, implementation and behalf of LVRA maintenance of SUDS and would like to see SUD Summary plans required as part of outline planning applications. Support is expressed for the use of SUDS, FC2/SW/28 S N Cockroft Developers will be expected to make contributions where appropriate, provided these are in to SUDS but positioning of the development is key. the appropriate location. FC2/SW/42 Mark Mathews – Design Principle 1d(ii}: Thames Water supports the Thames Water use of sustainable drainage systems in appropriate Management and maintenance of SUDS is circumstances. However, it should also be noted critical to their success. that sustainable drainage systems are not appropriate for use in all areas, for example areas EA recommend removal of SUDS location with high ground water levels or clay soils, which do from Figure 4.1 to ensure most appropriate not allow free drainage. A well maintained and location can be identified. managed sustainable drainage system is required to prevent it becoming ineffective, potentially WBC Response increasing overland flows and consequently having an impact on the sewerage network. The Council welcomes the support for FC2/SW/43 Paul Armitage I would like reassurances about the drainage SUDS.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

arrangements for the new development. FC2/SW/71 Mr Jack Moeran – We are pleased to see that you continue to seek a Recommendation: Environment Agency comprehensive water management system to avoid flood risk and incorporate sustainable drainage. The Figure 4.1 be amended in line with EA key on Figure 4.1 refers to opportunities for comments to remove reference to SUDS sustainable drainage systems. The location of these location. features will need to be identified through the initial design phase and be fully integrated into the development areas in line with the Core Strategy concept statement and section 1d(ii) of this SPD. It is therefore misleading to infer that they would follow the line of the watercourse and hence located within an area of flood risk. This would mean the drainage system may not properly function at all times and so we recommend this part of the key is removed from this plan. Allotments No specific comments made

A sustainable location No specific comments made

Theme 3: HIGHWAY SAFETY Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response FC2/SW/10 Colin Mitchell New road through development will carry heavy traffic including HGVs. This is a hazard to Summary pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles. New distribution road should be routed round Buckhurst Concern is expressed that increased traffic Farm not through it. will affect road safety across the area. FC2/SW/11 Janice Mitchell New road through development will carry heavy School children’s safety on Easthampstead traffic including HGVs. This is a hazard to Road will be affected. pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles. New distribution road should be routed round Buckhurst The SDR should not go through the scheme Farm not through but should be restricted to the edge of the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/16 Ms S L Brown Waterloo Road crossing should be closed to avoid development where it will not impact on additional traffic and health and safety risk to pedestrian safety and will not present a pedestrians, especially school children going to St threat to school children. It should be Crispin’s. designed as a suitable arterial route. FC2/SW/17 Mr Povey Safety issues arising from the major distribution road through the Buckhurst Farm and HGVs. Safer Junctions known to be hazardous to route the road away from houses and proposed (Easthamstead Road and Old Waterloo school. Road junction for example) should be FC2/SW/18 Mrs J A Povey Safety issues arising from the major distribution addressed, including where this requires road through the Buckhurst Farm and HGVs. Safer cross-boundary negotiations. to route the road away from houses and proposed school. The Waterloo Road and Easthampstead Road Crossings should be closed as they are a danger to users. School children do not currently cross the line as St Crispin’s does not draw children from south of the railway but this will change following completion of the SDL. Alternatively Waterloo Crossing could be used for “access only”. The rail industry and associated organisations support the closure of all level crossings. Level crossings can affect train services.

FC2/SW/19 C. W. Griggs New road will cause safety issue. Safer to route road away from residential area and proposed WBC Response schools. FC2/SW/20 Mr and Mrs Peel Increase in traffic flows along Priest Avenue present The SDR is intended to function as a a health and safety issue. Closure of Waterloo “connector” rather than separator of the Road rail crossing would help and so would SDL. Design principles 5a, 5b and 5c set enforcing the no admittance to vehicles over 7.5 out design requirements which will generate tonnes. a broad tree line street which is attractive to FC2/SW/22 Andrew Pettit Why must the new main distributor road be routed users and an appropriate setting for through the heart of the development, particularly development. This is in line with Government advice set out in the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

close to the new school? This is a safety risk. Department for Transport’s Manual for Will the Waterloo Road level crossing be closed to Streets , whose design principles are prevent drivers cutting through. advocated by the SWSPD. FC2/SW/30 Robert G L Gunn Safety issues arising from the major distribution road through the Buckhurst Farm and HGVs. Safer All proposals will be subject to audit by the to route the road away from houses and proposed Council’s safety auditors, who will ensure school. SANG should be adjacent to Clay Lane for that the streets are designed to be safe and ease of access and safety of pedestrians. appropriate to their context. FC2/SW/22 Kay Pettit Why must the new main distributor road be routed through the heart of the development, particularly Principle 5a(iii) makes provision for the close to the new school? This is a safety risk. closure of Waterloo Road crossing should Will the Waterloo Road level crossing be closed to Network Rail wish to pursue this. In the prevent drivers cutting through. meantime 5a(iii) indicates that the crossing could be downgraded to restrict car traffic. FC2/SW/37 Patricia Gunn Safety issues arising from the major distribution road through the Buckhurst Farm and HGVs. Safer Recommendations: No changes to route the road away from houses and proposed recommended school. SANG should be adjacent to Clay Lane for ease of access and safety of pedestrians. FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith Significant safety issues resuIting from increased volume of traffic generated by the proposed development. Traffic queues into Wokingham along the A329 are currently a daily problem - at peak times from Plough Lane. Traffic generated by the new developments should not be directed through the existing neighbourhood road network. FC2/SW/45 Bob Gunn The new southern distributor road should be made as safe as possible. Also how safety for children crossing the Waterloo Road level crossing will be ensured. FC2/SW/48 Mary Williams The Level Crossings at Waterloo Road and Easthampstead Road should not be closed but Waterloo Road be made 'Access Only' for residents to prevent cut-though resulting from new developments. If the Waterloo Road Crossing is to

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

be closed the Council should ensure that the (see above for summary, WBC response junction by the Ostrich Farm (Easthampstead Road and recommendations on this issue) junction with Old Waterloo Rd) is made safe. (This junction is not under Wokingham Council's jurisdiction but on Wokingham resident's behalf I believe it is essential that Wokingham Councilors meet with their counterparts from Bracknell Forest Council and agree to improve it). The Easthampstead junction is unsafe and without traffic lights or some such intervention I fear I will end up with a serious accident or death on our consciences. FC2/SW/50 Simon Royle The relief access road should be located on the far Eastern side of the Buckhurst Farm development with less than 20% of the housing to the East of it to reduce the number of pedestrians crossing events and therefore accidents on what will inevitably become a busy road. FC2/SW/55 Ben Dudley The protection of the character of Priest Avenue as a quiet and safe residential road is a key concern and the development plan if incorrectly implemented risks increasing the use of the road as a dangerous 'rat-run'. This concern is exacerbated should the Southern Relief Road not be substantial enough to form a significantly easier arterial traffic route to London Road than existing residential streets. FC2/SW/67 Peter & Wendy Dacey Section 2.2.1 of the SPD notes the inability of the existing level crossings at Waterloo Road and Easthampstead Road to cope with existing traffic numbers. In particular, barrier down times are very long at the latter - can be 5 minutes even with only one

train passing but section 5 a (iii) suggests the possible Downgrading/closure of the Waterloo Road level crossing as a consequence of the Buckhurst Farm development. This is likely to put severe pressure on the Easthampstead Road crossing which would then

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

become the only route out towards Pinewood/ Jennetts Park areas. This again leads to increased accident (see above for summary, WBC response risks - the far end of Easthampstead Road, with a tree and recommendations on this issue) at the road junction, is a particular hazard. FC2/SW/82 Monica Madsen Concerned that the proposed relief road through the new estate will not be a safe road to the new residents, especially the children. A relocation of the proposed relief road to the west of the new estate with distributor roads would be safer to for school children and drivers. FC2/SW/83 Mark Leadeham Concerned that the proposed relief road through the new estate will not be a safe road to the new residents, especially the children. A relocation of the proposed

relief road to the west of the new estate with distributor roads would be safer to for school children and drivers. FC2/SW/85 Mr W Williams The present plans show a distribution route running through the centre of an area where children could be in danger. Would it not be wise to put any major road at the edge of housing and away from where there will be the proposed school? FC2/SW/86 T Lown It appears as though the distribution road will go through the centre of the new development and pass a school. Would it not be better to route road around the outside the houses as far away from the children as possible? FC2/SW/87 Jeanette Lown I understand that the distribution road will pass near to the new school and this does not seem to be very safe with regard to the children having to cross it or walk beside it to reach their homes etc. Surely large lorries delivering to the various planned supermarkets will be using this road so it would make better sense to place it away from the residential areas and the school. FC2/SW/81 John Reekie Several primary schools on or near Easthampstead Road. Currently during school drop off and collection times, the traffic on Easthampstead Road is very busy and poses a risk to school children. The increase in

traffic from the new development will make these times

on Easthampstead Road busier and more dangerous

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

for children and parents. FC2/SW/96 Paul Major Once the SDR is completed, Waterloo Road level (see above for summary, WBC response crossing should be closed, with an upgrade of the and recommendations on this issue) Easthamstead Wokingham Rd junction. This is because the majority of traffic rat running Priest Ave and Rances Lane comes across Waterloo Rd. More importantly, we are concerned that children from the new estate will be involved in an accident if the crossing is not closed. Children will go to the Rances Lane shops and need to get to St Crispin's School from the new estate. Current residents' children do not need

to cross the level crossing because there is nothing on the other side; however, new residents' children will use this crossing. The WBC plan2 shows a potential bus, cycle and pedestrian crossing of Waterloo Rd level crossing. How WBC will ensure that school children are not put at risk with this level crossing. FC2/SW/12 David Sleight – Member My comments relate primarily to the railway level FC2/SW/95 for Wokingham Without crossings and in particular the Waterloo Crossing. WBC's aims seem confused and the message differs in the South Wokingham SPD and the Infrastructure SPD on what we wish to see for Waterloo Crossing.

WBC should have a clear policy to close all our level crossings where adequate alternatives exist. The entire railway industry, not just Network Rail but including the Train Operating Companies, the Rolling Stock Companies, the Railway Trades Unions and the various safety Authorities, would welcome the elimination of all level crossings.

They present the largest single risk of a catastrophic train accident and Waterloo Crossing, currently an Automatic Half Barrier (AHB), has experienced at least 2 suicides recently, one involving a car that fortunately

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

did not result in a derailment. (This is recognised in the South Wokingham SPD at para 2.2.1 on page 9 which (see above for summary, WBC response says that Network Rail's long term objective to close and recommendations on this issue) level crossings.) As well as being a major hazard to rail travel, primarily because of public abuse, they inhibit the development of train services and cause delay and frustration to road users. FC2/SW/97L Heather and Adrian Safety issues relating to the route and layout of what McLeod will become the major distribution road through Buckhurst Farm, over the railway to the Tesco's roundabout. Surely it's safer to route the road away from the residential area and proposed school? Remember HGVs will be using this route. Theme 4: DESIGN - Topics: Design / Historic buildings/existing buildings / Density / Place names / Car parking / Street hierarchy Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Design FC2/SW/16 Ms S L Brown Speed humps / width restrictions are needed to control speed of traffic (esp. HGVs) if relief road Summary runs through the development. If it was moved to the far side of the development a speed limit of say The density proposed is too high and it 60 mph would allow traffic to move more freely. should be brought more in line with the FC2/SW/27 Julian McGhee A green buffer needs to be installed the entire current density that prevails in the area Summer length of London Road to keep the streetscene and around Priest Avenue. prevent massing which will detract from the look of the new development. Higher densities will lead to higher traffic levels and insufficient levels of car parking. FC2/SW/43 Paul Armitage No mention of the type of housing that is proposed. Wokingham (and particularly the Priest Avenue area) There is no reference to house types. This is predominantly red brick which is easy to maintain. area is predominated by redbrick. Many new estate houses have concrete, painted fascias which in relatively short time will require Support is expressed for the inclusion of a painting and maintenance. Hope considerations such requirement for the provision of some self- as these will be noted. build plots. FC2/SW/55 Ben Dudley Sketches indicate terrace housing rather than the low density housing proposed in the previous Buckhurst The design of the SDR/London Road Farm planning application. We feel that irrespective of junction presents one option. Some support Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

the Clay Lane solution, this area should extend the is expressed for a roundabout at this vernacular of Rances Lane, Froghall Drive, Priest location. Avenue, London Road through provision of detached low density housing. The level of design guidance is seen as appropriate. Further clarification is required in relation to building heights; this should permit some four storey development.

The SW SPD plans should be upgraded to reflect the revised location of the school and neighbourhood centre as identified in the Buckhurst Farm discussions.

The railway bridge needs to be designed with a rail halt requirements in mind.

FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan _ Pleasing to note that some provision should be Wokingham Town made within at least one neighbourhood for self- WBC Response Council build plots, to enable individuals to design and construct their own dwellings. Reassurances will be Appendix 7 of the Core Strategy establishes required in the granting of planning permissions for the required density range; 30-35 dwellings such dwellings that they are in keeping with the per hectare is the required average overall character of the area, development and residential density, but this is not to be neighbourhood, and that they comply with the applied uniformly. Some variation in Borough's Residential Design Guide. character and a response to the rural FC2/SW/65 BroadwayMalyan – on The SPD is high level but provides an appropriate interface is to be achieved through a range behalf of South guidance on more specific design matters. As the of design measures including varied Wokingham Consortium consortium progresses, they will engage with those densities. relevant parties and seek to resolve areas of concern, where it relates to design matters, including Reference is made to local vernacular and seeking to address such solutions around Ludgrove materials in Principle 3d(i); applicants must School. prepare a strategy for a restrained palette of FC2/SW/77 Laurence Heath I struggle to understand the rationale for the layout colours and materials, including those of the South Wokingham SDL. commonly found throughout the area.

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

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

become a de facto southern relief road for in Principle 3a (table) but also encourages Wokingham. It will therefore take a heavy load of at Principle 3b(i) that character references through traffic. Surely it makes more sense to run should be taken from the vernacular, and this road closer to the railway, so that all identifies a role for landmark buildings at development is on the south side of the road? As Principle 3c. The SWSPD should not and the plan stands there will be a strip of development does not advocate four storey development on the north side of the road which will have a very as this would be out of character with this unpleasant environment, squeezed between the part of the town. However, individual railway and the main road. It must make more designs will be assessed on merit and sense to put all housing on the south side. It would design excellence will be sought. also mean that there will be direct access to the open spaces beyond. The opportunity for a rail halt in the future should be safeguarded. Dividing the built up area will also introduce safety hazards, with more pedestrians and cyclists, Recommendations: No changes including children, old people and the disabled, recommended having to cross the main road.

I am not suggesting that the road has to be a high speed road. New Forest Ride in Bracknell might be a good model to design an appropriate road. It has development on only one side and it serves the dual purposes; as a feeder route for the adjacent developments and as a relief road for south east Bracknell. Traffic speed is slowed by the series of roundabouts that also allow good access for the local residents. FC2/SW/81 John Reekie Proposed housing type too dense and not in keeping with local area. That the proposed types of housing (shown in pictures and plans in the SPD documents) will be denser and not in keeping with other parts of Wokingham (grass near hours, parking, front gardens) without enough space between houses or housing groups, and not enough overall parking. This denser housing will result in more traffic demand on local roads in and out of the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

proposed SPD areas, and a higher noise level for local residents nearby. (see above for summary, WBC response In particular the proposed thoroughfare through the and recommendations on this issue) new South Wokingham SPD does not seem to be sized to support the growing traffic from Finchampstead that will use that route to avoid Wokingham town centre

In particular the density of housing in the Southern Wokingham SPD looks to be higher than other SPDs, with no justification as to why this is?

FC2/SW/12 David Sleight – Member SDR London Road Junction. The South FC2/SW/95 for Wokingham Without Wokingham SDL at Appendix 1 gives an outline design for the junction of the Southern Distributor Road onto London Road but makes no mention of traffic lights that would be necessary to allow any traffic flow from the SDR. I would suggest that a roundabout would be required at this junction. FC2/SW/12 David Sleight – Member FC2/SW/95 for Wokingham Without Any new halt would be costly, requiring platforms 250m long and step free access to the platforms. This could be provided by ramps from the road overbridge similar to Winnersh railway station. However, this would make this bridge very busy indeed if it became the access point to any rail halt and, if this is to remain an aspiration, the bridge should be built with wide pavements in anticipation of such a requirement. FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley Similarly, whilst the references to the character Associates typologies are generally welcome, as stated previously clarification on the appropriate storey heights for the urban residential typologies should

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

be provided. This should include reference to up to 4 storeys, for the reasons set out previously.

FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley The reference in paragraph 3c (ii) to providing (see above for summary, WBC response Associates careful attention to the gateway feature at the and recommendations on this issue) junction of the new Southern Distributor Road and London Road is supported in principle. The related sketch layout at Appendix 1 provides one possible solution.

Figures 4.2 Walkable Neighbourhoods and 4.6 Transport and Movement Diagram should also be updated to reflect the relocation of the neighbourhood centre and school, and provision of the secondary accesses, as agreed through constructive discussions on the Phase 1 outline application for Buckhurst Park, with officers. FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley See page 3 of March 2010 letter Associates – March 2010 Historic buildings/existing buildings No specific comments made

Car parking FC2/SW/12 David Sleight – Member The South Wokingham SPD at Section 4 FC2/SW/95 for Wokingham Without Requirement 5c(iii) states that a rail halt (next to the Summary new overbridge) is safeguarded but there is no mention of car parking. This is consistent with the The planned rail halt will require dedicated current plans from David Wilson Homes for car parking; space should be included for Buckhurst Farm. Were a rail halt ever built the issue this. of car parking would have to be addressed or else Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

there will be problems, similar to Martins Heron Car parking standards do not reflect number station, with on road car parking spilling over into of cars per household in the Borough. the surrounding estates. FC2/SW/89 Kim Russell and Philip Allocation of parking spaces for the new build WBC Response Fitness doesn't take into consideration the actual amount of The rail halt will require specific design by cars per household. network rail. The SPD cannot provide this level of detail or prescription.

The Borough residential parking standards are contained in the WDLP. They will be subject to review in the near future. The SWSPD cannot amend the standards.

Recommendation: No changes recommended

Place names FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The Design principle 3g(i) urges the developer to Recommendation: Design Principle 3g(i) Wokingham Society discuss street and area names with the Borough be amended accordingly and Parish Councils. This ought to be extended to include local heritage and community organisations that are perhaps best placed to advise on these matters.

Street hierarchy FC2/SW/75 Peter and Susan Dawe The proposed 'Street' approach does not appear See comments under Theme 3 Highway appropriate for a Southern Distributor Road Safety in relation to the design of the SDR intended to carry extensive heavy goods traffic. FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The Section 3.2.1(v) stresses the urban character and Wokingham Society development frontage of the distributor road. This concept has never been properly explored in public. Why are these two facets desirable in a road that

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

seeks to allow easy access to side roads and passage through the development? Code for Sustainable Homes FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley The requirement for development to be built to Code Summary Associates Level 4 in advance of the mandatory dale of 2013 (March 2010 which is even then only mandatory for energy The SWSPD cannot introduce requirements efficiency and not all Code elements Is in relation to the Code for Sustainable inappropriate. South East Plan Policy CC4 clearly Homes that are not set out in the Core states that such requirements should Strategy. This should be achieved through a be set out within DPDs as opposed to SPDs. DPD.

Paragraph 4.8 of the Core Strategy Itself WBC Response acknowledges that whilst the Council will seek over and above the minimum national and regional The Sustainable Design & Construction (including in respect of the Code for Sustainable SPD addresses issues relating to the Code Homes), that this will be justified through the for Sustainable Homes. Code Level 4 is Managing Development Delivery DPD rather than required by 2013. References to the Code an SPD, The Inspector's Report to the Core for Sustainable Homes can be omitted from Strategy advises. Policy CP1 provides the basis for the SWSPD. further guidance to be provided In the Sites and Development Policies DPD. Recommendation: Outstanding references to the C4SH be removed from It is entirely inappropriate and contrary to South east the SPD. Plan Policy CC4 and Core Strategy Policy CP1 to propose to deliver such a requirement through a SPD. Such policies and requirements .must be the subject of appropriate testing through the Development Managements Allocations DPD

In adopting the Core Strategy, the Council have accepted the changes that were discussed and agreed during the course of the Examination.

(suggested text provided p4)

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Theme 5: CRIME Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response No specific comments made.

Theme 6: ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORT - Topics: Public Transport / Sustainable Transport / Bus Stops / Cycle paths and footpaths / Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Public Transport FC2/SW/60 Judith Moore – The failure of WBC to take account of the Summary Wokingham Parish prospective Railtrack proposals which will increase Council train movements through Wokingham Station and The Council should take account of also over the level crossings within the Parish. proposals for increased rail traffic. Closure Whilst these have not yet been approved it seems of the level crossing will cause tailbacks. short sighted not to take account of the possibility that they will take place. Even without the extra WBC Response movements, the regular closure of the level The SWSPD makes provision for new crossings causes huge tailbacks at existing traffic access roads to provide a choice of routes. levels. There is significant reliance on the Principle 5a(iii) notes the possible completion of the Wokingham Station link road and downgrading of the Waterloo Road on the relocation of the new Wokingham Station. crossing. There is no contingency plan in place should this not occur, yet if the station does not move the The SPD cannot be based on events out proposed plan is not a viable solution. with the site that have not been agreed, but can be subject to monitoring and review as deemed appropriate, and as set out in Appendix 5 of the Core Strategy.

Recommendation: No change recommended

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Sustainable transport No specific comments made

Buses FC2/SW/51 Kevin Mayne – Bus priority measures and provision and Finchampstead Parish improvements to local cycle and footpath Summary Council network. And Bus transport corridors on A329 and A321 Requirement to contribute to bus facilities outside the site have been removed from These measures must be integrated with the the SWSPD and should be reinstated. existing 144 and 122 bus services, especially to offset expected congestion on the A321. No reference to a subsidised bus route is made. Contribution to Wokingham Station Link Road phases 1 and 2 including provision for bus WBC Response stops and facilities for bus services. Key items of the infrastructure required in relation to the SDLs are set out in the This measure does not conform to the Core IDCSPD. Strategy because it does not mention non motorised modes. Before adoption of the final SPD these Core Recommendation: No change Strategy clauses must be reinstated or the SPD will recommended not conform.

Core Strategy Planning Obligations Appendix 7.41: vi) Measures to improve accessibility by non car modes along the A321 and A329 corridors Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

vii) Measures to improve access by non car modes to Wokingham town centre including the station interchange FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan – The SPD makes no mention of the Inspector's Wokingham Town statement (page 61) that the proposals include a Council new Southern Distributor Road (SDR), which would be used for a new subsidised bus route with services every 15 minutes.

Cycle paths and footpaths FC2/SW/10 Colin Mitchell No cycle paths on London Road or Waterloo Road. No provision made for increases in foot or two Summary wheeled traffic FC2/SW/11 Janice Mitchell No cycle paths on London Road or Waterloo Road. Comments are made about the lack of cycle No provision made for increases in foot or two and pedestrian path provision on London wheeled traffic Road and Waterloo Road, and beyond the FC2/SW/21 Eric and Evangeline Clay Lane should be blocked off and alternative site to link to the Bracknell cycle network. Thompson paths built for cyclists and pedestrians in the estate to gain access to London Road, not by Clay Lane Previous statements reflecting Core FC2/SW/30 Robert G L Gunn How will school children cross the railway from the Strategy A7.47 should be reinstated to proposed development south of the railway line to require footpaths to Garrick Plantation and reach St Crispin’s? No provision for pedestrians, Queens Mere. cyclists or wheelchairs. One covered ramp style bridge suitable for wheelchair users will be needed. School children will not be able to cross the FC2/SW/37 Patricia Gunn How will school children cross the railway from the railway at Waterloo Road as there is no proposed development south of the railway line to proposed ramp facility. reach St Crispin’s? No provision for pedestrians, cyclists or wheelchairs. One covered ramp style Support is expressed for the downgrading bridge suitable for wheelchair users will be needed. of the Waterloo Road crossing as this will FC2/SW/50 Simon Royle Consideration for cyclists and pedestrians should be benefit Priest Avenue. extended from within the boundaries of the development and the cycle network should link into WBC responses

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

the Bracknell cycle route network at the Coppid Beech hotel and also extend towards Wokingham The SWSDL addresses matters relating to town centre as much as possible. the SDL. The IDCSPD addresses items of FC2/SW/51 Kevin Mayne – This does not conform to the Core Strategy which required infrastructure that are to be Finchampstead Parish specifies which links must be provided Core provided outside the site. Strict adherence Council Strategy Infrastructure Requirements A7.47 Access to the Core Strategy will be required. and Movement No ramp is proposed at the railway e) Cycle and pedestrian movement should be crossing; this would be for Network Rail to supported by an internal network of Greenways to determine and the SWSPD cannot require extend beyond the site to public green space, and this. footpaths leading to Garrick Plantation and Queens Mere. In addition wayfaring signage should be Recommendation: No change provided and should be identifiably linked to the recommended Wokingham Greenway network.

Please could this specific reference be restored to the SPD so that it is not lost when developers submit their applications. FC2/SW/75 Peter and Susan Dawe We support the downgrading of the Waterloo Road Level Crossing to cycle, pedestrian and public transport only route, as Priest Avenue (which is not a standard width road) already carries a large quantity of through traffic (particularly during the rush hour). Residents from the 1700 dwellings, and probably double that in the number of cars, in Areas Band C would greatly add to this through traffic - for which Priest Avenue is not designed or suitable.

Theme 7: INFRASTRUCTURE : Topics - Services/ Satellite dishes / Highways Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Services FC2/SW/50 Simon Royle Amenities on Buckhurst Farm site should be located where they will be within the shortest possible Summary walking distance of the wider east Wokingham

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

residential communities. Amenities at Buckhurst farm should be in walking distance of the wider east Amenities that are to be created should be designed Wokingham area as amenities are currently and located, where appropriate, to provide a service limited in this area. to the wider communities of East Wokingham including areas around Waterloo Road, Rances Have Southern Water been consulted as Lane, Priest Avenue, London Road, Bean Oak, they supply clean water to the area. Plough Lane and Norreys where the amenities under consideration are either poor or non=existent Flexibility is needed in relation to for the residents of those communities. undergrounding of the overhead powerlines. FC2/SW/75 Peter and Susan Dawe Thames Water is responsible for sewerage in our Paragraph 2.2.1 point 3 should be amended area, and can see in the previous review comments that they have been consulted. We understand that WBC response Southern Water is responsible for the supply of clean water - but we cannot find any comments from The amenities are intended to serve the that organisation. Given that there will be SDL in particular Buckhurst Farm, but will considerable increase in the demand for the supply be accessible to a wider catchment through of clean water, due to the property development, the connected network of streets that is has Southern Water been consulted? required at Principle 5a, which requires a FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley It is noted at 2.2.1 that the SPD requires the layout that promotes easy and efficient Associates overhead power lines to be fully under-grounded. movement, balanced with high levels of The adopted SPD provides for a range of possible amenity. solutions, including partial under-grounding or setting the power lines within a swathe of green South East Water are responsible for the space away from housing. Whilst fully- supply of clean water. They have been undergrounding is acknowledged as a preferable consulted but no response has been solution, the implications on overall costs are likely received. to be significant. The undergrounding of the overhead This may have a consequential impact on viability. powerlines is a requirement Hence, it is considered that at this stage the other options referred to in the adopted document are reinstated.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Satellite dishes No specific comments made

Planning FC2/SW/42 Mark Matthews – Paragraph 2.3.3: the inclusion of the reference to Noted Thames Water Core Strategy Policy CP4, which states that planning permission will not be granted unless appropriate infrastructure is agreed for major development is strongly supported. Highways FC2/SW/6 Stephen and Barbara Specification of Southern Distributor Road not given Smith and needs to be provided i.e. local neighbourhood Summary road, major trunk road or something in between. Or at least quote a vehicles per hour number in the No specification is given for the SDR; what table. status will it have. The SDR must have FC2/SW/8 Edouard Mee Traffic impact on London Road (towards sufficient capacity. It should be peripheral to Wokingham town centre and the A329M has not the site, and “Buckhurst” Boulevard should been adequately addressed. Residents of Priest also be provided to ensure sufficient Avenue and Froghall Drive will find queuing times capacity. The design needs to be straight increased on to London Road. rather than curved to reduce cost. FC2/SW/1E Robert Plester Until the Council resolves the traffic problems in Wokingham Town centre the only thing these The impact on London Road and the proposed developments will bring is more SDR/London Road junction will be congestion. detrimental; queuing times will increase. FC2/SW/9 Colin Knight Building at this density will generate another 1000 vehicles on already crowded roads. The level Congestion throughout the area will crossing on Waterloo Road should be closed to increase, to the detriment of existing enforce use of SRR. Priest Avenue should be residents and the town. closed at southern end. FC2/SW/10 Colin Mitchell London Road frequently clogged and 500 more cars Traffic planning is based on 2004 data; during peak hours could lead to gridlock. Priest updated model is required in order to Avenue is often close to standstill at peak times. understand the full impact. No information Cutting through occurs between Waterloo and on traffic levels is provided. London Road which will be made worse by the new distribution road unless the Waterloo Road railway Traffic needs to be well managed,

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

crossing is closed. particularly at peak hour. FC2/SW/11 Janice Mitchell London Road frequently clogged and 500 more cars during peak hours could lead to gridlock. Priest The Waterloo Crossing should be closed or Avenue is often close to standstill at peak times. down graded to prevent rat running through Cutting through occurs between Waterloo and Priest Avenue. A pedestrian bridge should London Road which will be made worse by the new be provided. distribution road unless the Waterloo Road railway crossing is closed New traffic should not be directed through FC2/SW/16 Ms S L Brown Traffic congestion in Priest Avenue. Relief Road the existing road network; vehicles should should be built away from housing and primary be directed to Coppid Beech roundabout. school with distributor roads servicing these areas. FC2/SW/18 Mrs J A Povey Impact on the volume of traffic in Priest Avenue and There is a need to have regard to the London Road with 500 more cars during the rush planning of the entire network prior to hour. Waterloo Road railway crossing needs to be permission being granted at South closed to prevent drivers “cutting through” to avoid Wokingham. The cumulative impact of using the new distribution road. development in Wokingham and Bracknell FC2/SW/19 C. W. Griggs Railway crossing needs to be closed to prevent Forest should be understood. Congestion drivers “cutting through” to avoid using the new also occurs at Nine Mile Ride, A329M, M4 distribution road. Also traffic congestion in Priest etc. An infrastructure plan for the whole Avenue and adjacent roads would be excessive. area needs to be produced. Support is FC2/SW/20 Mr and Mrs Peel Development will have impact on already expressed for the IDCSPD. inadequate road infrastructure. FC2/SW/22 Andrew Pettit Need to manage the increase in traffic flow, Will the development be able to fund the especially in the rush hour, that uses Priest Avenue amount of infrastructure required as well as and converges on London Road. affordable housing. Concern is expressed FC2/SW/23 Helen Dodsworth Traffic should not be directed through the existing that the Council will scale back their neighbourhood road network. The preferred requirements to make development viable. solution for excess traffic is to carry vehicles to Funding needs to be available for measures Coppid Beech Roundabout. Level crossings at outside the SDL. Waterloo Rd and Easthamstead Rod should not be closed, but Waterloo Road should be made “Access Developers should enter into legally binding Only” for residents to prevent “cutting through”. agreements to ensure that funding for Priest Avenue should not be made into a dead end. infrastructure is available. FC2/SW/24 Marion Knowles Traffic should not be directed through the existing neighbourhood road network. The preferred The SDR should be delivered early so that the impact of development can be Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

solution for excess traffic is to carry vehicles to managed. The connection to Coppid Beech Roundabout. Level crossings at Finchampstead Road from London Road Waterloo Rd and Easthamstead Rod should not be should be a priority. closed, but Waterloo Road should be made “Access Only” for residents to prevent “cutting through”. Schools: Paths to St. Crispin’s School Priest Avenue should not be made into a dead end. should be provided. St. Theresa’s should be FC2/SW/25 Nina Bell-Williamson Traffic should not be directed through the existing consulted about construction phasing. neighbourhood road network. The preferred solution for excess traffic is to carry vehicles to The railway bridge needs to be enlarged. It Coppid Beech Roundabout. Level crossings at should be located to allow pedestrian Waterloo Rd and Easthamstead Rod should not be crossing instead of using Waterloo Road closed, but Waterloo Road should be made “Access Crossing. Only” for residents to prevent “cutting through”. Priest Avenue should not be made into a dead end. FC2/SW/26 and Gareth Rees Traffic should not be directed through the existing FC2/SW/03 neighbourhood road network. The preferred WBC Response solution for excess traffic is to carry vehicles to Coppid Beech Roundabout. Level crossings at The SWSPD seeks a comprehensive Waterloo Rd and Easthamstead Rod should not be approach that takes on the needs of closed, but Waterloo Road should be made “Access Wokingham residents in terms of highway Only” for residents to prevent “cutting through”. infrastructure requirements. The Priest Avenue should not be made into a dead end. mechanisms for achieving these issues are FC2/SW/27 Julian McGhee Level crossing at Waterloo Road should be closed set out at length in the IDC SPD. Summer and a bridge installed. Traffic management concerns need to be addressed, with 1000 more car A large proportion of issues set out in the journeys taking place before the distribution road is representations focused on aspects relating completed. Need to be happy with entire to highway improvements and capacity. infrastructure being proposed before more planning This goes beyond the role of the SWSPD, permissions are granted. and relates to the planning of the road FC2/SW/29 Colin George Infrastructure cannot cope with scale of network across the Borough. Within many development. Will cause massive traffic jams. of the representations there is a general FC2/SW/28 S N Cockroft Traffic on local roads. Has impact of 500 cars frustration with regards to ongoing traffic joining London Road in the rush hour been modelling, which informs many of the considered? Roads are already busy. transport infrastructure elements of the FC2/SW/30 Robert G L Gunn Closure of the Waterloo Road rail crossing to SWSPD such as the SDR and the planned,

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

prevent drivers cutting through. Impact on traffic new railway bridge. This has now been volumes in Priest Avenue and London Road, completed and will allow full considerable to especially in the rush hour. . traffic impact and traffic measures to be determined and mitigated.

FC2/SW/31 Alan Sadler Before further development takes place a detailed The SWSPD supports the down grading infrastructure plan for whole area should be and possible closure of the Waterloo Road produced. This should be implemented at the Crossing at Principle 5a(iii). This decision outset. Careful note should be taken of the ultimately will be made in discussions with concerns of the Inspector that “the Council should network Rail who are responsible for the be aware of the disproportionate cost to local crossing. residents through increased traffic. This decision should not be made solely by the Council. The IDCSPD sets out the contributions that Communities Infrastructure Levy (CIL) should be will be required to fund new infrastructure used instead of S106. throughout the Borough. This will be FC2/SW/32 Kay Pettit Need to manage the increase in traffic flow, achieved through Section 106 Agreements especially in the rush hour, that uses Priest Avenue and CIL, and through direct provision on and converges on London Road. site by the developers. Agreements will be FC2/SW/33 Great Langborough We were pleased to see an outline plan for phasing legally binding, and planning permission will Residents' Association and infrastructure delivery. We support Wokingham be conditioned to ensure development is BC in its construction of a comprehensive contract begun/phasing in accordance with an for the delivery of infrastructure components. The agreed plan for infrastructure delivery. The route and capacity of the Relief {Distribution Road Council is currently consulting on the remains a major concern. IDCSPD alongside the SWSPD. FC2/SW/37 Patricia Gunn Closure of the Waterloo Road rail crossing to prevent drivers cutting through. Impact on traffic Appendix 5 of the Core Strategy requires volumes in Priest Avenue and London Road, monitoring and review of the SPD which will especially in the rush hour. . allow updated technical information to be FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith Southern distribution road should be cited as far to considered. the east as possible, and should be capable of handling HGVs. Level crossings at Waterloo Rd The alignment of the SDR will be subject to and Easthamstead Rod should not be closed, but detailed design at the master planning Waterloo Road should be made “Access Only” for stage. It should be designed to fit into the residents to prevent “cutting through”. However if scheme and the landscape features, rather closed the junction by Ostrich Farm should be made than take an artificially straight route.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

safe. Recommendation: No change recommended FC2/SW/43 Paul Armitage Reassurances on possible traffic problems in Priest Avenue. It is a narrow residential road - at one time intended as a cui de sac. FC2/SW/45 Bob Gunn The new Southern Distributor Road fulfils the role of a bypass. Also how traffic will be managed through Priest Avenue and Rances Lane until the SDR is completed in 2020. FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The We have consistently urged that there should be Wokingham Society specific public consultation on the future road and transport infrastructure FC2/SW/48 Mary Williams The traffic that will be generated by the new developments in South Wokingham should not be directed through the existing neighbourhood road network on and around Waterloo Road, Easthampstead Road, Rances Lane, Priest Avenue and other similar residential roads. Any alternative arrangements made to carry traffic from the new development away from the above existing residential roads must be in place as part of the first phase of any development. The preferred solution for excess traffic arising from the South Wokingham development is to carry the vehicles to the Coppid Beech Roundabout. Priest Avenue and Waterloo Road should not be made into a dead end at any time in the future FC2/SW/49 Anne & Gordon Wall With the proposed plans for the development of 650 houses this will mean at least 1000 to 1200 cars trying to exit onto the London Road at various times of the day and at least 600 of those during peak times causing considerable congestion, at present each morning between 8.00am and 9.00amm there is a tailback of traffic as far as the Loch Fyne restaurant, this can only get worse. FC2/SW/50 Simon Royle The relief road locating London Road and Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Finchampstead Road should be made a priority and completed before any phases of the South Wokingham developments are released for sale. (see above for summary, WBC response FC2/SW/51 Kevin Mayne – We are extremely concerned that the access constraints and recommendations on this issue) Finchampstead Parish do not mention the already severe congestion on Council Finchampstead Road. According to the evidence presented to the Examination in Public junctions in the area are already at 100% capacity. All development in this SPD must be to Nil Detriment in respect of this congestion and journey times.

The documents also do not mention the impact of concurrent developments in neighbouring authorities, in particular Bracknell Forest. The cumulative traffic effects must be a factor in the Access and Movement framework. FC2/SW/52 Lynn Harrison I am against the proposed development at Buckhurst Farm. The proposed development would only increase traffic problems in Wokingham, which are at present substantial

FC2/SW/55 Ben Dudley there is no obligation or specific mention of completion

of the southern relief road through to Finchampstead Road, nor the closure of Waterloo Road crossing to private traffic during the initial phases of the development. This will mean that we are still likely to experience significant increases in traffic volume should Buckhurst Farm development form phase I of implementation. We would like to see more specific obligations on developers to implement phases of the infrastructure plan which are outside the area developed if these are necessary for the effectiveness of the overall infrastructure. FC2/SW/57 John Turtle Impact from volume of traffic through the area which is already over developed and congested. The infrastructure document is wholly inadequate and based on data from 2004. This is unacceptable and should not be adopted until current data is available and factored in.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Most of the infrastructure development is dependent on contributions from the developers, it is unrealistic and we doubt enforceable by the Borough, not least (see above for summary, WBC response because there SPDs are for guidance only. We wish and recommendations on this issue) to see legally binding commitments.

We are very worried about the situation of the planned roundabout planned for Easthampstead Road; there are already long queues waiting to cross the Star Lane level crossing and the proposed link road through the new development onto the London Road is the only exit for the whole development and will be similarly congested. FC2/SW/58 Alison Walker Concerns about the route of Southern Distributor Road which is unnecessarily curved and thus longer which has a cost implication. Also in the area east of Wood's Farm it isolates a parcel of residential land which does not sit comfortably with the desire to create safe, inclusive communities. Straightening the road would make parcel B (east) more useable and also reduce the construction cost, which we estimate could equate to some £800 per metre. Therefore reducing the length of the road by just 10 metres could save in the order of £8,000, money which would be much better

spent elsewhere in the scheme.

FC2/SW/60 Judith Moore – Not happy that the infrastructure is based on 2004

Wokingham Parish traffic survey and therefore the SDL should not be

Council adopted until the results of the current study is

available.

Severe congestion especially on the approach

roads to Wokingham, in particular Star Lane

Crossing. They would like to know how WBC

proposes to remedy the existing deficits in the

infrastructure.

FC2/SW/60 Judith Moore – The provision of the Southern Relief Road including

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Wokingham Parish a road over rail bridge is of crucial importance to this Council Parish. Relief road is rather a misnomer and the position of the exit of the road onto London Road is (see above for summary, WBC response of critical importance in order to avoid further and recommendations on this issue) congestion FC2/SW/61 Peter Hession The proposed road (Buckhurst Boulevard) from London Road must be large enough to accommodate the traffic on what will become a bypass road. It must be ensured that the bridge over the railway line is built early in the development so that traffic from the development can also exit onto Waterloo Road so relieving congestion on the London Road. Then the Waterloo railway crossing should be shut to avoid Priest Avenue being used as a cut through road. FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan – It is clear that the paragraph on Transport Issues in Wokingham Town the SPD has simply been repeated verbatim in this Council document.

Frustrating that the latest traffic modelling has been further delayed and will not be available in sufficient time to allow any conclusions drawn from this modelling to be reflected in response to this SDL. Our views are therefore necessarily based on the earlier information about road and transport plans.

Also, without details of the sizes and locations of the two proposed primary schools, we do not know what effect they will have on traffic modelling and any bottlenecks they could cause. It should be noted that illustrative preferred spatial framework plan (figure 3.1 on page 25) only shows the approximate location of one school; the other is not shown.

Three of the main access concerns stated are:

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

+ the inability of existing level crossings at Waterloo Road and Easthampstead Road to cope with traffic (see above for summary, WBC response numbers, and also the Network Rail long-term and recommendations on this issue) objective to close the level crossings,

+ the possible impact and practicality of a junction onto London Road in the light of existing traffic flows and residential neighbourhoods to the north of London Road; and

+ the need to improve and enlarge the railway bridge to access Finchampstead Road

All of these constraints highlight the need for the Southern Relief Road referred to in the Adopted Core Strategy (page 119) to be integrated into a comprehensive transport infrastructure plan for Wokingham Town as a whole, and for the provision of that transport infrastructure to be independent of developer S106 contributions and development phasing.

Access and Movement framework The SDR should NOT go through the Southern development, but should be a relief for ring road from the Coppid Beech roundabout to the Finchampstead Road, with limited access to it from roads on the development. This would give access for site traffic and cut down on the traffic on London Road, which is already under pressure and, at peak times, over capacity and would allow HGVs to avoid the town centre to a greater degree, without passing along inappropriate roads in the new development.

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

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

local traffic and access to the centre of Wokingham.

Footpath and cycle access to St Crispin's School (see above for summary, WBC response should be considered, such that shorter travel and recommendations on this issue) distances mitigate the need for "school runs" by car.

FC2/SW/64 Eva Cullen Concerns around the potential congestion on Easthampstead Road and surrounding roads during the South Wokingham redevelopment phase. St. Teresa's school and local environs already suffers congestion problems due to the volume of traffic on Easthampstead Road and the impact of the level crossing during peak traffic periods, posing challenges for safe access to the school. We request that the school is consulted as plans are in put in place to manage access to Easthampstead Road during the construction phase.

Also concerns for Easthampstead Road post the construction phase. This will continue to be a major route in and out of the area. We request that the road infrastructure plan be re-assessed to determine other measures that will be required to reduce the negative impacts on the Easthampstead environs. FC2/SW/72 Patricia Clark Concern about the impact of traffic on already busy roads. We understand that the traffic modelling figures were based on 200- studies which will not correlate with traffic movement in 2011 onwards.

Is it a condition that the developers will foot the entire bill for infrastructure? Will the Council lay down legally what exactly is needed rather than any short cuts that developers might later deem to be expedient? Have you a written guarantee that the developers have sufficient funds to pay for this. It must be agreed and Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

legally documented. FC2/SW/76 Gerald T Brown Mass impact on infrastructure, primarily transport. (see above for summary, WBC response The recent gridlock situation will only get worse as and recommendations on this issue) traffic volumes increase as a result of more houses. What plans are there to alleviate the traffic impact on Nine Mile Ride and Easthampstead that are both arterial routes connecting to the M3 and the A329M/M4 and are already at gridlock proportions at peak times.

It is acknowledged that the traffic impact studies are to be updated but I would like to know the proposals to improve traffic flow through the Wokingham Without and Crowthorne parish and how such measures are to be funded. Insufficient funding can be extracted from developers under the SI06 provisions so where are the additional funds likely to come from?

It is also somewhat concerning, as reported in the public domain according to a leaked draft of a major planning document, that n Councils may have to cut back their requirements for affordable housing and infrastructure contributions on housing schemes in order to give developers acceptable profits n. If correct that itself will have a serious consequence on the viability of any improvement in the infrastructure. FC2/SW/78 Sarah Warr Object to the building development in Crowthorne in the Pinewood area. This will increase the traffic problem, there is no local railway line and no bus service in the area, therefore forcing more cars onto the road. FC2/SW/79 Olga Hughes Particularly concerned about the extra traffic, as

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Wokingham Without is already suffering from severe traffic congestion especially during rush hour (see above for summary, WBC response periods. Although SPDs state nil detriment to the and recommendations on this issue) traffic on local roads by the proposed developments in the South of Wokingham 2004 traffic census reports are outdated and no longer relevant in 2011.

New developments mean that potentially 50,000 journeys per day will have to be absorbed by the transport system which is already functioning at capacity. Traffic along all the Wokingham Without parish commuter roads is already heavy and slow.

How does WBC propose to remedy existing deficits in the infrastructure especially as the necessary traffic modelling has still to be completed by WBC.

No evidence that WBC or other neighbouring authorities are aware of each other's large scale plans. Wokingham Without is particularly vulnerable to the plans of Bracknell Forest to incorporate 1250 houses onto the old TRL site and a further 420 at Broadmoor. In addition, the United Charities Land has been earmarked for reserve housing land (70 dwellings).

The desire to increase housing and business premises without first addressing the infrastructure problems within and around Wokingham Without Parish, must be acknowledged and acted on and the proper financial backing must be assured, before the development is allowed to proceed. FC2/SW/80 Malcolm Hughes Particularly concerned about the extra traffic, as Wokingham Without is already suffering from severe traffic congestion especially during rush hour periods. Although SPDs state nil detriment to the Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

traffic on local roads by the proposed developments in the South of Wokingham 2004 traffic census reports are outdated and no longer relevant in 2011. (see above for summary, WBC response and recommendations on this issue) New developments mean that potentially 50,000 journeys per day will have to be absorbed by the transport system which is already functioning at capacity. Traffic along all the Wokingham Without parish commuter roads is already heavy and slow.

How does WBC propose to remedy existing deficits in the infrastructure especially as the necessary traffic modelling has still to be completed by WBC.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

This is the present situation and, what with the 3,500 houses planned for the Arborfield Garrison site, we are presuming that there are also plans for (see above for summary, WBC response new roads or new lay-outs for existing roads, in the and recommendations on this issue) pipe-line. We are consequently concerned that our road would be included in future redevelopment plans. FC2/SW/85 Mr W Williams It is obvious that more houses means more cars but the plans do not seem to have any emphasis on improving traffic flow out on to the London Road.

I feel the closure of the Waterloo Road crossing would stop drivers making for the new distribution road, when it is completed, thereby avoiding traffic congestion within the Waterloo Road / Priest Avenue area. FC2/SW/86 T Lown The plans would do little to improve congestion indeed they may make things worse.

If the railway crossing at Waterloo Road were closed it would stop motorists cutting through in order to reach the distribution road when it is built. FC2/SW/87 Jeanette Lown Traffic congestion already a huge problem in Priest Avenue and the extra cars generated by the new estate can only add to this.

Closure of Level Crossing at Waterloo Rd - Is this something that has been decided, if so it would at least stop drivers cutting through to Priest Avenue to avoid using the new distribution road. FC2/SW/81 John Reekie No information on current traffic levels, future traffic levels and the impact on existing residents. There is no information within the current SPD documents on current and expected increase in traffic within the

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Southern development area. In particular the level of increased traffic due to the new development, (see above for summary, WBC response and the increase in journey times to existing and recommendations on this issue) residents due to the changes in roads, and further the increase in traffic volumes. FC2/SW/81 John Reekie Further the road infrastructure between Bracknell and Wokingham is currently stretched as can be seen in the traffic jams through jennets park during peak hours that did not exist to that level before Jennet's park was completed

We do not believe that the consultant documents adequately takes into account the increase in traffic between Wokingham and Bracknell both for the potential new residents and also to existing residents.

Lack of information or proposals on the impact to level crossing to traffic queues, journey times, traffic safety or the impact if the number of trains increase (as is proposed)

No information on the impact on traffic levels, impact to journey times for existing residents to the new junction on London Road

Concern over the increase in housing between Wokingham and Crowthorne While residents of Bracknell are not likely to use Wokingham to get to the M4, many residents of Crowthorne would.

FC2/SW96 Paul Major Managing Traffic Until Completion of the SDR. In the Transport Assessment', it states that queue time lengths in Priest Ave are currently a maximum of 34 mins between 08.15 ands 8.30.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

By 2020, with a 3% increase in traffic and with no relief road, these times will increase to 42 mins with some 153 cars in the queue at 08.45. The report (see above for summary, WBC response states (para 12.15) that queuing on Priest Avenue and recommendations on this issue) even without Buckhurst traffic is 'nonsensical.' The report does say that some commuters will probably find alternate routes. However, as residents we will not be able to get out of Priest Avenue. One way to ameliorate the traffic congestion is to have the developers build the relief road as soon as possible and not wait until subsequent developments are built. What plans does WBC have to ameliorate the traffic congestion in Priest Avenue until the SDR is completed? FC2/SW/12 David Sleight – Member Network Rail is required to undertake regular risk FC2/SW/95 for Wokingham Without assessments to take account of any changed circumstances (eg house building in the South Wokingham SDL) and almost certainly such a risk assessment would conclude that full barriers with CCTV were required because of the proximity of housing. These barriers would then be controlled from Wokingham Station signal box (as are the crossings on Barkham Road and at Star Lane) and the closure time to road users would increase very significantly. The alterations to the crossing required by Network Rail would cost an eye watering amount which may make Network Rail more sympathetic to the proposed bridging of the railway as part of the Southern Distributor Road.

The South Wokingham SPD at Figure 3.1 shows Waterloo Crossing being retained as a "Potential Pedestrian, Cycle and Public Transport only crossing." The Infrastructure SPD on the other hand at Table 4 lists closure of Waterloo Crossing and the provision of a DDA compliant footbridge. Such a Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

footbridge, a massive fabrication of ramps, would be costly (another £Im perhaps) and intrusive and, ludicrously, could be sited about 100m from the new road bridge of the Southern Distributor Road (but (see above for summary, WBC response not as currently planned). It is surely desirable to and recommendations on this issue) site the proposed road crossing over the railway as near to Waterloo Crossing and to Waterloo Cottage as is practical to eliminate any need to retain the crossing or to provide a footbridge and save the thick end of £Im in the process. By planning walking and cycling routes to make use of the new road crossing this, I suggest, would be an adequate alternative for pedestrians and cyclists.

Car traffic would have adequate alternative routes via the Southern Distributor Road, take their chance with Star Lane level crossing being open or to travel via Jennett's park.

The Current Plan for Buckhurst Farm. Perversely, current outline plans for Buckhurst Farm prepared by David Wilson Homes site the new road crossing for the Southern Relief Road remotely from the Waterloo Crossing and with any walking or cycling routes to by pass the crossing seem circuitous and therefore unattractive to users. This surely would be a fundamental missed opportunity if the road crossing is not brought very much nearer to Waterloo Cottage.

Frequency of Trains Services. The potential delays to road traffic as a result of the level crossings in Wokingham has prevented the consultation responses to Network Rail's Route Utilisation Strategies ever mentioning the F word - in this case frequency. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Unlike Twyford, on the Great Western Main Line, which enjoys a frequency of 4 trains per hour, the (see above for summary, WBC response basic service from Wokingham to Waterloo is only 2 and recommendations on this issue) trains per hour. It was 4 trains per hour for a few years until the timetable recast in December 2004. The reason for reducing the frequency was that the restricted rail access to the terminal platforms in Reading station would not allow a robust service to be maintained. The current remodelling of Reading station, inter alia, addresses this shortcoming and will allow enhancement of service frequency although South West Trains is understood to have no aspirations for any such enhancement. The railway lines through Staines and Putney are known collectively as the Windsor Lines and are bedevilled with level crossings, including the 3 in Wokingham. This was a principle factor in Heathrow AirpOlis Ltd withdrawing from the Airtrack project which, had Airtrack been implemented, would have given Wokingham a basic service of 6 trains per hour to Reading, doubled the frequency to Bracknell (both with interchangeable ticketing with SWT) and 2 trains per hour (with a premium fare) to Terminal 5. It was our level crossings that resulted in WBC's somewhat ambivalent response to Airtrack. Therefore we should aim to remove level crossings as impediments to train service enhancement.

Star Lane Crossing. Where a footbridge would be potentially useful is at the Star Lane Crossing which is closed to road traffic for significant periods even before any possible enhancement to the frequency of the train service. As the level crossing will remain there, step free access will be provided by the crossing itself (as it is at the Barkham Road Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Crossing) and therefore a relatively simple footbridge with steps may be allowed. FC2/SW/51 Kevin Mayne – Provision of Southern Relief road including road (see above for summary, WBC response Finchampstead Parish over rail bridge. We support this measure however and recommendations on this issue) Council we express concern that the junction with Finchampstead Road will create significant additional congestion on Finchampstead Road which is already a significant problem area.

Provision should be made in costs for additional measures for the A321 if this congestion does worsen.

Replacement of Finchampstead Road rail bridge (Guildford line) to allow increased headroom and increased junction capacity.

And

Contribution to the replacement of the Finchampstead Road rail bridge (Waterloo line) to allow increased Headroom These measures do not conform to the Core Strategy, specifically Core Strategy Planning Obligations Appendix 7.41 vi) Measures to improve accessibility by non car modes along the A321 and A329 corridors vii) Measures to improve access by non car modes to Wokingham town centre including the station interchange If proposals for the bridges improve cycling and walking provision we can support them, but this should not ignore the major bottleneck currently created by the bridges to cyclists and the extremely unpleasant walking environment. Before adoption of the final SPD these Core Strategy clauses must be reinstated or the SPD will not Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

conform. FC2/SW/97L Heather and Adrian Impact on traffic volumes in Priest Avenue and on Mcleod London Road. What will be the effect on local roads (see above for summary, WBC response of 500 cars leaving/joining London Road during rush and recommendations on this issue) hours?

Closure of the Waterloo Road rail crossing - to prevent drivers "cutting through" and avoid using the new distribution road once completed. FC2/SW/98L Eileen Bean Over the years traffic has increased but surely building a "southern bypass" with so many houses is going to take Wokingham back to square one. FC2/SW/99L Max Baxter – Bracknell SDLs have been traffic modelled and that the outputs Forest Borough Council show that the SDL package, once delivered, will achieve a nil detriment scenario in 2026. In this context, reference is made to further completed work on transport matters for the North Wokingham SDL.

This Council cannot comment on the impact of network improvements until results from the scenario testing using the upgraded transport model have been seen

and compared with data produced by Bracknell Forest

Council. Meetings are due to take place on these matters and discussions are on-going.

The SPD now notes, reflecting the Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions SPD, that the provision of infrastructure or contributions towards improved or new infrastructure may be acceptable via the pooling of contributions (paragraph 6.3.4). WBC will need to be sure that any contributions towards or provision of infrastructure/facilities adequately mitigate the full impact of the SDL to ensure no adverse impacts result within Bracknell Forest.

Implications from the proposed development of 2,500 homes in terms of increased traffic upon Bracknell Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Forest, and implications of an upgraded Coppid Beech roundabout. It is not clear what effect this will have upon the capacity of our local road network, (see above for summary, WBC response particularly when taken with the 1,500 homes planned and recommendations on this issue) in the SDL north of Wokingham, and development already planned around this area within Bracknell Forest.

OTHER FC2/SW/46 Peter Must 2.2.1 refers to the need to improve and enlarge the Summary railway bridge at the western edge, whereas the Infrastructure SPD makes it clear that this bridge is Certainty that the new railway bridge will be to be replaced and not just modified. provided is requested. FC2/SW/46 Peter Must It has been understood that the Council has preferred the expression ‘Distributor Road’ rather Terminology and role of SDR requires than southern ‘relief road’. This means what is clarification. proposed is primarily a distribution function and thus should be solely described using this term. The Modelling must be complete before confusion of using both expressions should be consultation can be concluded. removed. FC2/SW/47 David & Anna Tinker Plans are expected to be approved without A railway tunnel is needed at Station Road/ adequate TRAFFIC MODELLING being conducted Barkham Road junction. in time by WBC. Speedy modeling access was promised and without it much of the matter relating There is inadequate road capacity on to traffic in the town and environments are exiting the SDR at Tesco. meaningless, therefore this consultation exercise should be subject to a delay until such time as we WBC Response can consider these important details. FC2/SW/50 Simon Royle The co-developers of all the Wokingham Strategic The railway bridge is required by the Core Developments should pay for a tunnel for vehicular Strategy and is acknowledged as required traffic to travel beneath the railway tracks at the by the SW Consortium. Station Road/ Barkham Road junction. FC2/SW/54 Nicola Brown As a resident on London Road closest to Clay Lane The transport model is now complete and I am concerned about the impact on the will inform the ongoing design and infrastructure to this side of Wokingham. The infrastructure planning process. Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

increase in housing on Buckhurst farm has a potential of adding a further 1000+ cars to an The IDCSPD addresses infrastructure already congested area during rush hours and requirements including off-site highway beyond. These cars along with HGV using the works. These are therefore not duplicated in distribution route to Tesco's and other proposed the SWSPD. supermarkets raises a question of safety for residents and children attending the proposed No tunnel is proposed at Station Road/ primary school. Barkham Road junction. However, off-site FC2/SW/81 John Reekie Length of site development and during building work works will have regard to near-by junctions the: impact on traffic, traffic safety, and resident’s and the Traffic Impact Assessment required quality of life and journey times. as past of the planning application will FC2/SW/89 Kim Russell and Philip It would seem the infrastructure for all those new include measures to mitigate against Fitness houses has failed in places and the knock on effect adverse traffic impact at existing junctions is that the crossings are dealing with a higher where appropriate. volume than previously. Surely before any additional properties are built, the situation should be Recommendation: No change addressed. recommended

We are concerned about where the traffic will be shunted onto once you have travelled down the SDR to Tesco's, all that appears to happen is the Finchampstead Road /Molly Millars Road area which is already very busy, become totally grid locked. FC2/SW/99L Max Baxter – Bracknell A possible rail halt is shown within the development. Forest Borough Council This could have implications for the possible rail station at Amen Corner (Amen Corner SPD due to be adopted shortly). Rail companies may not want, and may not be able to operate, 2 additional rail stations between Bracknell and Wokingham. Theme 8: ADMINISTRATION - Safeguarding other land / Administration / Proposed open spaces Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Safeguard other land No specific comments made

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Administration FC2/SW/58 Alison Walker Concerns of how costs that are borne by later developers, will work and who will initially fund the Summary costs. The SPD does not seem to acknowledge the live planning applications for parts of the SDLs Concern is expressed that developers which pre-date the current draft SPD. What coming to the scheme later on will not be happens to the S106 requirements for later phases required to make funding contributions. if the earlier applications are granted consent or allowed at appeal with an inadequate package? The Using commencement of development as a Statement in paragraph 6.17 that the primary trigger trigger for infrastructure funding is point for the provision of infrastructure or the unrealistic as funds can only be available as payment of contributions will be the commencement development progresses. of development is wholly unrealistic. Financial contributions can only be made as the development There are many gaps relating to funding. progresses and generates income for the developers. How will the developers continue to work Paragraph 6.19 suggests that Third Parties will be with the community? prepared to make progress on granting consent (not planning) on major infrastructure projects without WBC response planning permission being granted by the Council for the SDL first. Our experience elsewhere with Funding arrangements will be subject to infrastructure providers leads us to believe this is legal agreements, to which the SW very unrealistic. Consortium or lead developer will be accountable. It is the Council’s Also many gaps noted with regard to funding/cost understanding that any land sold on to and maybe an acknowledgement from the Council further developers will be valued to take that delays will occur. account of the total costs of development. FC2/SW/88 Ralph and Rosalind Developers should be held to account, and made to Hardy do what they promise. Public consultation will be held for FC2/SW/89 Kim Russell and Philip Claims are made with regard to the developers major/outline planning applications in Fitness having to demonstrate conclusively that they will accordance with the Council’s Statement of

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

work with the council and community, We would like Community involvement. This will provide to know how this is going to be implemented and residents with the opportunity to find out monitored, about and comment on the plans at the next stage of the process, when more detail and information will be available.

Recommendation: No change recommended

Proposed open spaces FC2/SW/54 Nicola Brown We should be protected from any invasion of our privacy and that there should be some rural area Summary retained between us and the new residential area. FC2/SW/45 Bob Gunn – Priest Ensure current resident can enjoy safe access to There should be easily and safely Avenue Residents green space that they currently enjoy. accessible rural space for existing Association residents. FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley The on-site green infrastructure requirements within Associates paragraph 1c are extensive. To incorporate all The green infrastructure requirements as requirements on-site would reduce extent of set out at Principle 1c are excessive. Phase development area that could be accommodated to 1 at Buckhurst Farm has onerous and the detriment of viability. This was raised in the excessive open space requirements previous representations submitted (appended to including SANG and playing fields. These this letter) and has not been addressed. cannot be accommodated within Phase 1. Off-site provision should be acknowledged Within the current Phase 1 outline planning at 1c(i). application, over 55% of the site area is already dedicated to green space, based on provision of WBC Response Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), children's play areas, Sustainable Urban Drainage Open space will be available to all Systems (SUDS), and school playing residents. Principle 1e requires high levels pitches/MUGAs in accordance with required of connectivity between areas of open standards. The provision of additional sports pitches space in order to ensure good levels of use. and allotments within Phase 1 would require Principle 2a requires walkable approximately 1.25ha additional land to be provided. neighbourhoods, which should support

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

This would compromise the acceptability of the movement to open space. scheme in meeting other policy requirements. A sentence should be incorporated at 1c(i) to The open space requirements for the distinguish between those open space elements SWSDL are based on the whole of the SDL, where on-site provision is critical and those where rather than any individual stage. This off-site contributions will be acceptable. It is reinforces the Council’s requirement for an suggested that this off-site contribution include overarching infrastructure plan, which will allotments and any residual sports pitches. allow SDL wide requirements to be addressed.

Recommendation: No change recommended.

Theme 9: CENTRES - Topics: Oppose District Centre/Support District Centre / Existing community uses / Supermarket / Schools / Health Services / Community Development / Sports facilities Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Oppose District Centre No specific comments made.

Local Centre FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan _ It is difficult to envisage how the existing Rances Wokingham Town Lane shops could be upgraded to a Local Summary Council Framework Centre for retail purposes of anything like the size and variety needed to support the Could the Rances Lane shops be upgraded South Wokingham development. Also, it seems to support the development. How does this difficult to equate this concept with one of the main equate with the provision of a new features of the proposed town centre regeneration, supermarket in Wokingham town centre. which is the inclusion of a substantial supermarket, ostensibly to cater for the increased retail demand The neighbourhood centre and primary that the greatest proportion of the 13,000+ proposed school are not shown on land controlled by houses will generate. (It is acknowledged that the the SW Consortium. new, smaller supermarket proposed for Arborfield will take some share of demand.) WBC Response Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/65 BroadwayMalyan – on In terms of disposition of land uses within the SDL, we behalf of South have continuously drawn your attention to our Two neighbourhood centres are proposed Wokingham Consortium concerns in respect of defining a suitable location for within the SDL to meet the needs of the the school site and neighbourhood centre, We have SDL population and those in the immediate explained that the Consortium control enough land vicinity. These centres will act as community within the SDL to deliver the most optimal solution in hubs and will include the primary schools. terms of catchment areas, On this issue, we therefore They are intended to meet daily needs, seek flexibility within the master plan on these whereas town centre facilities are tailored to matters. higher level needs such as weekly shopping. This is an important distinction.

The land at Wood’s Farm has been shown as being available for development. The location of this neighbourhood centre is considered the best location from the point of view of the existing and proposed access network.

Recommendation: No change recommended.

Supermarket No specific comments made

Schools FC2/SW/8 Edouard Mee How will local secondary schools (St Crispins, Keephatch) cope with extra demand for places? Summary Schools should be expanded beforehand or a new school should be built. Concerns are raised about whether the FC2/SW/9 Colin Knight Developer should contribute to expanding existing secondary schools can cope with secondary school facilities at St Crispin. the growth in secondary age pupils. FC2/SW/27 Julian McGhee What S106 funding will be forthcoming for the new Developer contributions will be needed to Summer junior school and St Crispin’s? help fund the upgrade of St Crispins.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/54 Nicola Brown What provisions will be made for secondary school needs? The present local secondary school is How will the catchment’s changes in this already very popular and oversubscribed. area of Wokingham, including those for FC2/SW/58 Alison Walker – With regards to the location of the primary school, the existing primary and secondary schools, Croudace Strategic Preferred Spatial Framework Plan acknowledges that and taking into account the closure of there is a Listed Building in close proximity to the site. Emmbrook school. This and the buildings surrounding it have a high existing value, and along with the requirement to retain How will the development affect Bracknell the Listed Building, means it is perhaps not the most Forest schools; there does not appear to be suitable location for a new school. It may be that some any provision for new secondary schools. of the buildings could be adapted to form part of the Neighbourhood Centre, but this is not realistic for a There is a listed building at Wood’s Farm school. which should not be incorporated into the FC2/SW/64 Eva Cullen Clarification on the plans for the 3 new primary schools primary school site. in North and South Wokingham and how the

admissions policy and catchment areas for existing primary schools will need to change/alter to Does traffic modelling take account of the accommodate the new school catchment and impact of school traffic and does it account admissions planning and policy for the newly for changes in the catchments and how this expanded residential areas. will be reflected in the school run traffic?

Clarification also on the planning and investment WBC Response required with regard to the increase in primary schools. FC2/SW/78 Sarah Warr Local schools could not take the influx of pupils, even The Council’s education policies, temporarily. requirements for the delivery of schools and FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan _ It is unclear whether the traffic modelling includes the school places, and the definition of school Wokingham Town impact of future school re-organisations. catchments are the responsibility of the Council Local Education Authority. Schools required There is no firm statement on the possible closure of in the SWSDL are as a result of the LEA’s the Emmbrook School. Timing of the increase from forward planning, and the requirement for 1000 to 1500 at St Crispin's is unclear and "early in the two new primary schools at SWSDL is set development" could imply during the period 2012-15. out in Core Strategy Policy CP20. There will be a review of catchment areas (not referred to in the SPD) but how will numbers look, before and The role of the SWSDL is to identify the after proposed changes? optimum location for the schools, to ensure

that they are centrally located within their If Emmbrook School were to close, with St Crispin's catchments and easily accessible. The Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

then being the main school for Emmbrook children, the SWSPD is based on the work and policies peak traffic from Emmbrook &the North Wokingham of the LEA. development school runs would have a further detrimental impact on Keephatch Road, Binfield Road Funding for secondary school places will be and the junction with London Road, aggravating the required as part of Section 106 existing problems with London Road. Agreements, and will therefore be legally This will be further impacted by St Crispin's school also binding. being the school to serve the new South Wokingham development. It should be noted that a new secondary FC2/SW/99L Max Baxter – Bracknell Possible implications for secondary education as it school will be provided at Arborfield SDL. does not appear that any new secondary school is Forest Borough Council planned. Bracknell Forest will have to take back pupils currently attending St Crispin’s. Traffic modelling takes account of school travel patterns. FC2/SW/89 Kim Russell and Philip Horrified to hear about the two new primary schools.

Fitness Has no one taken the time out to consider the impact on our senior school situation locally. All families in the Recommendation: No change area should be able to send their children to the recommended catchment school, however this isn't the case now with St Crispins and if you add all these extra homes and two new primary schools, the sheer volume of children will be impossible for St Crispins to cope with.

Health Services FC2/SW/54 Nicola Brown The increase in families to the area raises problems to health provision for GP practices, Midwives, Summary Health Visitors who already have very large case loads. There will be inadequate healthcare FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan _ No mention of a medical centre provision for the development. Wokingham Town Council WBC Response Principle 4a(ii) acknowledges the possible inclusion of a primary health care facility within one of the neighbourhood centres. The Council would welcome the inclusion of a GP surgery. The SW Consortium will be required to consult with the PCT, or any

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

successive primary health care provider, to ensure the right amount of health services are provided in the SDL. The role of the SPD in this regard is to identify the appropriate location for any health provision and to ensure it is accommodated in the SW Consortium’s plans for the neighbourhood centres.

Recommendation: No change recommended.

Community Development FC2/SW/46 Peter Best – The The provision of community space envisaged in Wokingham Society 4a(ii) and (iii) needs to involve consultation with Summary community groups with an interest in this aspect. FC2/SW/69 David Atkinson – Parish Insufficient provision for Faith Groups. Proposals Consultation with community groups is of All Saints should include a plot of land for a church to be built needed in relation to the planning and Wokingham or the Community Centre be designed to have purpose of community sufficient space and availability for worship services. spaces/centre/neighbourhood centre. FC2/SW/78 Sarah Warr I understand that you are obliged to increase the number of houses but this plan could ruin the much There is a lack of provision for faith groups. needed community spirit that is required in England A site should be provided, or the community as per the government's big society policy. We centre designed to accommodate services. already have a large traveller community to support and increasing development will overwhelm the Consultation with the community should community resources. take place in relation to the running of the FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan – Section 6.5.4 covers Community Infrastructure, but neighbourhood centre and community Wokingham Town fails to refer to public involvement in Infrastructure facilities. Council determining what is needed, e.g. a community centre and medical centre. The protocols for WBC response involvement in the planning and subsequent running of the Neighbourhood Centre should be determined The Core Strategy requires provision for up front. faith groups at Appendix 7. The timing of this infrastructure should be phased

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

earlier in the developments to benefit the first The community facilities are yet to be residents moving in (rather than being left until the planned in detail. Whilst the neighbourhood end of the development). centre will include commercial facilities (for example local shops) there will be some community space. The SW Consortium will be required to consult on their plans in due course, in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. The Council will welcome discussions with the community about the role and management of the community centre. The SPD can be amended to acknowledge the potential for worship services to take place in the community centre.

Recommendation: No change recommended.

Sports Facilities FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The We assume it is taken for granted that the provision Wokingham Society of play and sports facilities - principles 1c(v) Summary and 1d(iii) - will be determined in consultation with potential users, and not just the Council. This Community consultation on play and sport should be stated for clarity. provision should be undertaken. FC2/SW/63 Rob Walter Re. new sports facilities are we going to see new, modern indoor, as well as outdoor floodlit facilities Indoor facilities will be required as well as for tennis, instead of the plans for football and outdoor pitches. cricket. FC2/SW/73 Simon Millett – Sport Sport England is supportive of the approach to Sport England is very supportive of the England ensure healthy, vibrant and equitable communities provisions for sport, open space, green are developed for the future. Sport England infrastructure and play made in the supports. in particular, the priority given to ensuring SWSPD. They are supportive of the access to open space, play and sports facilities. aspiration to achieve dual use with schools. They are supportive of the requirement for Sport England supports the shared and dual use of good access. They support the requirement

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

sites between schools and sports clubs. for a phasing strategy; this must ensure continuity of access and use of open space Sport England supports the principle of good levels during construction. Design guidance at of access to open space, green infrastructure, Principle 1c(v) should include reference to sports and play areas. the design standards of the various sporting National Governing Bodies as well as Fields Sport England Supports the recognition to providing in Trust. It should be clear in the SWSPD a detailed phasing strategy as part of any future that “playing fields” does not include planning application which deals specifically with NEAPS and LEAPS. landscape, green infrastructure, drainage and sports facilities. Sport England is supportive of the long term It is essential that continuity of sports provision is approach to management and maintenance maintained during the various phases of the arrangements. development and that playing field land is not damaged, lost or made temporarily unavailable WBC Response during the phases of development. The detailed phasing strategy must therefore detail how Sport England’s support is welcomed. The continuity of sports provision will be maintained and recommendations made in relation to outline and temporary relocation needs and - design guidance can be incorporated into remediation works required, as appropriate. the SWSPD (and other SPDs).

Sport England and sporting National Governing The SW Consortium will be required to Bodies (NGBs) have detailed Design Guidance undertake consultation on their proposals, Notes available to ensure sports facilities are fit for including the nature of the sports provision, purpose and of the highest design standards. These prior to the submission of planning are available via the appropriate NGB website and applications, in accordance with the the Sport England website: council’s Statement of Community http://www.sportengland.org/facilities Involvement. However, whilst there is no planning/design guidance current requirement for indoor sports notes.aspx?sortBy=aloha&pageNum=1 provision, the encouragement of dual use facilities with the new schools, and the Sport England support the approach to long term potential for a new community space may maintenance and management arrangements being lead to the availability of indoor sports considered early on in the infrastructure provision space as the development progresses. process. With regards to the provision of artificial grass pitches (AGPs), Sport England would strongly Recommendation: Principle 1c(v) be Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

recommend the setting up of sinking funds for amended to acknowledged the replacement surfaces. distinction between playing fields and children’s play areas. Also, Principle It is noted that Paragraph 1c(vi) states that "playing 1c(v) be amended to include a reference fields should be provided and designed in to the sporting national Governing accordance with the principle set out in Fields in Bodies guidelines for pitch design. Trust: Planning & Design for Outdoor Sport and Play"

Whilst it is recognised that Fields in Trust have significant expertise to offer in the design and layout of playing fields, policy should not preclude design in accordance with other measures if they are deemed more up to date of better serves a specific purpose. For example, many of the National Governing Bodies (NGBs) for sport produce playing pitch design guidelines specific to their sporting area. These design guidelines should be given equal or greater weight than those produced by other bodies.

Notwithstanding that, our objection stems from the misuse of the term 'playing field' within the policy. The policy implies that the series of provisions (in bullet points) fall within under the heading of playing field, however the term playing field has a very specific meaning which does not include LEAPS, NEAPS, LAPS etc and related only to grass pitch sports.

Sport England notes that a slight amendment has been made in paragraph 1c(vi) of the 'South of M4' SPD following Sport England's previous comments to the Strategic Development Location SPDs. This - reads: "Provision for sports and play is essential to Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

promote opportunities for healthy and active lifestyles. Playing fields should be provided and designed with regard to Sport England guidance and the principles set out in Fields in Trust: Planning & Design for Outdoor Sport and Play."

Sport England suggests that remaining Strategic Development Location SPDs should also contain this wording. Theme 10: EMPLOYMENT - Topics: Employment / Loss of existing business Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Employment FC2/SW/65 BroadwayMalyan – on In terms of land uses, we note there is no flexibility WBC Response behalf of South within the SPD to provide for an element of Wokingham Consortium commercial land uses should the need arise to The provision of employment was not raised locate such premises within the SDL as part of the during the Core Strategy stage and implementation of the Southern Relief Road (SRR). therefore no provision has been made for In this case, we request provision is made which this use in the SWSDL. provides the appropriate flexibility within the master plan. However, the Council is mindful of the need to support employment and commercial activity within the town. Full planning applications for such uses, should they come forward, will be considered on their merit.

Loss of existing business No comments made.

Theme 11: AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Topic: Affordable housing Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response FC2/SW/21 Eric and Evangeline Why above the national average of social housing? Thompson What part of the development will be social Summary housing? Support is given for the requirement for Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan _ Re-assuring to note the requirement for all housing “tenure blind” housing design in relation to Wokingham Town to be "tenure blind", so as not to distinguish affordable housing, but the question about Council between private ownership, social rented and how this can be achieved is raised. shared ownership properties in the appearance and setting of the dwelling. However, the methods by Why is affordable housing requirement which this can be achieved within the character of above the national average and what development set out in the SDL design principles proportion will be social housing? and the Adopted Core Strategy are very limited. More detail is required as to how the proposed 35% WBC Response affordable housing content will be integrated within The level of affordable housing required is the development, both in spatial location and design determined locally and is based on local quality. need as evidenced in the Housing Needs Assessment (which is available for viewing at the Council offices). The 35% requirement is set out in Core Strategy CP5.

The role of the SWSPD is to provide guidance on design, but to avoid over- specification and prescription. The design process will be ongoing through the Outline and reserved matters planning stages, when there will be opportunities to comment on the emerging plans. Providers of affordable housing will be required to implement the design guidance set out in the SWSPD and will also be required to conform to the Design & Access Statement that will be required in support of the outline planning application.

Recommendation: No change recommended

Theme 12: NOTIFICATION - Topic: Notification / Statement of community views

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Notification FC2/SW/4 Andy Fairclough All original submitted comments should remain valid in addition to any lodged this time around. Summary FC2/SW/28 S N Cockroft Previous comments redundant and need to write again. The Council claims to have provided ample FC2/SW/30 Robert G L Gunn All previous comments should be included not opportunity to comment but many local disregarded. people still unaware of the proposals. FC2/SW/31 Alan Sadler Some data has only been available for a few days prior to the consultation closure date. Therefore Some information was not available in time end date should be extended. to comment. FC2/SW/34 Martin Bloomfield The council claims that they have given residents ample opportunity to be involved however out of a Previous views and opinions should still be sample of 10 residents I have asked for their views counted. 1 on the proposed developments, 7 out of 10 responded that they were unaware of the proposals. WBC Summary

The Council has published extensive information and carried out consultation at the relevant stages of the Core Strategy and the SPD process. This has included statutory notices. Workshops were held in June and July 2010, and exhibitions of the draft SWSPD have been held twice as part of two six week statutory consultation exercises.

All information that is being consulted on was made available for the statutory six week consultation period.

Previous opinions have considered and the SWSPD amended as appropriate. Many of the points raised are being addressed under other Council activities, such as the

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

IDCSPD. This consultation exercise is separate so there is a need to make comments again for them to be considered now.

Recommendation: No change recommended.

Statement of community views FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The It is a source of considerable frustration that the Wokingham Society promised publication of the latest traffic modeling, Summary which includes data for pm and not just am road use, has been still further delayed and will not be It is disappointing that the transport model available in sufficient time to allow any conclusions was not available at the time of SPD drawn from this modeling to be reflected in consultation. He Council has been responses to these SPDs. We wish to record our inefficient and has failed to provide opinion that the Council has been highly inefficient sufficient information to inform local views. in this matter and has, from the time of the original consultation, let down the local community in its Doubt is expressed about the credibility of perfectly reasonable wish to see and discuss the the consultation process. Are resident’s plans for roads in their neighbourhood. As a result, views taken into account and can they be our views are necessarily based on the earlier informed if and when the SWSPD is information about road and transport plans. adopted. FC2/SW/68 Rose Freeman – The We have no new comments to make on these Theatres Trust Supplementary Planning Documents and were WBC Response disappointed not to have been consulted on the The transport model is now complete and Wokingham Town Centre Masterplan - the only will be used to inform ongoing discussions master plan that had relevance to our remit! in relation to the development of each SDL and the provision of infrastructure across The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public the Borough. Appendix 5 of the Core Body for Theatres. The Theatres Trust Act 1976 Strategy makes provision for monitoring and states that The Theatres Trust exists to promote the review of the LDF documents, which better protection of theatres. It currently delivers ensures that the SWSPD can be reviewed statutory planning advice on theatre buildings and and updated in relation to transport if this is

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

theatre use through the Town & Country Planning essential. (General Development Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (DMPO), Articles 16 & 17, Schedule 5, The Council has regard to all comments para.(w) that requires the Trust to be consulted by made, and has invested considerable local authorities on planning applications which resources in reading, recording and include 'development involving any land on which considering the views of every respondent. there is a theatre.' Whilst not all comments expressed can be FC2/SW/86 T Lown Does any consultation by the council with the public accommodated because they deal with mean that planners will alter their plans for the matters beyond the scope of the SWSPD, benefit of residents affected or is the council just where possible and reasonable in saying, "This is what is going to happen whether accordance with its statutory you like it or not"? I ask this because although there responsibilities, the Council will seek to are a number of residents where I live who are not accommodate the views of the community. happy about what is planned for Buckhurst Farm suggestions about altering them are largely Recommendation: No change opposed, by councillors who do not live in the area. recommended FC2/SW/81 John Reekie Do not believe the documents describing the proposals provide enough practical information for residents to provide a response on all the relevant impacts to them at an every day level. Please keep me informed on changes to the SPD documents, response to my comments, and whether the SPDs are adopted or not FC2/SW/89 Kim Russell and Philip How are you going to make it possible for residents Fitness to give their opinion? FC2/SW/92 A Reynolds I know that many residents having written in before but have decided not to write again, for their view is it will not achieve anything. Theme 13 DELIVERY - Topics: Outline application / Phasing Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response Outline application FC2/SW/5 Phiala Mehring on LVRA would like to see the following included in the behalf of LVRA SPDs: Summary 1) Plans for SUDS for site as whole 2) General SUDS plans for individual Request for plans on water management,

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

properties drainage plans and impact of drainage. 3) Sustainable plans for water use and water storage Request to become a member of the 4) Maintenance (when, what, funding, SWSDL Delivery Board from Wokingham upgrading of existing SUDS) Parish Council. 5) Links into existing systems 6) Impact of development on surrounding Request for requirement for overarching properties infrastructure delivery plans be removed as 7) Initial consultation with water companies this is not practical. Other measures such and other interested parties. as Section 106 Agreements are available. FC2/SW/60 Judith Moore – Would like to become a member of the monitoring Swift agreement to approach to off--site Wokingham Parish panel with regard to the S106 agreement contributions will enable first phase of Council negotiations. housing to be delivered in accordance with FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley It is noted that the requirement for either an over- the latest housing trajectory. Associates arching infrastructure outline planning application or overarching Infrastructure Delivery Plan at WBC response paragraph 6.1.1 remains, notwithstanding the representations submitted previously. For the The purpose of the SWSDL is to provide reasons set out within these representations, the guidance, not detailed design. The design reference to SDL wide infrastructure outline and location of drainage including SUDS is planning applications should be deleted. a detailed matter that must be resolved in discussions between the SW Consortium Over-arching Infrastructure Delivery Plans, in and the Environment Agency (EA). The EA conjunction with S106 agreements, may offer the is generally supportive of the SWSPD and comfort on infrastructure delivery that the Council is indicates the importance of ongoing seeking. Phased delivery is an expectation of the discussions about drainage and relevant Core Strategy policies for each SDL, and management. each will need to provide for the necessary infrastructure associated with that Phase, plus Interest in Delivery Board membership is pooled contributions towards off site provision. It is welcomed and noted. not practical, reasonable or appropriate to seek all developers and landowners to be involved in this The requirement for an overarching process either through a single application or infrastructure delivery plan remains the through phased applications, for the reasons Council’s preferred approach to previously given. development.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

Recommendation: No change Paragraph 6.4.4 confirms that the first phase is recommended estimated to be from 2012 to 2016 based on the latest housing trajectory. This aspiration is supported in principle by my client, and is still considered realistic based on the constructive progress on the submitted Phase 1 outline planning application at Buckhurst Park to date. However, the delivery of this critical housing and infrastructure within the envisaged timeframe requires swift progress by the Council on agreeing an approach to off-site contributions, and the positive determination of the Phase 1 outline planning application for Buckhurst Park itself. Phasing FC2/SW/6 Stephen and Barbara Timing of provision of southern distributor road – Smith should be completed within 12 months of project Summary commencement. Closure of Waterloo Road Level crossing should only be considered when southern There is considerable concern about the distributor road completed. phasing of the SDR, and about its FC2/SW/8 Edouard Mee SANG / Amenities / infrastructure improvements are commencement. Views include the need to often left until last. What guarantees are there in provide the road and crossing in its entirety place to make sure this does not happen at prior to commencement of development and Buckhurst Farm? the need to link through to Finchampstead FC2/SW/9 Colin Knight Phase 1 of Southern Relief Road should be built Road as part of the first phase in order to before housing is commenced and must include provide a through-route. proposed bridge over railway line or have South Relief Road originate at the Jennet Park exit of The provision and phasing of roads should A329M. ensure that arrangements are in place to FC2/SW/14 DR S.P. Wilford (CPRE) The SDL’s must be developed sequentially. North avoid reliance on existing roads. Wokingham should be first as this is the most sustainable in terms of transport links, jobs and local Phased delivery means that improvements infrastructure. This should be followed by South to the town’s traffic problems will be Wokingham. Progress to the next SDL should only delayed. Development should be planned to occur when a paramount need has been avoid congestion up to and beyond 2026,

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

established. rather than nil-detriment at 2026. To FC2/SW/15 Patricia Green The SDL’s must be developed sequentially with achieve this a wider vision for the Borough each location being completed before another one is needed. is commenced. North Wokingham should be first which relates to shops, schools, employment and The development of phase 1 in isolation of transport links. South Wokingham is the second the rail bridge and onward link will put most suitable location while Shinfield is third. pressure on the London Road. FC2/SW/16 Ms S L Brown Relief Road should be built as soon as possible and not wait until subsequent developments are built. Local involvement in delivery should be FC2/SW/23 Helen Dodsworth Alternative arrangements to carry traffic from the accommodated. new development away from the existing residential roads must be in place as part of the first phase of There has been a failure to address issues development. of viability and phasing. FC2/SW/24 Marion Knowles Alternative arrangements to carry traffic from the new development away from the existing residential WBC Response roads must be in place as part of the first phase of The Council accepts that infrastructure development. should be delivered in phases in FC2/SW/25 Nina Bell-Williamson Alternative arrangements to carry traffic from the accordance with the needs of the new development away from the existing residential development as it grows. The requirement roads must be in place as part of the first phase of for an overarching infrastructure delivery development. plan for the SWSDL, along with Section 106 FC2/SW/26 and Gareth Rees Alternative arrangements to carry traffic from the Agreements and CIL provision will ensure FC2/SW/03 new development away from the existing residential the delivery of infrastructure at the roads must be in place as part of the first phase of appropriate time. development. FC2/SW/28 S N Cockroft Concerned that the TA states that the development The Council as local highways authority will will be completed prior to the full Relief Road oversee and approve the proposals for road opening. infrastructure in accordance with the Core FC2/SW/33 Great Langborough Phased delivery of the South Wokingham Relief Road Strategy and based on the updated Residents' Association means that it will not be constructed fully before 2020. transport model which is now complete. This means a delay before Wokingham gets the forecast improvement in town centre traffic volumes. Recommendations: No change However, we wait with interest output from the traffic recommended modelling relating to this road. We remain concerned about the Southern Relief Road terminations at the Tesco roundabout and London Road. The junction Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

with Easthampstead Road causes us concern, as so close to the busy Star Lane level crossing. (see above for summary, WBC response The whole of the South Wokingham Relief Road and recommendations on this issue) should be planned in detail as one coherent route, notwithstanding its progressive delivery in Phases 2 through 4. The most logical occasion on which to present and review the plan Is with the Phase 2 planning application. FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith Alternative arrangements to carry traffic from the new development away from the existing residential roads must be in place as part of the first phase of development. FC2/SW/46 Peter Must – The Section 6.4.4 says that 'the following outlines the Wokingham Society sequence of development. .. ‘But then omits the detailed phases included in the original draft, rendering this paragraph meaningless. Perhaps it was intended to rely solely on the iteration in the Infrastructure SPD. Sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.5 cover long-term management and management of delivery. As already argued, these should involve local residents, and should include representation on both the short and long-term bodies. FC2/SW/57 John Turtle The infrastructure needs to phased and not left until the end of the building. There must be a mechanism to monitor and make sure it happens. FC2/SW/62 Mike Dunstan – Viability and phasing of infrastructure Wokingham Town With considerable concern having been expressed Council that the developments would proceed without the infrastructure requirements of Appendix 7 of the Adopted Core Strategy being met or of Infrastructure being only partially met, the statement that "Detailed consideration of viability has taken place using external consultants and the SDLs are deliverable" completely fails to address these Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

specific concerns about infrastructure delivery.

Community Infrastructure (see above for summary, WBC response The timing of this infrastructure should be phased and recommendations on this issue) earlier in the developments to benefit the first residents moving in (rather than being left until the end of the development).

Construction and relief road infrastructure The phased completion of the Southern Distribution Road in line with the phased delivery of road infrastructure housing presents a major problem. At the Finchampstead Road end, given the volumes of traffic and delays already present, there would seem to be significant risk of traffic not using the SDR, thus aggravating town centre congestion.

The adopted Infrastructure Delivery SPD states (P57) that "The delivery of this road is subject to the provision of the replacement of the Southern railway bridge on Finchampstead Road and contributions to the northern rail bridge improvements" and that "Phasing is likely to be between 2011 and 2017" The phasing of any alternative arrangements to carry traffic from the new development away from the above existing residential roads must be clearly planned ahead of any planning applications. These arrangements should then be built as appropriate to mitigate the traffic generated by each phase (rather than leaving the relief road infrastructure until the end of the final phase in 2026).

Access and Movement Framework

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

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

SDR, which WTC feels should be completed before any housing is allowed, otherwise it will be partially done, with construction vehicle movements impacting the new residents in (see above for summary, WBC response the SDL and with no definitive completion or and recommendations on this issue) finance. The current plan for Buckhurst Farm shows vehicle access/egress to London Road which will have an adverse effect on the flow both into and out of the town. One of the key issues arising from the options exhibition in September/October 2009 was support for the delivery of necessary infrastructure, including the (SDR), at an early stage (see Section 2.4.7). Similarly, one of the headline issues of the statutory consultation which took place between 9th February and 23rd March 2010 was considerable concern that the developments would proceed without the infrastructure requirements of Appendix 7 of the Adopted Core Strategy being met or being only partially met (see Section 2.4.9). The Adopted Core Strategy, the Infrastructure Delivery SPD and the SDL SPD indicate that the construction of the SDR will be developer funded, most probably via S1 06 agreements (given that WBC do not anticipate finalising a Community Infrastructure levy (ClL) charging schedule until April 2014), as will the replacement of the southern railway bridge and some of the costs of the northern rail bridge improvements. However, whilst the phasing of the housing construction, is quoted as starting in 2011, the southern bridge construction phasing is from 2012 to 2014 and the northern bridge improvements are "likely from 2016 onwards". Clearly therefore, the completion of the SDR will Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

not be achieved until at least six years after commencement of the residential units. Wokingham Town Council supports the principle of (see above for summary, WBC response the North and South Wokingham Sidles, but and recommendations on this issue) believes that it is essential to have an adequately thought out and overarching plan to prevent congestion in the Town, not just until 2026, but for a further 15 years beyond. With a further forecast 1.35 cars per household in this area, it is essential that the Highways infrastructure is planned by WBC and the projected road layouts concreted into the SDLs and not left to the developers to negotiate or indeed to finance totally. This needs forward vision which can only be provided by WBC. Wokingham Town Council wants to see effective relief roads around the perimeter of these developments so as not to force traffic into the town but to give an opportunity for traffic from the new developments to bypass the town and the new settlements. There is no commitment to these roads. FC2/SW/65 BroadwayMalyan – on Whilst the SPD provides reasonable information in behalf of South respect of design principles/concepts, it again remains Wokingham Consortium less clear on the delivery and phasing of the SDL itself This is in part due to its reliance on the Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions SPD, FC2/SW/67 Peter & Wendy Dacey There is a significant risk that if Buckhurst Farm is developed first only that stretch of the SDR will be built, with no railway crossing. This will then lead to all the traffic having to exit on to London Road, which is at times already heavily congested.

FC2/SW/88 Ralph and Rosalind Roads and railway crossing should be built first. As it is London Road is clogged for hours in the morning and Hardy at school-leaving time. New access points will make it much worse UNLESS the new road links through to the Finchampstead Road before house building starts.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

It can then be a de facto by-pass for M4-bound traffic from Finchampstead and thereby relieve the town of a (see above for summary, WBC response good deal of traffic. The link road will also enable new and recommendations on this issue) residents to go south to Camberley and the M3 without struggling through Wokingham.

Theme 14: Miscellaneous Number Reference No. Name Summary of comment Suggested WBC response FC2/SW/21 Eric and Evangeline Privacy and safety of existing residents. WBC response Thompson This will be a consideration for reserved matters applications, when more detailed layout plans will be available.

No change recommended

FC2/SW/40 Mr and Mrs Lee-Smith Consider alternative solution of a full Northern Relief Summary Road BEFORE deciding on a Southern Distribution Road. Consider Developments in area as a whole A wider view should be taken of the NRR rather than each being considered as a separate and SDR when traffic modelling. A full NRR entity, especially with traffic modelling. should come before the SDR. Funding for Concern that funds from developers allocated to the the SWSDL should be ring fenced to ensure building of the SDR will be spent elsewhere; and it is spent here. would result in an incomplete distribution road with Buckhurst Farm being left in isolation with traffic WBC response being channelled directly onto the A329. The transport model takes account of the entire Borough and cross boundary travel where appropriate.

No change recommended

FC2/SW/47 David & Anna Tinker All response given from The Wokingham Society Noted Ref: FC2/SW/46 should be considered as their proposals. FC2/SW/56 Martin Jeater His property is in the South Wokingham Noted development area – would like someone to call him

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

to help him understand what that means. FC2/SW/57 John Turtle Concerned that the developers will exploit the vague Summary wording on the SPDs. We are concerned that the Borough are only paying lip service to working with The SWSPD is too vague. Concerned that other Principal Authorities, in particular BFC, to the Council pays lip service to principal consider and take into account the possible other authorities. There is a need for better cross large scale developments planned in the area. It is boundary planning with BFC. simply unrealistic and unacceptable to claim that Wokingham Borough got their plans in first and WBC Response absolve themselves of any further responsibility. At The SWSPD has been prepared in the very minimum there needs to be an agreed accordance with national planning policy. It contingency plan in place should the proposed should be recognised as a guide to inform developments in the TRL & Broadmoor take place. more detailed designs as part of an ongoing We request that all relevant decisions between such design process. authorities are transparent and published. The Council has consulted with BFC.

No change recommended

FC2/SW/94 Simon Packer – Turley The opportunity to review and update the SPD to Summary Associates reflect changing circumstances that will have implications on development, as set out within Support for ongoing consultation which will Section 13 Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory enable account to be taken of ongoing Purchase Order Act 2004, is noted. My client discussions about Buckhurst farm. Figure welcomes this approach which provides the 3.1 should be updated to reflect these. opportunity to reflect on the constructive progress made in recent negotiations on the layout The SPD should be given more weight in associated with Phase 1 outline planning application relation to the definition of development at Buckhurst Park reference 0/2010/1712. This limits. The relationship between the MDD should be reflected in updating some of the figures DPD and the SWSPD needs to be clarified. and text within the SPD. WBC Response For similar, reasons, Part 4 of Section 13 also The SWSPD will inform the MDD DPD but advises Local Planning Authorities to keep under the SWSPD cannot allocate individual review changing circumstances in neighbouring development areas within the SWSDL.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

authorities. In the case of the SWSDL SPD, this relates primarily to Bracknell Forest Borough Figure 3.1 can be updated. Council. Recommendation: Figure 3.1 be updated The reference at 2.3.6 to the Managing to reflect revised location of Development Delivery DPD defining development neighbourhood centre limits and its relationship with the SPD needs to be clarified. The Preferred Spatial Framework at Figure 3.1 of the SPD and related Table identifies some relatively specific aspirations for the extent of development areas and SANG. Paragraph 3.19 of the Core Strategy confirms that a development brief SPD is required to be adopted before granting planning permission for the SDL. In this context, the SPD should be given more weight in assessing the appropriateness of development limits. The third and fourth sentences should be deleted and replaced with: "It will define development limits based on Figure 3.1 of the SPD and where appropriate, take into account discussions and negotiations on related planning applications and related supporting information." Paragraph 2.3.7 is a repeat of 2.3.6 and should be deleted.

The Preferred Spatial Framework at Figure 3.1 should be fully updated to reflect the recent constructive discussions undertaken in respect of the Phase 1 outline planning application at Buckhurst Park and be consistent with the more detailed sketches at Appendix 1. The figure has been updated to provide the additional green space in the north-west corner adjacent to Clay Lane, but has not identified the relocation of Note: This is a summary of the key issues. Analysis will be based on the original correspondence which is available for inspection at Shute End during normal office hours. The reference number (FC/**/**) allows cross referencing with the original letter. A number of people made specific points about matters of detail which will either be incorporated into amendments or will be dealt with through subsequent planning applications which will be subject of further consultation. Unless otherwise clarified it has been assumed that non-site specific comments will apply to all SDLs.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY – SOUTH WOKINGHAM (SWSPD)

the school and neighbourhood centre, and ha not incorporated the provision of secondary accesses on to London Road. This selective approach is (see above for summary, WBC response inappropriate. and recommendations on this issue)

FC2/SW/99L Max Baxter – Bracknell Very little consideration seems to have been given Late comment: raised no issues not already Forest Borough Council in the document to the potential cross-boundary under consideration. impacts in relation to Bracknell Forest, Noted. Discussions with BFC will form part characterised by the lack of commitment- or of the ongoing design and development reference - to joint working with this Council. For a process. Delivery Board.

Can you please notify us whether the SPDs are adopted or not, any responses to my comments, and let us know of any changes to the SPDs at the following address: John Reekie, Moss Grange, 88A Easthampstead Road, Wokingham, Berks, RG40 2HL.