Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Main points from AG-RAG:

Phasing of development

WBC have always said the Arborfield SDL is not viable unless all of the proposedinfrastructure can be guaranteed. How will WBC protect against the potential situation ofdevelopers building 749 houses on green field land, and then the same developers arguingthat there is not the demand or funding for any more houses, in order to avoid building the by-pass? It is imperative not to allow any green field development to start until the MOD hasvacated the land ‘behind the wire’ or at least the substantial part of it.Development should only be started on brownfield land ‘behind the wire’. If the supermarketfor the district centre is in the first phase of building then this should be located on brownfieldtoo. There is no natural centre to the development, as is the case in other SDLs, so there willbe no strong argument for it to be placed on green fields.Starting the development on the MOD land behind the wire will show a clear commitment thatthe army are actually going to vacate the land. There is a substantial amount of vacant landbehind the wire that should be made available.This is a very important point for existing residents and will minimise disruption and have theleast impact at the early stages of the SDL development.

Area B

A particularly sensitive part of the development is the building that is planned to occur closestto the existing residences. The trees should be retained in all parts of Area B. The field thatforms the boundary to Tyler Drive, Barker Close and Sheerlands Road should not be built onand safe-guarded from future development by changing the ownership to Arborfield andNewlands Parish Council. Canvassing neighbours, who will be immediately affected byhousing on the adjacent field, has drawn a unanimous response that they don’t want houseson the field behind their houses.There are two proposals, in order of preference:1) The proposed SANG in the southern part of the SDL should be divided so part of itremains on the southern boundary to retain a gap with Finchampstead and theremaining part is relocated to Area B and the field that abuts the existing residentialarea described above.2) At the very least a substantial boundary of a minimum of 100m should be establishedto provide a permanent green gap between existing and any future development. Wesuggest you contact Farley Farms to take advice on designing the boundary thatcould provide a good quality and fast growing boundary that would enhance theenvironment and help mitigate the loss of green fields and also act as screening ofnoise and view of the new houses.Any SANG or green gap must have a change of ownership and become the responsibility ofthe local parish council in order to future proof it against further development and not becomesubject to costly planning application appeals.

All or Nothing

Of major concern is the infrastructure document (Infrastructure Delivery and ContributionsSPD for the SDLs), that is clearly incomplete, may be adopted before all the costs have beenfully analysed. WBC have repeatedly stated that the provision of the infrastructure is ‘all ornothing’. Our analysis of the infrastructure costings provided in the consultation documents isas follows:

Infrastructure costs £ MExtension of Nine Mile Ride 3 additional costsSegregated bus and cycle route along Langley Common Rd 1 additional costsUpgrade to Park Lane 2.9Relief Road (by-pass) 5 Arborfield's contribution - total cost is 9MContribution to Shinfield Relief Rd 3.35Bus interchange/bus corridor (per corridor) 10.5Safe crossings (cycle/pedestrian) 0.32 primary schools 13Relocation of secondary school 15.47Multiuse community centre 4Police 0.215Sports facilities 2.6 plus £260 per dwellingSANG 7.7Open Space 6Public rights of way 2Sewage Treatment Works 481.035The minimum cost for all the infrastructure is £81M. Within the document there are lots ofplaces where it says developer funded and no indication of what the cost would be. Forinstance off-site highways works related to the provision of the necessary transportinfrastructure. If you exclude the affordable houses (35% of 3500 = 1225), the cost per nonaffordable house is £81m / 2275 = £35,600. Plus the yet to be costed elements, so we cansee how the figure could easily be £40-£50k per house.There mustn’t be any compromise, so all the infrastructure needs to be costed and accountedfor by the developers without increasing the density and quantity of houses or reducing thebuild quality in the development.

Traffic in general

How can the SDL be adopted when the traffic survey results are not yet available? Anydevelopment in Arborfield will result in a massive increase in traffic on all the surroundingroutes. A comprehensive strategic approach to roads and public transport is required withfunding fully guaranteed in advance of any development to ensure that no area aroundArborfield and Wokingham is adversely affected. The by-pass will be mandatory for adevelopment of this scale yet no route has been decided so the costs may easily escalatebeyond the budgeted £9M.Eversley residents have conducted their own sample traffic survey and are extremelyconcerned that there are no mitigating measures within the SDL documents to remedy thehorrendous traffic issues any development in Arborfield would cause.

Gap between Finchampstead and SDL and Nine Mile Ride Traffic

The gap between Finchampstead and the proposed Arborfield Garrison SDL will now beminimal and there is no mention of how the increase in traffic along Nine Mile Ride will bemanaged particularly at the pinch point of the California crossroads. The plans to significantlyincrease the size of Hogwood Industrial Estate can only exacerbate the traffic congestion.What measures have been planned to mitigate the extra traffic that will be generated on NineMile Ride and at California crossroads?

Multiple Planning Applications