Next Meeting on Pincents Hill

The subject of Pincents Hill is due to be raised again  at a special meeting of West Berks Eastern Area Planning Committee on 24 February. See http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=18800 .

Given that all sides are now opposed to the scheme for Pincents Hill the meeting seems set for some polical posturing and a total rejection of Blue Living’s plans. However, Blue Living never expected local support for their plans and are sure to appeal any decision against them so the real  power will lie with a Planning Inspector who has a very narrow remit that only looks at planning arguments, not local feelings, or possisbly the minister himself.

I wonder what a new Tory or Labour government would do to give local people more power to decide on planning issues for themselves rather than have their decisions made by an Inspector or the minister ?

Re-arranged date for Pincents Hill Meeting

The Area Planning Committee of West Berks Council is now due to discuss the planning application for Pincents Hill at 6:30 on Wednesday 24 February at Little Heath School.

Interestingly, West Berks Council have now dropped the Pincents Hill scheme from their Local Development Framework document that the Tory Administration agreed in the summer (and which local Birch Copse councillors did not oppose). A council statement says:

As a result of public opinion and further work on the evidence to support the Core Strategy, suggestions for a major development at Pincent’s Hill, Tilehurst, have been replaced by proposals for an additional 500 homes at Tilehurst, Purley-on-Thames, Calcot, Pangbourne and Theale.

I am not entirely sure whether this is good news or not but it does suggest that local opinion is swaying the Tories on West Berks to stop supporting Blue Living’s development plans for Pincents Hill  –  and about time too !

Another Pincents Hill Update

I gather that the Planning Application for Pincents Hill is due to be discussed at West Berks Eastern Area Planning Committee which is being held at Little Heath School at 5:30pm on 16 December.

Building 750 home across the border from Tilehurst Ward will have serious effects on traffic and also on school places for Tilehurst residents who appear to be totally opposed to this planning application.

The Reading Chronicle has reported (20 November) that the discussion on the development at Pincents Hill has been postponed to allow the developers, Blue Living, more time to look at  matters raised by the Highways Agency.

Updated Update on Pincents Hill

The closing date for comments on this planning application is now 18 September. Many thanks to the planning oficers at West Berkshire for seeing the light.

I have sent in my own response concentrating on the effects of the development on traffic around the local roads in my neighbouring ward of Tilehurst. Given the size of the proposed development there is widespread apprehension locally about the numbers of cars that will use Tilehurst Roads (especially City Road) to access the top end of the development.

Update on Pincents Hill

Well, I got back from holiday late on Wednesday night and whilst leafing through the local press discovered that Blue Living (the developers) had put in a planning application to build 750 homes, a primary school, a hotel, a health centre, creche, library and shops, on the land at Pincents Hill. The details are now available on both Reading (09/01302/ADJ) and West Berks (09/01432/OUTMAJ)council websites. They expect comments by 14 August having allowed just three weeks over the main holiday period. I am not sure what West Berks officers are playing at but this is a ridiculously short space of time. You can draw your own conclusions.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Blue Living chose their time to put in their application but why have West Berks officers limited the consultation time to just three weeks ?

Pincents Hill Hypocrites

Our lovely local upright Tories have long been saying they are opposed to any planned development of large scale housing on Pincents Hill (in West Berkshire between Calcot and Tilehurst). Yesterday’s announcement that Blue Living had put in a Planning Application for 750 houses on the site reminded me of the Tory hypocracy on this issue.

A month or two ago, after Alok Sharma the Tory PPC for Reading West and the local Birch Copse councillors (all Tories) and said publicly that they opposed the development, there was a vote on West Berks Council on the Pincents Hill development. You can guess what happened:  Cllr Emma Webster abstained, Cllr Joe Mooney voted for the plans without amendment and Cllr Tony Linden did not even turn up to vote.

I expect we will hear a lot more from the Tories now that the application has gone in, and they will all be doing their best to oppose it. Until, that is, the Conservative Party in West Berks tells them not to. Whereupon they all slink off and hope nobody notices.  Actually this kind of bellicose verbosity before a vote, followed by abstention or even supporting the other side during the vote, is strangely reminiscent of our local MP, the great Martin Salter. Yes he who campaigns against the Iraq war, against tuition fees and many other causes, but strangely does not manage to actually vote according to his ‘beliefs’. 

If politicians were rewarded for their principles Salter would not be our MP and the Birch Copse Tories would be out on their ears.
 

Station Hill Planning Mess

Over the last week I have been at two functions that show the limitations of the planning system in this country.

Firstly, I attended a meeting of Reading BC’s Strategic Transport Board where we looked at plans for the new station and for the developemnt of the southern concourse which is designed to be an attractive glass ‘gateway’ to the town.

Later in the week I popped in to see the new plans on display by Sackville (controlled by John Madjeski) for the redevlopment of Station Hill. Station Hill 2 is the second attempt by Sackville to produce acceptable plans for this area. They have redesigned their original scheme to include more open space and put more thought into the amenities that could be provided for the public. This is very much designed as a showpiece that would change the face of Reading significantly.

The problem is that the two design teams working separately on Station Hill 2 and the new station itself do not seem to have had any contact with each other and however good or bad their plans are, they do not fit together. If built as currently proposed the vast new glass station entrance would be shaded by one of Sackville’s office block skyscrapers and nobody would ever see the magnificent new station entrance from the town and visitors coming in to Reading would be greeted by a concrete block obscuring the sun and light from half the new glass atrium.

And then there is the matter of Reading’s new transport interchange which the council’s team are now designing not as one complex but a series of three transport interchanges that will make changing buses at the central hub of Reading’s bus network a nightmare of long walks up and down stairs before finding that the new terminus is just the old bus stop in Friar Street (or wherever).  The bright new transport terminus is turning in to a different one way bus loop using bus stops spread out over miles of existing town centre roads with their narrow pavements and lack of facilities.

Would it not be possible for both sides, Sackville and Reading BC, to rethink their proposals for the vast area that is ready for redevelopment on the south side of the station and come up with an attractive, unified plan that incorporates the new gateway to Reading, a modern transport interchange (for buses, taxis, MRTs and even Private Hire Vehicles), a welcoming public open space as well as the new office blocks, shops and appartments.

Surely the value of  both developments would be enhanced by  working in unison, rather than each partner pulling in different directions.

No to New Mast – Tilehurst 1 Vodafone 0

There is huge relief in Tilehurst today now that council officers have decided to reject the application from Vodafone for a 14 metre high mast on the corner of Lower Elmstone Drive and Elmstone Drive. Local residents, 229 of whom signed our petition against the mast application, are delighted with the news. This is a good decision for Tilehurst where we have clearly demonstrated the depth of feeling about plans to erect this monstrosity in our residential neighbourhood.I would like to thank all the residents who signed our petition and I would also like to say a special thank you to Nerys and Andrew Wilkinson who helped with the petition and also provided a lot of excellent publicity for our cause.

The council’s rejection is based solely on planning grounds in that the mast and its base cabinets would be obtrusive structures that do not fit with the surrounding environment.  However, Vodafone can appeal against this decision and they have three months in which to do so. Given the amount of time and money they have already spent on this case, an appeal is very likely. Any appeal will be heard by a Planning Inspector and both sides will be able to put their case.  

Despite this threat that will hang over Tilehurst for a few months yet, this is a splendid win for Tilehurst in Round 1. We look forward to facing Vodafone again should they appeal.

 

Note:   Planning Application 09/00289/TELE can be viewed on the council’s website.

Parking Spaces

Any urban council these days has a real problem with car parking. Many older streets were never built for cars and barely have one place on the road per house. Modern conversions of houses to multiple flats exacerbates this problem no end. Every resident assumes an automatic right to park his/her car outside their house. We can use residents parking schemes to avoid issues with outsiders taking up parking places but if there is not enough road space for all the required cars, somebody will get upset when they cannot find a space for their car.

On new developments we can make better rules but if this is done without thought we still end up in a mess as we have done on the Kennet Island development. Everyone selling the houses there knew that there were limited spaces available for parking cars. Everyone buying a house there should have been informed. That has not stopped new residents getting angry and upset when told that there is no room for the second car even if both partners sharing a house need them to get to work.

There is no easy answer, to build new housing with 2, 3 or 4 car parking spaces will require vast more new tracts of land to be made available (and consequently less green and pleasant land to live in) or for developers to build less houses per hectare. We already have a chronic shortage of affordable housing in Reading and across South East England. 

There is no answer without a modal shift to alternative forms of transport. We need to wean residents away from 100% dependence on cars to buses, trains, bikes and even (shock, horror) walking. We could add car clubs which provide cars on demand for their members for occasional trips.

We all know what needs to be done to get away from car dependence but often lack the will to do it. Public policy should aim to make alternative modes of tarnsport as appealing as possible. We do have a great bus service in Reading, we are making a start on implementing safe routes for bikes, we want more children to walk to school and not have mums clog up the roads with very short school run trips.

The reality is that we are going to have to suffer a great deal of collective pain on this subject over the next decade or two until we finally convince ourselves that there are alternatives to the car and that we have no automatic right to a parking place in the road outside our front door.