Golf Club - Third Planning Application!
Reading Golf Club have, for the third time, submitted a planning application for a poorly conceived housing estate on beautiful greenfield land, three times larger than the area allocated in the local plan. We believe that this will have a massive adverse impact on wildlife, traffic congestion in the area, as well as access to schools and doctors.
Please help us to fight this unwanted development.
Please don’t think that you can’t do anything about these proposals as “developers’ money always wins”. The Gladman proposal for 245 homes just to the north of Emmer Green was successfully fought off by CAGE with support from hundreds of local residents. We have already fought off two applications with over 5,000 objections from local residents – let’s make this a third.
With your support we can do it again!
Quick links
To view the documents in the application, click here
Comments can be submitted on-line: click here.
They can also be sent by email or in writing. If doing so, please state your name, postal address and refer to application number 211843. The addresses are:
letter: Planning Dept, Reading Borough Council, Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Reading, RG1 2LU
The closing date for receiving comments is 11th January 2022.
If you objected to the previous application (210018), we have a created a search engine for you to find your comments, click here.
Please contact your local councillors to let them know how annoyed the community is. Contact details for councillors can be found by clicking here.
Residents can make more than one consultation response if they wish. Should you wish to submit a response now and make a more detailed submission later (but before January 11th), please do so.
What has Changed?
The previous application was for 257 properties, this is for 223 properties, once again covering all the green land on Reading Golf Club in Reading Borough (around 33 acres ~12 hectares).
Slight increase in ‘public’ on-site open space from 4.07 hectares to 4.63 hectares (including drainage of around 1 hectare), which realistically will only benefit residents of the development, not the local community.
112 trees cut down rather than 120
Reduction of affordable housing from 35% to 30%, so 23 fewer affordable homes out of a total reduction of 34 properties, mostly fewer flats.
Still building to the SODC border – and designed so that the developer can continue development in to SODC at a later date.
No more health centre – instead an undefined contribution to local health centre – even though there is no obvious way for existing surgeries to increase capacity.
A bus stop and an undefined play area
No more ‘country park’ on SODC land – now shown as private golf club grounds
Various defined financial contributions to Reading Borough Council, but with no solution to Caversham’s traffic problems, despite adding to them
KEG's first review of the plans
Here are our initial observations on the planning application:
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL (RBC) LOCAL PLAN
The RBC Local Plan ensures that Reading has the right balance of houses, roads, schools, surgeries, green spaces, etc. for the next 20 years. It has been blatantly ignored by this planning application which has been submitted for 223 dwellings - double the number of dwellings on Golf Course land in the Local Plan which states 90-130 dwellings.
The developer claims that residents would be very happy to have public access to a small area of the existing golf course, in exchange for them building on 12 hectares. This is not the case - the community have used the land informally for decades - and get benefit from the land even if we don’t have 24/7 access.
RBC formally objected to South Oxfordshire Council (SODC) about the Gladman planning application for 245 properties with 45% affordable housing provision, with good reasons. . RBC needs to take a consistent approach when evaluating this application, when the main issues are very similar.
The application uses skewed data and has basic arithmetic errors to show that the impact of the development on the community and environment would be negligible. We will (once again) be making a strong representation about this in our submission, along with evidence, to the Council Planning Dept.
TRAFFIC
The development allows for 442 car parking spaces. We can expect that number of additional cars. Their data models and algorithms provide the theoretical traffic impact of these additional cars which they claim will be negligible but our own eyes see a different picture of over-congestion on the narrow roads leading to the Thames bridges. The Council admits that.
These additional cars will feed into Peppard Road, making congestion and pollution even worse than it is currently. It also ignores all the extra cars from Oxfordshire which has allowed for 1,500 new homes over the next decade. As widening Kidmore End Road is not possible, no traffic improvements planned in Caversham centre, no third bridge over the Thames or orbital ring road in the foreseeable future, how can the developer claim the traffic impact will be “negligible”?
The only proposed change to the road infrastructure is a new mini-roundabout at the junction of Kidmore End Road and Peppard Road but within 100 yards there is already an existing roundabout and signal controlled pedestrian crossing. We can’t see this helping with traffic flow – it will only cause further congestion.
Air quality in Caversham already fails to meet statutory targets. Electric cars are not coming fast enough and 442 extra cars will only add to the pollution.
SCHOOLS
Emmer Green Primary, Caversham Primary and the Hill had waiting lists in 2019 and Highdown is full. Expect up to 250 children in the new development. Proximity to the local schools will be an obvious attraction for buyers of the 3+ bedroom houses, yet there are no new classrooms or schools proposed. The pressure for school places will be intense, affecting all existing families in the area.
HEALTHCARE
Any money proposed for improvements to the health care centre does not appear to be legally binding as yet. We also cannot see how capacity at Emmer Green can be increased. We currently have two surgeries for over 33,000 residents north of the river.
TREES AND WILDLIFE/NATURE CONSERVATION
Don’t be fooled by the promise of 'new’ public green space. They are just neighbourhood play and drainage areas for the benefit of the new residents.
The Council recently declared a “Climate Emergency” and set aggressive CO2 targets. How does removing 112 mature trees and ignoring TPOs fit with that? Planting a thousand new trees elsewhere sounds good but young saplings do not absorb CO2 like mature trees do.
This could be the thin end of a wedge. If the developer gets permission from Oxfordshire it could precipitate a rash of building on greenfield sites in Oxfordshire, just across our northern border resulting in the loss of even more green space, something that the council already stated in their objections to the Gladman development.
There is more, for example: loss of wildlife habitat, light pollution will affect night life such as owls and bats; noise pollution will adversely affect the health of residents (directly linked to anxiety/depression); 20,000 HGV movements resulting in roads cracking up and increasing accident risk. Numerous alternative brownfield sites exist in Reading - these should be used first.
Can I make a difference?
Reading Golf Club says it had no choice but to move and that they have consulted with the community to leave a great legacy. But the reality is that the consultation has been a sham and that the legacy will be terrible - traffic congestion, pollution, scarce school places, more GP waiting time, loss of trees, a greater carbon footprint, to list but a few.
If you share these concerns, please tell your Council. Thinking that it won’t change anything is wrong. It will make a difference! Every objection letter or email will count. Every member of your household is entitled to send in an objection and it is acceptable to make multiple submissions if you forget to mention something or new information comes to light. But - please don’t copy and paste the same text for each member of your household.
When writing your Objection ...
Please do not copy/paste the above text into your submission. The council will ignore your letter if you do. Please write your objections in your own words and don’t forget to include your name, address and the heading “Planning Ref: 211843” on your email, comment or letter.
Make your points clearly, don’t forget the planning officer will have to go through many documents.
If you can, make reference to the Council’s local plan.
What If I Want To Write About Something Else?
That’s fine too! Though always worth to check that it’s a ‘material objection’.
Thank you
Best wishes,
KEG.