OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE

     eastern area planning committee

Dear Councillor,

As you are no doubt aware, Blue Livings Planning Application for

the development of Pincents Hill is due to be heard on Wednesday

24^th February at 6.30 at Little Heath School.

The Save Calcot Action Group submitted an objection statement but in

case you did not see it, we have prepared a résumé for your convenience

of what we think are the key planning reasons why this application should

be rejected:

1.         It is disappointing to note that that Blue Living has provided

insufficient, conflicting, incomplete, misleading and often incorrect detail

in their reports and statements for such a high profile “green” develop-

ment. i.e. this site is a greenfield site, not brownfield:  They have stated

they are going to redevelop, but it should be develop.  Also BL states at

3.25 page 29 of their Support Statement 07 – that Pincents Hill  is

within the Tilehurst Settlement Boundary – it is not, and other glaring

errors like 3.9 p25 of the same document – Greater Reading as a

whole planning area – this was rejected in the final SE Plan, etc, etc. 

These errors are unacceptable for a professional firm and we expected a more polished and businesslike planning submission after all the international hype this proposal has been given.

1.1           This is a Landmark site with the view being enjoyed by thousands

of motorists and local residents alike.  This is irreplaceable and a very

much valued asset.  It gives a soft transition from harsh development

AONB.  Policy C3 of the South East Plan seeks to protect and  enhance

AONBs and planning decisions should have regard to their setting.

1.2           The application has been criticised by CABE, (the Governments

own architectural body) as they say it has failed to take into account

 the topography of the site; with little or no account given to the

differing levels of the  development and the development will not integrate

into  the surrounding area.  This comment would be true of any develop-

ment as the site is virtually land locked.

1.3            CABE have also pointed out that this development

(although   advertised to be the flag ship of Eco towns) is basically the

lowest grade in the Governments listing for Eco towns, being Grade 3.

1.4            CABE have questioned the viability of the inclusion of a hotel  in

this development, virtually saying that it is inappropriate in this location.

The proposal for a new hotel is against PPS6 which states that there

must be a need, - which there isn’t as Pincents Manor is adjacent to the

site and the Calcot Hotel   is nearby.  Paragraph 14.28 of the South

East Plan states that new hotels should be located in town centres.

1.5            The HSE has confirmed that this site is just outside  the outer

sector of the perimeter of the Safety Zone from  the AWE Burghfield,

but that is based on numbers of 500 residents and the fact that this

is for outline planning only.  If the numbers were greater for full planning

then the HSE would have to be advised and look at this application again.

1.6            Also no piling would be allowed as the area is basically clay

over chalk.  If piling occurred it could well release acid into the

underground water; 

1.7            Incomplete SUDs report on flooding.  This site is listed as Flood

 Plain 1.  The run off from the floods 2 years ago from Pincents Hill was

so great that it lifted the man hole covers to the Bath Road

causing considerable risk to motorists.  This was from uncovered land. 

The risk is considerably raised even by the provision of comprehensive

drainage systems.  Porsche have raised their concerns concerning this        

issue in their report which is very comprehensive and mirrors our concers

as to both the transport/highways issues and the increased flood risk.

1.8            Thames Water has stated that it cannot provide full pressure

water or adequate sewage to 750 new homes on the site.

1.9            No provision has been made for secondary education for the

new residents. Blue Living also say they “may provide Primary

School” facilities.

1.10       Highways and Transport issues pose considerable challenges

for access to the site.  Again. please see CABE’s comments as to

non integration and Reading’s  letter regarding this issue.  Also the fact

that an incomplete highways and traffic survey has been submitted to

West Berks As the highway issues were not resolved by the time of

this committee the Planning and Trading office has recommended

 the application for refusal.

1.11       This development will not reduce car travel and car parking in the area. The local average of cars per household for the area is approx 1.4,

yet Blue Living has stated car ownership on this development will be

1.1 with .75 of a car parking space.  The  local area is insufficiently

serviced by public transport which will not give a reduction on car travel. 

Car parking will result in side streets in the area being saturated with

cars from the new development and Blue Living has already stated

that residents in surrounding roads adjoining the development will be

issued with parking permits. This would indicate that both their car

parking and travel figures are a severe underestimate of the true figures

and we doubt whether this would comply with Policy T4 of the South

East Plan.

1.12       Please see attached article on Poundbury, supposedly the flag ship

 of new developments.  This states that crime figures have escalated

due to the design. This only goes to strengthen the concerns already

raised about policing the new development with its high density housing

and lack of space between buildings.

1.13       The walking and cycling times anticipated for the distances from the development to Tilehurst and Theale are a gross underestimate..

1.14       The amount of open space to be used to provide amenity space

for new residents in order for this development to proceed means that

 an area of AONB will have to be used for recreation purposes and there

is very little amount of natural open space to be set aside for wildlife. 

The wildlife exit corridor is often over concrete. Also Blue Living’s

badger survey differs greatly from Binfield Badgers site assessment

 on numbers and sett locations.

1.15       Everything in this Planning Application is “may” as it is only “Outline”.

2.       The proposed development contravenes the following policies    

and strategies: PPS3 para 38i on Vision – to maintain the gap between

Theale, Calcot and Tilehurst.  PPS7 – Local  landscape:

PPG1 – Protection of the countryside and existing communities

PPG2 – land use issues and opportunity to be found in the countryside

around all urban areas. Policy NRM5(v) of the South East Plan.

The ES Landscape and Visual Assessment prepared by Blue Living has

key elements missing, It has not identified the Zone of Visual influence,

nor an accurate visual envelope and several viewpoints have not

been analysed e.g. the Englefield Estate.

2.1      Planning brief – Strategic Gap and settlement boundary

policies are still in place until 2011 and this should be enough

to protect this site to date.  The new draft LDF omits this

site which should go some way to protect it.

2.2           Core Strategy, LDF and Local Plan

2.3           National & L-BAP

2.4           Open Spaces Strategy and Core Strategy CS28 (Loss

of Open Space) state that open space in areas where it is deficient

should be protected, and loss of such open space should be

compensated for.  There are 15,000 local inhabitants in Tilehurst

Parish Council and the suggested open space/recreational area per

1,000 local residents is 6 acres, therefore there should be 90 acres

allocated for this use. Unfortunately recreational space for this area

doesn’t even register.  We need this space.

2.5          Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9 (biodiversity),

PPG 15 (planning and the historic environment)

2.6        National guidances e.g. BS 5837 (arboricultural),

DfT (Transport), PPS 1 (sustainability – this development is

not sustainable).

2.7     West Berks Local Plan, well as LD3 of the Berkshire 

Structure Plan  and many more.

3.         Contravention of the Biodiversity Action Plan: -

Will the site still be recognised as being of ‘district/countylevel

importance’ after development?

3.1   The site is home to a number of rare B-BAP and L-BAP

protected species including slow worms, bats, badgers, stag

beetles, hedgehogs,  (in addition to roebuck and muntjac deer, and a

variety of bird and butterfly species) and dormice (there are very

 few recorded sightings of dormice in Berkshire). The proposed

relocation and/or mitigation measures are unsatisfactory and fail to

prove that the development will not cause the decline in this protected

wildlife (thereby contravening PPS 9).  The area is a mixture of

rare heathland,  ancient hedgerows, meadows, copses and woodland.

3.2   The ‘mosaic of habitats’ would be lost including a substantial  area

of tree canopy

.

3.3   Adverse effect on wildlife link (contrary to Policy CS38).

3.4   Detrimental effect on residents’ visual enjoyment of the Landscape

 and animals.

3.5   The loss of many Category A trees.  The trees on this site are

 of considerable amenity value and their loss should be resisted.

4.                Traffic, air quality and noise

4.1             Poor quality surveys with insufficient or misleading data

with incorrect assumptions and results.

4.2             The Bath Road along this stretch is already severely congested

at rush hour and buses routes have been cancelled. The TA confirms

that the volume of traffic along this road at rush hour is already close

to maximum capacity. The surrounding infrastructure cannot cope

with another development.  Especially at Junction 11 of the M4.

4.3         Reading’s decision not to allow any amendments to the current

road layout at the junction of School Road and City Road. 

4.4             There are ten schools within a mile radius of the proposed development.  Three primary schools on the approach roads, and Little Heath School is particularly at risk with the School’s playing fields on the opposite side of the road so students have to cross the road on a regular basis for sports activities.

4.5             Further eroding of what appears to be a rare Saxon sunken lane (Pincents Lane) with its ancient hedgerows and in places just a 7ft track which forms a softening gradual approach to the AONB (which has a constant water run-off/or underground spring which in extremely cold weather creates an almost slalom run down its steep curving descent).

4.6             Dust and noise from the development work will detrimentally affect residents’ ability to enjoy their properties

5.         Sustainability

5.1             This development is not sustainable.

5.2          The proposal makes no real moves towards reducing carbon

footprints in a new build area and it would be the Government’s lowest

rating for Eco homes.

6.        Heritage and character

6.1      The skyline along the ridge would be fundamentally altered by

the 4 plus-storey buildings which would dominate and detract from

the attractiveness of the Landscape.

6.2      PPG 15 stresses the importance of a building’s setting. A

housing development is not an appropriate setting for a Grade II

listed building: Pincents Manor

7.                  Public perception and participation.

            Were this development to go ahead, it would mean that:

7.1             The Planning Brief has meant nothing.

7.2             The public consultations on Site Allocation and Open Space-

were also worthless.

7.3          The vast number of objections submitted have been

completely disregarded with the views of residents, the

community, councillors, local papers, Martin Salter, Alok Sharma,

local parish councils, have not been valued.

7.4             This proposal would be an over-development of the site and is

out of character with the surrounding developments of the area.

7.5             Planning, which is supposed to enhance the character of an

area, and build community cohesion, risks having a diametrically

opposite effect on this village-like, close-knit communities of Tilehurst,

Calcot and Theale by trying to insert an Eco Town into the villages!

7.6      The four considerably smaller (250 dwellings) previous       applications submitted in the 1980’s and 90’s were refused even on

Appeal.

In addition, the supporting documentation is on the whole of poor quality:

The arboricultural report is inaccurate, fails to meet the

BS 5837 standards in numerous areas.

The noise and air quality assessments focus solely on

the impact on residents of the proposed development,

failing to make any consideration of the impact on

residents of the surrounding area.

No construction management plan has been submitted to

indicate how disruption levels might be kept to a minimum .

The planning statement and design and access statements

contain a number of inaccuracies;  e.g. misrepresentation

Would Blue Living actually be trying to development this area if they were not going to receive a Government subsidy/grant for building an Eco Town?

You are the valued representatives of the community, and as such, in the face of such unanimous public opposition, we urge you to reject  this

application. The large numbers of conditions around many different issues

that are imposed are indicative of the problems of development of this

site. 

On reflecting on this application, we ask ourselves - what sort of

environment do we want to leave for our future

generations?  Once significant areas like this are lost, they can never

ever be replaced. 

With kind regards and many thanks for reading this screed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE ON PINCENTS HILL

IT CAN STILL BE BUILT ON IN SPITE OF BEING LEFT OUT OF THE ldf

22ND January 2010

We would like to correct the assumption that because Pincents Hill has been left out of the draft LDF it cannot be built on.  This is nonsense, firstly,  there is now a six week consultation period on the draft which can be altered, secondly once the proposed LDF is forwarded to the Secretary of State it could also be amended to include Pincents Hill in the final version.

Blue Living's Planning Application is pending on Pincents Hill and this has to be heard and could well be approved and even if it isn’t, it could still go to Appeal and be granted.  West Berks Planning Committee and various other bodies will be making a site inspection on Wednesday 17^th February at 09.30.  We would urge as many people to visit the area at this time to show how well used this area is.

So the fight must go on - so please attend