Challenges to planning decision
As we reported in our last newsletter, local ward councillor, Clarence Mitchell, has asked Secretary of State, Michael Gove, to call-in the planning application to build on the golf course. We have written to local groups and other organisations who objected to the developments asking them to support this request. KEG has sent in a letter of support - there is no need for individuals to write in. It is likely to be several days before we hear any more news on this.
We also understand that concerns have been raised with Reading Council's Monitoring Officer about events leading up to the decision and the appearance that some councillors had determined how they would vote in advance of the planning committee meeting. Some people have questioned if a "deal" might have been made between the council and the developer. We have no concrete evidence of this but a number of things look odd and warrant scrutiny:
the application that was approved did not obviously solve all the problems raised in the previous application that was refused last year yet:
the planning officer's report was significantly different in its tone and conclusions
the controlling Labour councillors all decided to change their minds
the developer appealed against the previous decision at the last moment
the application was "rushed forward" from 30 March to 2 March meeting
contributions from the developer to mitigate problems created were increased substantially and surprisingly £50,000 was added to the pot just before the day of the decision
If you have concerns about any of this, you could write to the Council's Monitoring Officer (email: Michael.graham@reading.gov.uk). We would also appreciate it if you could write to local MP, Matt Rodda, asking him to support both the "calling-in" and the calls for the council to scrutinise the decision.
What is s106?
We have been asked to explain more about the payments promised by the developer. There are two elements, both set by law. First, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which is calculated at a predetermined amount based on the floor area of the new development. This works out at almost £2.5 million and can be spent on new/improved infrastructure wherever the council chooses. If there were no affordable housing provided, CIL would increase to almost £3.4 million. Second, there are s106 payments which are regulated by the Town and Country Planning Acts and are intended to "address unacceptable impacts" resulting from a development that cannot be resolved in other ways. In the case of the golf club, the s106 obligations proposed are:
Provision of 30% on-site Affordable Housing at a tenure split of 62:38 (Affordable Rent / Shared Ownership) ... Provision of an equivalent financial contribution towards provision of off-site affordable housing should the on-site units not be provided.
£550,000 towards local healthcare provision
£135,000 towards carbon off-setting
£557,500 towards open space and leisure facilities in Emmer Green (including £250,000 towards provision of a 3G sports pitch)
Provision of a Construction Phase Employment, Skills and Training and monitoring of this or equivalent financial contribution towards local skills and labour training.
Provision of a car club for a minimum period of 5 years and financial contribution of £10,000 to assist funding of a local Car Club provider, including provision of two on-site car club spaces
£25,000 towards public art
£50,000 a year (for a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 5 years) to support bus services serving the site within the Caversham area.
£50,000 (later increased to £100,000) to facilitate the appropriate changes at the junction of Peppard Road / Prospect Street / Henley Road / Westfield Road ... to increase capacity at the junction.
To enter into a into a highway agreement for junction improvements to the Peppard Road / Kiln Road / Caversham Park Road to mitigate the predicted increases ...
To ... secure off-site highway works for pedestrians’ improvements within the vicinity of the site ... and relocation of bus stop on Kidmore End Road ...
To provide and manage all areas of on-site open space. Submission, approval and adherence to a maintenance and management strategy.
Submission, approval and adherence to a Travel Plan.
A contribution towards off-site biodiversity enhancements within the local area to provide for a minimal overall 10% net gain in biodiversity
Points to note:
the council has negotiated these obligations with the applicant (Fairfax) but will need to make legal agreements that ensure payment by the builder with guarantees that they are actually paid. There are many examples where s106 payments do not get made in practice - they are dismissed on appeal, the builder claims they make the development unviable, the builder simply does not pay, and so on.
One of the key reasons that councillors gave for granting planning permission was the provision of affordable homes, yet these do not have to be provided on-site.
Some items (e.g. carbon off-setting) may not necessarily benefit those residents who suffer the consequences of the development.
Some items (e.g. biodiversity shortfall) should be resolved through changing the plans and not through s106
What else can be done?
Even if it is not "called-in", the council's decision to approve development is unlikely to become effective until April at the earliest. There are opportunities to complain either about the conduct of councillors or the process followed by the council, which we will study. The permission, if granted, will be "outline" and there will need to be further "detailed" applications approved before building work can start. These can and will be challenged. We remain committed to fight this development which the local community has resoundingly said they don't want.