We have now finished our initial objections to application 211843. This time we’ve kept the objections shorter at 15 pages, to hopefully enable more people to read them.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zTrLdOa6CdPbZrXaQtpo_Hp2lFgFv_Ic/view?usp=sharing
We have once again analysed the planning application and find it extremely lacking. We very much hope that the council also recognise that this is a complete over-development of Emmer Green, which is neither wanted nor required.
After the withdrawal of 200713 and subsequent refusal of 210018, Reading Golf Club (RGC) have submitted a further planning application 211843. This is very similar to the previous applications but with the removal of the medical centre and some flats, as well as 3 and 4 bed properties. These are replaced by 2 bed properties, which are generally not lacking in Reading. This development removes 12 hectares of beautiful open space and makes development into South Oxfordshire more likely. It does not address the reasons for the previous refusal of 210018 published by the Council.
The local community does not want it - The community is strongly opposed to this proposal. This is evidenced by the 5,000+ objections the Council received for 200713 and 210018. Surveys by KEG, EGRA and Matt Rodda MP all overwhelmingly condemn and object to the proposed development. The Council should be impressed with the strength and depth of public opinion and respond sympathetically. Local residents have demonstrated that they are passionate about protecting this beautiful, peaceful area and are mindful of the appalling legacy if the application were to proceed. KEG has more than 1,600 members from residents of Emmer Green and Caversham and is therefore a legitimate representative (more than any other community group).
Non-compliance with the Local Plan and NPPF - We OBJECT to the application, as it does not comply with the Local Plan (LP) nor the NPPF which states, “Where a planning application conflicts with an up to date development plan …., permission should not usually be granted”. The LP further states, “As a result of the limited development capacity, the overall strategy in this area …. is done in a way that prevents adverse effects on the existing areas. Of particular importance in Caversham and Emmer Green are potential effects on landscape, heritage and infrastructure.”
Multiple reasons to reject this application – The Council should defend the Borough’s LP because:
· Traffic is a problem across an area far wider than the applicant was asked by the Council to consider. They have ignored the topological constraints recognised in the Council’s Transport Strategy and LP. They have also ignored the impact of over 2,000 properties forecast to be built in surrounding areas in SODC, as well as the potential development at Caversham Park. Whilst it would clearly affect residents in Emmer Green, it will have the biggest impact upon those in lower Caversham and its surrounds where the congestion and air pollution are already in an AQA.
· There is limited open space in north Reading and there is a presumption of protection and retention of both amenity space and undesignated open space in EN8.
· Once again, the applicant’s biodiversity calculation is incorrect. Building on greenfield land would result in a net loss of biodiversity of over 17%, contrary to their claim of an increase of 12%.
· There are two doctors’ surgeries catering for 33,000 residents and there is no means of legally linking the development to the much-needed expansion of both.
· As the Council is aware, this is an outline planning application only and the positions of houses and open space is purely an artist’s impression. Due to the serious geological instability on the site, the approval of this application would result in a different layout – high density housing completely out of character with the locality and undoubtedly more trees than the 112 stated would be removed.
RGC’s justification - The Council is also aware that the financial status of the applicant can have no impact or bearing on the planning application process. Furthermore, the provision of temporary ‘sporting’ facilities on SODC land can have no influence on the planning process nor impact on Council Policies. These can only be influenced by activities undertaken or proposed on land located within Reading Borough.
The application is littered with errors - KEG has been able to find and highlight numerous miscalculations, incorrect assumptions, basic mistakes, and unreasonable conclusions. These remain in the current application despite being highlighted previously.
More detail is later provided – The following bullet points provide more details across the next 13 pages. This document will, in turn, be followed by a re-submission of the 7 objection documents that KEG submitted last time regarding planning application 210018. They contain an even greater level of detail on Planning, Traffic & Transport, Landscape & Leisure, Social issues, Ecology & Conservation, Water & Drainage and Pollution which we believe is appropriate for the Council to digest, given that there has been a change of personnel since the previous application. Even though the detail relates to the previous application, the vast majority of the text, graphics and images will still apply to the present application and we request that the Council considers it to be part of our objection to 211843.
The individuals and groups in Emmer Green emphatically say NO and OBJECT to this development.