Response to the Wimpey Planning Application

Background

Historical background

This site is one of the 8% in England which are in private ownership. It’s origins are in the nineteenth century. The Poor’s Lands Trust was set up in 1811 under the terms of a Local Act, the Berkshire Enclosure Act. The Award made in 1817 to that Trust of former common land included an area of fifteen and a half acres or thereabouts, now represented by the Victoria Recreation ground and the adjacent allotments.

The award specified that the hedgerows, which are included in the original land boundaries shown on the Award map of 1817, should ‘be for ever after maintained and kept in repair’. There was a recent case (January 1997) in which just such a requirement in Flamborough, East Yorkshire under a similar Local Enclosure Act of 1765 was upheld in court.

Situated at the heart of what is known locally as ‘Armour Village’, the allotments site and the Recreation Ground make an immeasurable contribution to local amenities, and are highly valued. The whole of the Armour Hill/ Kentwood Hill allotments site covers an area of 11.5 acres. It was originally common land, sometimes called Tilehurst Common and sometimes Kentwood Common on old maps.

At Enclosure in 1811 one sixteenth of the Common was allocated as Poor’s Land and entrusted to the local Vicar and his wardens to take care of. From this the current system of trustees emerged. The land has probably been cultivated as allotment gardens since the 1840’s and there is archival evidence of small strips of land being exchanged in the 1830’s and 1840’s.

In this century there have been some smallholding activities such as pig rearing, and evidence of this remained as disused buildings until 1999. Some of the land has not been cultivated leaving a potentially interesting range of historic flora. In living memory cows were kept here and until 1998 ducks were a familiar sight from the Recreation Ground.

Since 1998 the landlord’s apparent policy of constructive demolition has led to the current lack of cultivation, and thus to the unkempt appearance. There has also been a growth of builder’s constructions within an existing non-conforming builder’s yard. In 1999 piles of iron were left after old, dangerous buildings, previously the piggeries, were made safe. These photographs illustrate these points. Appearance and descriptions can, however, be deceptive since the site is clearly a ‘greenfield’ site in planning terms.

Background to the current campaign

The Save Our Open Space Action Group was formed early in April ’98 in response to a notice by the owners, Tilehurst Poor’s Lands Charity, that they were considering the residential development of part of the allotment site. Following an article and subsequent letter in The Reading Chronicle a group of seven people who were plot-holders and local residents joined with various other local people offering support. By June 1998 the SOOS Group had a list of key volunteers/helpers numbering seventy people with many more offering back-up assistance.

200 people attended a public meeting held on 28 April 1998, when the vast majority indicated opposition to proposals for building. A second public meeting held as part of the planning consultation process also attracted a similar number of people, again with the large majority opposing development. A simply worded petition in support of the retention of Open Space and registering opposition to any building development brought in well over 2,500 signatures. It was given to the then Chair of Planning Cllr Richard Stainthorpe, along with the group’s response to the consultation (a nineteen page paper covering all aspects of the case against development).

The outcome of the consultation was that in August 1998 the Planning Committee of Reading Borough Council agreed planning guidance regarding the site. This gave various conditions about any future application, and finished with the statement:

In the interval between 1998 and September 2001, the SOOS group supported the development of proposals for alternative uses for the land along with the local GLOBE (Agenda 21) group. The groups considered examples of other projects such as the Pang and Kennet Valley Countryside Projects based at Theale, and the Elder Stubbs Allotment site in Oxford. Outline proposals were considered at a public meeting on 7 January 1999 about the current state and future uses of the land. Another outcome of this meeting was that the Council insisted on the removal of dangerous buildings. A local landscape architect drew up more detailed proposals encompassing the earlier suggestions. These were considered at a further public meeting on 12 July that year. It was agreed to develop the ideas and seek National Lottery funding. Progress was hampered by the lack of support from the landlord.

In 2001 the Action Group developed a web-site in response to the news that the Charity had sold a ten year ‘option to purchase’ to Wimpey.

The announcement of the full planning application in late August signalled the start of the 2001 campaign. This campaign focussed on ensuring that local people were aware of the proposals, and were not intimidated by the applicant’s power and strength. A new petition of more than 2000 signatures has been collected. Helpers have become re-energised and new ones are steadily coming forward. Supporters include planning and ecology experts, plot-holders, long-standing local residents and newcomers. Fresh expertise has been freely offered and local support is strong. The group arranged a public meeting on 26 September 2001 to which Wimpey and Boyer Planning sent representatives to present their application. It was very well attended with all sections of the community well represented. The meeting overwhelmingly rejected the proposals and wished to preserve the open space. Many practical concerns were aired - residents raised matters such as the problems of a stretched infra-structure (doctors, schools etc), and access to houses in Kentwood Hill. Plot-holders raised issues such as access to the allotments from Armour Rd, loss of parking spaces . Others touched on the inaccuracies and omissions in the Boyer supporting statement.

Save Our Open Space endeavours to ensure that all other groups affected by the proposals to build know about them, and can make their voice heard, for example the Tilehurst Allotments Association will have considered the issues pertaining to existing plot-holders in great detail. A meeting of the Reading Council Area Consultative Committee will be considering the application early in October.

The Save Our Open Space action group has one aim only – to prevent the allotment site and the Victoria Recreation Ground from being built on. However it may well bring the Blagrave Recreation Ground and the Downing Road playing fields into its remit in the near future. The group has not objected to the numerous infill sites or proposals for building on previously undeveloped land. The group is concerned about preserving green open spaces within this urban community. If the threat of building on the allotment site were to be removed and the owners of the land were willing to consider alternatives, many local people would like to re-enter discussions about future uses of the land that would benefit the local community.

The past three years have shown a small proportion of the energy, enthusiasm, imagination and expertise that is waiting to be tapped. The local community in Tilehurst is very willing to participate in securing better use of this site.

 Policy and Planning background

The site was not included in Reading Borough Council’s Local Plan 1991 – 2006, (adopted 14 October 1998) and is so is not designated for neither for housing use, nor as a green space. Its existing use is, unquestionably, allotment land and open space.

There are local policies mentioned in the Planning Guidance – Tilehurst Poors Lands Charity Allotments and Planning for the Future that are applicable in this case, particularly:

KEY 2A ; TRN11 ; COM 9 ; NE8 ; LEI 1 ; HSG9 ; LEI3 ; NE5 ; TRN6

There are also relevant national Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG’s) and the following gives a flavour of local policy (our highlighting).

POLICY HSG9: LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

At a public meeting held on 22 January 1999, Chair of the Planning Committee Cllr Richard Stainthorp reminded people that following the previous meeting planning guidance was issued on 26 August 1998. This guidance, supported by the Labour, Liberal Democratic and Conservative party councillors stated the view of the Planning Committee that:

He stated his intention that this planning protection would be incorporated into the Borough Plan as a result of the review. This would strengthen the protection of the site for the future.

In July 2001 Boyer Planning submitted a planning statement supporting the application by Wimpey Homes Southern Ltd. .

Reading Borough Council is currently meeting the housing targets set out in the Local Plan and so the houses proposed in this application are not only not wanted but not needed. To build on this land would be contrary to the policies of the current Development Plan. Recent changes in National Policy Guidance strengthen the case for development on ‘brownfield’ land and keeping existing ‘greenfield’ land green. PPG3 emphasizes the importance of building on previously developed land and explicitly excludes allotments from this category. Anticipated changes in PPG 17 about Sport Recreation and Open Space will further strengthen the protection of this site.

There are currently few planning arguments to support building houses on this site, those that there are, are weak, and will become weaker as legislation unfolds and the local Development Plan is revised.