Cris Lancaster Wokingham Borough Council PO Box 157 Shute End Wokingham Berkshire RG40 1WR 27 July 2011 Dear Mr Lancaster I am writing in response to the public consultation on the draft Arborfield Garrison SPD and the draft Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions SPD, which detail plans for a new town to be built south of Arborfield. I support the principle of re-developing the old Garrison site “behind the wire” when (and only when) the MOD have left, but the plans for a development that sprawls across the green fields between Arborfield and Eversley are poorly thought out. Your plans are flawed in so many ways, but I intend to focus mainly on the issues that affect me directly as a resident of Eversley. My objections are as follows:

1) Wokingham Borough Council has failed in its duty to consult local residents I live on The Street in Eversley, which is a Conservation Area, almost exactly a mile from the southern boundary of the Arborfield SDL. I live closer to the SDL site than the vast majority of Wokingham Borough residents. Wokingham Borough Council claims that “extensive up-front consultation has taken place and views have been taken into account” but this is simply not true where the residents of Eversley are concerned. Our views are not represented in your “Statement of Community Views”. You claim to have done more in terms of consultation than is legally required. This may be the case for residents of Wokingham Borough, but residents of Eversley, who will be directly impacted by 15 years of heavy construction traffic and traffic from the new development, have been ignored. If I lived a mile to the north of the proposed development, I would have received copies of “Wokingham Borough News”. I would have been invited to two community workshops in June and July 2009, and a 6 week exhibition in the autumn of 2009. I would have been invited to respond to the formal consultation process which led to the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2010. Instead, residents of Eversley have had to find out about the Arborfield development for themselves, only to be told that it is too late to challenge the principle of building a new town of 3,500 houses a mile from our doorsteps.

Wokingham Borough Council has a clear legal duty to consult local residents, and in the case of Eversley has obviously failed to do this. Writing a letter to our Parish Council and County Council does not equal “extensive and up-front consultation”. As a result the draft SPDs currently out for consultation are fundamentally flawed in that they do not take into account the views of the local community of Eversley, which will be directly affected. Wokingham Borough Council should not and must not adopt the SPDs without a further period of consultation, to include the views of the community of Eversley. 2) Wokingham Borough Council has not consulted properly with neighbouring authorities Planning Policy Statement 3 makes it clear that planning authorities have a duty to consult with neighbouring authorities and to work collaboratively with them. Discussions are only now taking place with Hampshire County Council regarding traffic issues, and this is only happening as a direct result of queries and complaints from Hampshire residents. I understand that Hart District Council is lodging a strong objection to your plans, as it has not previously been consulted. This is not good enough. The development at Arborfield will have a direct impact on the everyday lives of hundreds of residents of Hart and Hampshire. I believe that Wokingham Borough Council has failed in its duty, outlined in Planning Policy 3, to consider the cross-border impact of development and to consult with neighbouring authorities. The consultation process and the adoption of the SPDs must be halted until proper discussions with Hampshire County Council and Hart District Council can be concluded, and outcomes incorporated in a new draft SPD. 3) No mitigation measures are included for the A327 through Eversley The only route south from Arborfield towards the A30 and the M3 is the A327, which passes through the historic Conservation Area of Eversley Street. This is the route used by hundreds of Arborfield residents every day, and the road simply cannot cope with the extra traffic generated by building 3500 extra houses, schools and a supermarket. The A327 is already struggling to cope with the existing volume of traffic which at peak times averages one car every 3 seconds, making crossing the road incredibly difficult. There are no pedestrian crossings and in some places no pavement as the road is too narrow. To walk my daughters to pre-school, I have to push their buggy in the road, into the oncoming traffic. At three points, within 500 metres of one another (Bonney’s Yard, Eversley Bridge and the corner by the Tally Ho pub) the road is too narrow for two HGVs to pass one another, or even for one HGV to pass a van coming the other way. Heavy traffic regularly mounts the pavement. If this is the route you intend to use for construction traffic and deliveries to the supermarket and businesses based on the new development (and it is currently the only route to/from the A30 and M3), you should be aware that two of your lorries, buses or vans will not be able to pass one another without driving on the pavement, endangering life. This is NOT a suitable access route for your new development.

There are plans in the SPDs for a by-pass around Arborfield Cross (at an indicative cost of £9 million) and a relief road for Shinfield (at a cost of £13 million) and yet there are no plans whatsoever to mitigate the affect of increased traffic on Eversley. Why? A relief road for Arborfield Cross has been a key element of the proposals for many months, but if a relief road is deemed necessary for the Conservation Area of Arborfield Cross, why has a relief road not even been considered for Eversley? If Eversley and Hampshire had been considered and consulted before now, would the EIP Inspector not have endorsed plans for an Eversley by-pass, as he endorsed similar measures for Arborfield? If mitigation measures for Eversley are not included in the SPDs, BEFORE ADOPTION, it will be too late to address this issue. Wokingham Borough Council cannot and must not adopt the draft SPDs until measures to mitigate the effect of increased traffic on Eversley, particularly to route heavy traffic away from our historic village centre, have been included in the plans. 4) No measures are included to protect the Conservation Area of Eversley

Street The foreword to the Arborfield SPD states that development must not “harm the character of existing communities”. You also say “the Council aims to protect and enhance the very good quality of life enjoyed in the Borough” and to “integrate developments with existing communities”. Eversley Street is a Conservation Area including a large number of historic listed and locally listed buildings, located very close to the busy road. Many of these houses are already being damaged by the heavy traffic using the A327, and any increase in traffic levels (especially heavy construction traffic) will cause irreparable damage – both to the historic environment and to private property. Any increase in traffic will damage everyday life in the village, making it impossible for us to cross the road safely, sit in our gardens, or open our windows. By failing to consider the impact of additional traffic on Eversley, Wokingham Borough Council is not only contravening numerous planning policies but also your own stated aims. 5) No details regarding “Improvements to transport capacity along the A327” Policy CP18 of your Core Strategy sets out key requirements for the development of Arborfield Garrison, including “improvements to transport capacity along A327”. The Government Planning Inspector made it clear that improvements to the A327 were a key condition of the plans being approved. The Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions SPD again makes reference to “improvements to transport capacity along the A327” at an indicative cost of just £300,000. But what are these improvements to the A327 going to be? No details are included in the SPD, making it impossible to comment fully on the plans.

It is clear that £300,000 will be a woefully inadequate sum for the level of improvements that are necessary. There is simply no scope to widen the A327 through Eversley, to add cycle lanes or even a pavement. Only a bypass for Eversley, or a new road linking the new Arborfield development with the A30 and the A33 will effectively address the traffic impact on the A327 and the village of Eversley. If a bypass for Arborfield Cross costs £9m and a relief road for Shinfield £13m, why has only £300,000 been set aside for the A327 southbound? Numerous comments about traffic submitted to the previous consultation process were met with the blanket response “the transport strategy was examined in the EIP and found to be found”. Given that the Examination in Public clearly recommended that key improvements to transport links would be necessary (including the A327), this is not a satisfactory response. The recommendations of the EIP are legally binding, and the EIP required Wokingham Borough Council to detail improvements to transport capacity as part of the Masterplanning process. This information is lacking in the SPDs. 6) Results of traffic modeling will not be available until AFTER the consultation

period has closed We are told that detailed traffic modeling is underway, and results will be available in August or September, AFTER this consultation process has closed. This is unacceptable. Traffic is THE major issue for many local residents, and by not giving us the opportunity to see and comment on the traffic modeling, you are making a mockery of the consultation process. The SPDs state that “The SDLs have been traffic modelled and the outputs show that the SDL package once delivered will achieve a nil detriment scenario in 2026.” Where is the evidence for this? I am sure that use of public transport will be encouraged, but 3500 households will still own well in excess of 3500 cars and Wokingham Borough Council will have no control over whether and where people choose to drive. Have the daily supermarket lorry deliveries been factored in? The SPD documents talk of a “robust evidence base” which underpins WBC’s assumptions about traffic and transport, but the website link www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/localdevelopmentframework/corestrategy/examination is broken and my enquiries to your offices for this “evidence” have met with no response. I would very much like to know what (if any) traffic modeling has been carried out regarding traffic volume and flow, particularly south on the A327 – can you tell us? By carrying out the consultation process at the same time as detailed traffic modeling, Wokingham Borough Council is denying residents the opportunity to comment fully on these plans. For Wokingham Borough Council to proceed with the adoption of the SPDs in the absence of detailed traffic modeling data would clearly be negligent.

7) The Infastructure Delivery and Contributions SPD contains an unrealistic and unachievable level of infrastructure spending Wokingham Borough Council has announced an “all or nothing” policy regarding the development at Arborfield, and has stated that all elements of the SDL must be achieved within the Core Strategy period before 2026. The Infrastructure SPD contains an extremely high level of developer contributions, which is clearly not realistic or achievable. It should be obvious to Wokingham Borough Council NOW that not all the promised infrastructure projects can and will be achieved within the stated timeframe. It is clear that the developers will launch legal challenges to the level of contributions required, which will be downgraded, and the promised infrastructure as outlined in the SPDs cannot and will not be delivered. If this is the case, Wokingham Borough Council is being naïve and optimistic to the point of negligence and is in effect misleading the public on the “benefits’ of the development. If this is not the case, I would like Wokingham Borough Council to explain clearly why it feels the developers should contribute to infrastructure at such an exceptionally high level, and what evidence it has that the developers will accept this?  

I  look  forward  to  hearing  your  comments  on  these  points.  In  my  view  the  SPDs  (especially  the  Infrastructure  Delivery  and  Contributions  SPD)  are  flawed  to  the  extent  that  pushing  ahead  to  adopt  them  in  early  autumn  as  planned  would  be  negligent,  and  would  expose  Wokingham  Borough  Council  to  legal  challenge.    

I  urge  you  to  re-­‐consider  the  huge  scale  of  the  development  at  Arborfield  and  the  reckless,  inflexible  “all  or  nothing”  approach,  which  is  causing  the  Council  to  ride  rough-­‐shod  over  the  legitimate  views  and  concerns  of  local  residents.  There  appears  to  be  no  Plan  B,  which  is  irresponsible  and  alarming.  

I  would  be  happy  to  discuss  any  of  these  points  on  the  telephone  or  in  person.  

Yours  sincerely,  

 

Hatty  Masser  

Eversley,