Reading Chronicle have decided to publish a press release from the developer at RGC in which, unsurprisingly, they promote their own development. Unfortunately, no-one else was asked for comment on this story, so we have published our own fact-check here. We would ask that local press works and supports residents, instead of publishing developer press releases verbatim.
The press release suggests that the developer is fulfilling a housing need as requested by the leader of the council. As the current planning application is for three times the amount of land in the local plan, the suggestion that the leader of the council would send an email out asking for developers to break the local plan is clearly ridiculous, so let’s go through the press release and try to see where the developer has misunderstood the Council’s motivations.
The story is here: https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/19891494.reading-golf-club-developers-defend-223-home-plan/?ref=mr&lp=17
A spokesperson for the developers said: “Since our previous application was refused last year we have worked with the planning authority to positively address the feedback received by carefully redesigning our development with significantly fewer properties, more green spaces and a wider offering of homes suitable for families.
The revised proposal is a copy and paste of the old application. It reduces the number of three and four bed houses as a percentage of the development, and increases the number of 2 bed properties that are also apparently available anywhere else in Reading. That so-called ‘positive’ communication has now resulted in a legal challenge by the developer, who have now appealed their previously rejected application for 257 properties against the council.
“Ninety per cent of the new properties are the exact type of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom family homes with gardens that Reading Borough Council is demanding must be built in the Borough. Jason Brock, the Council Leader, made this very appeal to developers in a press release published only last week.”
As stated in the council email, the Council require more 3 and 4 bed properties (not 2 bed), yet 40% of the proposed development consists of flats and 2 bed properties. The email from Mr Brock also makes it clear that they are not just requiring 3 bed ‘houses’ but 3+ bed apartments. The Council did not have to state in their email that their preference is for building on brownfield, because it is already stated in their local plan and the national planning policy framework. If we remove the superfluous 40% of properties proposed at Reading Golf Club, we are left with numbers for the original local plan allocation – Ca1b - taking up 3 hectares of park land rather than the 12 hectares that the developer would like to destroy.
The spokesperson added: “We will also be making a vital contribution towards easing the council’s burgeoning housing waiting list by delivering 67 new affordable homes.
Over 50% of the ‘affordable’ properties proposed are flats and 2 bed properties, which Mr Brock states are not required.
“This is more affordable homes than were completed within in the Borough during the whole of the year 2020-21, as confirmed in its published Annual Monitoring Report.”
The monitoring report states 52 affordable homes were completed in Reading in 2020-21, with 31 of these being shared ownership and 23 being made for affordable rent.
Does the developer at RGC propose to build all their properties within one year? Of course not – this would be a lengthy 5 year construction, likely completed towards the end of the 2020s. Many of the affordable properties are near the road, so would be completed towards the end of the construction period.
On more of the merits of the plan for the golf course, the spokesperson said: “The design has been subject to extensive transport analysis and modelling which confirms, as our previous application did also, that the local road network can comfortably accommodate this number of new homes.
It depends on your definition of comfortable. The developer only decided to study the effects of traffic within a 1km radius, despite the council requesting 2km, and so ignores effects on the road bridges in to Caversham; so strictly speaking, they don’t actually know the impact. Despite this the developer has identified that the queue at the Peppard road/ Henley road traffic lights is currently operating ‘very close to full capacity 100% in the AM peak and above full capacity in the PM peak hour’. They predict that queue lengths will increase by 66% and wait times by 94%. They also state ‘There are limited opportunities to deliver physical junction improvements due to space constraints… the developer will provide an appropriate amount … to RBC to enable them to introduce a smarter signal operating scheme such as MOVA. As a general rule, MOVA has the potential to increase capacity at a junction by up to 12% and therefore should provide some benefit to the junction.’ So even assuming perfect conditions the proposed mitigations are insufficient. This is repeated by the Kiln Road junction. In their ‘extensive transport analysis’ they have also ignored the additional impact presented by the proposed 153 unit development at Caversham Park.
“We have also agreed with the council’s highway officers to deliver a number of local highway improvements as part and parcel of the development.
Nothing has been agreed, though they have suggested a new mini-roundabout.
“All of the new properties will have access to electric vehicle charging from the outset, to future-proof, cut pollution and encourage a quicker uptake of electric vehicle usage.
‘Will have access’; this does not mean that every house has an electric charging point.
“The now closed golf course is private land without any public rights of access within our application boundary.
“This scheme opens up a substantial portion of this, almost 10 acres in total, as freely accessible green space for local residents to enjoy.
The figure of 10 acres includes roads and drainage areas (over 3m deep in places), and fragmented spaces. It destroys valuable open green space over 30 acres and replaces it with yet another housing estate which is not even required by the council, who have stated in their most recent audit report that “total supply is expected to slightly exceed the overall Local Plan housing targets by 2036, with that exceedance having grown significantly since the 2019-20 trajectory.”
“Our design guarantees the protection of valuable existing trees whilst supplementing that with the planting of almost 200 new native specimens on-site plus 1,000 more on the northern part of the former course.
They are planning to chop down over 110 mature trees, and likely many more if they get planning permission (as only a small fine is issued for violation of tree protection orders). The ‘1,000 more’ are in a different borough, where planted saplings typically have a survival rate of around 30% and take many years to become significant stores of carbon and providing shade. Many years previous well over 1,200 saplings donated by the Woodland Trust were planted in South Oxfordshire, so you don’t need to build a housing estate to be able to plant trees.
Our position is not controversial; just stick to the council’s local plan, rather than pretending that an allocation on 10 acres in the local plan (already a sizeable housing estate) gives the green light to develop all 30 acres.
The national planning policy framework advises that material considerations (such as a housing shortfall) are required to build on greenfield or ‘undesignated’ land. That requirement has not been met as the Council’s latest monitoring report has stated that they now have a land supply of over 6 years, an increase from the 2019-20 monitoring report, and well above the level that speculative development is required.
