We are sending you our initial observations on the planning application for Reading Golf Course and are working on a more focused guidance on how to object to the planning application.
This will be circulated soon to assist you when sending your own response to the planning application.
Quick Reference
Council Application Number: 210018
Email to Object: golfclubcomments.planning@reading.gov.uk (include your name & postal address to be considered, as well as the application number). Read on for further details on what you should include.
Letter: Planning Dept, Reading Borough Council, Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Reading, RG1 2LU
Closing Date: 18th March 2021
If you objected to the last application 200713 then we have a created a search engine for you to find your previous comments; https://kegportal.azurewebsites.net/
Please contact your local councillors, they need to know how annoyed the community are! Contact details for councillors are here: https://www.reading.gov.uk/councillors/
In the meantime, should you wish to submit your response now and make a more detailed submission later (but before March 18th), please do so; residents can make more than one consultation response if they wish.
The deadline for objections to RBC is 18th March 2021.
Please don’t think that you can’t do anything about this development as “developers’ money always wins”. The Gladman proposal for 245 homes on the north of Emmer Green was successfully fought off by CAGE with support from hundreds of local residents. With your support we can do the same!
Around 99% of the application is exactly the same. There are 3 fewer units, 4 more trees removed, 300m2 removed from the health centre, ~100 parking spaces removed, garages marginally larger and pavements on both sides of the spine road. One of the ‘bigger’ claims is that they want to open up a 9 hole golf course on SODC land with a cafe. It is our contention that they have twice tried to get this land in to the SODC local plan, and consequently that it could be removed and built on at any point. RGC have also not allocated any function for the land between RBC and Cucumber Wood, which we believe would also get better access with the enlarged spine road that is proposed through the development.
Can I copy and paste my old objection? Absolutely, all your previous points will still be relevant.
Here are our initial observations on the planning application:
Reading Borough Council (RBC) Local Plan
The RBC Adopted 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 257 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 SODC land, in exchange for them building on 12 hectares in Reading Borough. 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 (a nice analogy; we get benefit walking along the banks of the RIver Thames without actually swimming in it).
RBC formally objected to South Oxfordshire Council (SODC) about the Gladman planning application. We hope there is a consistent approach by them when evaluating this application.
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 be making a strong representation about this in our submission, along with evidence, to the Council Planning Dept.
Traffic
The development allows for 499 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 is 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. As widening of 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 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 499 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 schools will be an obvious attraction for buyers of the 3- and 4- bedroom houses, yet there are no new classrooms or schools. The pressure for school places will be intense, affecting all existing families in the area.
Healthcare
Providing an empty Health Centre building is different to filling it with doctors, nurses and practitioners. This is notoriously difficult to achieve. No commitments have yet been made so the building could be empty for a long time. This application downsizes the building from 850m2 to 600m2.
Trees and Wildlife/Nature Conservation
Don’t be fooled by the promise of a large, new public green space. The parkland and allotments areas are in SODC, are not large and the rest of it could be built on at any time. There is a 10-year option to do this.
The Council recently declared a “Climate Emergency” and set aggressive CO2 targets. How does removing 122 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.
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; plenty of alternative brownfield sites exist in Reading - these should be used first.
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 legacy will be bad - 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.
Numbers of objections received by the Council really matter – it gets their attention. Please stand up and be counted!
Please do not copy/paste the above words 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: 210018” 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.
That’s fine too! Please make sure that it’s a ‘material objection’, a topic related to one that is mentioned in the following list from Reading Borough Council;
MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Overlooking/loss of privacy
Loss of daylight/sunlight or overshadowing
Scale and dominance
Layout and density of buildings
Appearance and design of development and materials proposed
Disabled persons' access
Highway safety
Traffic and parking issues
Drainage and flood risk
Noise, dust, fumes etc
Impact on character or appearance of area
Effect on listed buildings and conservation areas
Effect on trees and wildlife/nature conservation
Impact on the community and other services
Economic impact and sustainability
Government policy
Proposals in the Local Development Plan
Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)
Archaeology
ISSUES THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
Who the applicant is/the applicant's background
Loss of views
Loss of property value
Loss of trade or increased competition
Strength or volume of local opposition
Construction noise/disturbance during development
Fears of damage to property
Maintenance of property
Boundary disputes, covenants or other property rights
Rights of way and ownerships disputes over rights of way
Personal circumstances
We will be back in touch very soon.
If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.