Numbers present: The hall was full, estimated number present 230
Janet Bond, Chair of Armour Rd Residents Assn who chaired the meeting, opened it by welcoming all present. After giving advice on what to do in the event of fire, she presented apologies for absence from Howard Elliott of Armour Rd and Alan Davies of Oak Tree Rd. She then outlined the origins of the matter in 1998 and the formation of 'Save Our Open Space' , who had organised this meeting. A record of the meeting would be prepared, and made available on request. She asked the meeting to congratulate Martin Salter MP, on his recent marriage, which was done by acclaim. After reminding all speakers that they had just 5 mins each she invited Cllr Winfield -Chislett to speak.
Cllr Winfield-Chislett, Chair of Reading Planning Committee explained that the planning process was governed by rules. She then outlined some of the considerations that may apply in this case: First the Reading Borough Plan, drawn up in the early 1990's, adopted in 1998 and due to run for 15 years. The process of revision is underway. Second the planning guidance issued in 1998 concerning Tilehurst Allotments. The principal change in the rules since 1998 was the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)issued by the government which gave each housing authority housing targets, and guidance on how they are to be met. Reading Council is more than meeting these targets, which at present exist for each year to 2006. Finally she pointed out that this matter will first be considered by the planning committee, and that if the application is rejected, the applicants can go to appeal. In this case a DEERA inspector will conduct an inquiry. This decision is final
Michael Blake then spoke on behalf of Wimpey Homes Southern Ltd he explained that the trustees of the Tilehurst Poor's Lands Charity wished to develop the land for housing, Wimpey's role was as a facilitator. They were, and would be, guided both by planning regulations and local concerns.
Chris Wilmshurst of Boyer Planning Ltd, displayed and explained the plans. He drew upon a number of examples to demonstrate that the plans had been drawn up bearing in mind the concerns voiced in 1998.
Cllr Viki Lloyd.(Labour, Kentwood Ward), former trustee of the Poor's Lands Charity (nominated by Reading Council),stated that the Trustees had already sold an option to buy to Wimpey when she became a trustee. She explained she was forced to resign in Feb 2001,when she wished to speak out against the sale. Confidentiality rules were invoked ,and she could only protest by severing her connection with the charity. Since that time Reading council has been unable to appoint a trustee as it is entitled to she then dealt with the argument that this site was essential if Reading was to meet its housing targets. In fact using 'brownfield 'sites such as Elm Park and the Rex cinema, Reading has met its targets, and with other such developments in progress, or in prospect, Reading would comfortably meet its targets to 2006. The relevant PPG warned against the use of open space/greenfield sites to meet targets, and the development of sites on a precautionary basis. In conclusion she read out a message from Cllr David Sutton , Leader of Reading Council,
|
'The present (Labour) administration of Reading Borough Council prides itself on its success in defending green open space in our town. The protection of Kings Meadow from the proposed Cross Town Route and the defence of Kennet Meadows, in particular, have been key campaigns in the lives of many local councillors, including me. Clearly the latest campaign in this sequence is the campaign to preserve the Tilehurst Poor's Land as open space. I want to give this campaign my fullest possible support, and to congratulate the campaigners on all they have achieved so far'. |
Martin Salter (MP for Reading West, Labour) began by reminding everyone of his longstanding commitment to preserving Reading's open spaces. He played a part in defeating all 9 planning applications to build on Kennet meadows. Likewise, he had opposed the building proposals put forward for Tilehurst Allotments as vigorously as he could. Members of the audience could rightfully feel irritated by the number of letters he had written them on the subject. He then proceeded to outline his own opposition to the present proposals. Reading was meeting its housing targets from brownfield sites. The cry 'houses must be built' was a misleading one. The preservation of this open space was important for a number of reasons: preserving the character of Tilehurst, the beauty of the views, the availability of open space for the future, the fact that open space could not be recreated, a much richer flora and fauna than this application recognised, and an overload on the infrastructure. He stated that he had no quarrel with the charity and its work, only that this method of pursuing its aims was totally misguided. He also drew attention to the Trusts policy of constructive dereliction, which he felt sat uneasily with a charity ostensibly serving the Tilehurst poor. In conclusion he warned that an appeal would almost certainly be the crucial stage, and vigilance would be vital. At this stage, it was vital that Reading Council should be made aware of the depth of public opposition. All who opposed this proposal must write to the Planning Department, stating their objections. If you do nothing else, do that! Finally he stated that surely this land could be well-managed to produce a flow of income for charitable purposes, whilst preserving it as a valued local amenity. Good management married to charitable aims.
The rest of the meeting was thrown open to those present either to give an opinion or ask a question. In this record only principal speakers, elected representatives, or members of organisations, such that it may be assumed they are speaking for that organisation, are identified by name.
1. How can it be legal to sell this land when it was designated to the trustees by act of parliament which remains in force?.
2. The wild life survey is of very poor quality
3. The parking provision in the plans is inadequate
4. The plans would make the problems of Polsted Rd worse. Plot-holders create no problems
5. Surely this was settled in 1998. Why has it been raised again?
6. How can views be sustained with this degree of development? Traffic: the roads are already overloaded.
7. Mr Blake and Mr Wilmshurst responded to some of the above .Views from one's house are not a planning consideration. There is no hidden agenda : there is no intention to seek to build on the remaining allotments or the recreation ground. Parking provision could be adjusted to meet concerns, likewise in respect of Polsted Rd. The present planning application is designed to take account of the concerns expressed in 1998
8. Martin Salter commented that for many local people views were a consideration and disputed the fact that they were irrelevant to the planning process. He also suggested that compulsory purchase of the Victoria Recreation ground was the best way to safeguard its future.
9. There was too much building in Tilehurst. in consequence there is too much traffic. I was involved in the opposition to building on the site of Blagrave hospital in the late 80's.The battle was lost at appeal stage. It would be vital to contest an appeal vigorously.
10. The ownership of the site is irrelevant. The planning application will be defeated, if it is, on planning grounds.
11. I had opposed the building of three storey block of flats,(Wheeler Court) but lost. If any one is in any doubt about the impact of buildings should look at it.
12. Cllr Sandy Scaife (Labour, Kentwood ) stated that as a member of Planning Committee she was unable to take a partisan stance about the application, However, she was able to comment on other matters .She criticised the Trust for failing to negotiate a lease for the Recreation ground since 1997.This matter should be resolved quickly, and the application should be held in abeyance until this matter was resolved. Bribery or blackmail? Either way it left a very unpleasant taste.
13. Cllr David Geary.(Kentwood Lab) criticised the trust for the extraordinarily narrow interpretation of their duties. They were in fact betraying the community that they were supposed to be serving.
14. The badger setts and their runs were not where they were indicated on the plan. The path was inappropriate, not providing plot-holders with easy access they required, whilst disturbing the badger population.
15. The path was unsuitable, Badgers were not as shown on the plan. One sett had been destroyed by a fallen tree .Had it been felled deliberately?
16. The wildlife survey had not been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the planning regulations, conducted in winter, an inappropriate time of year, when it was bound to be defective. Her own survey had revealed a much wider range of flora and fauna, and several other protected species. It was totally incorrect to state as the application did that the site had no ecological value. The reverse was true, as was likely in a site undeveloped for a minimum of 250 years.
17. For residents on the other side of Kentwood Hill, parking and car access were already difficult. This development would make a bad situation worse.
18. The logic behind this application was that houses were needed and that open space must be sacrificed. By the same logic all the local parks and recreation grounds should be built on.
19. Where are the trustees?
20. Colin Cairns, Chairman of the Poor's lands Charity identified himself. He stated that he had been invited o attend, but not to be a principal speaker. He also confirmed that the Trusts Clerk, Mr Jenks, was also present. Mr Cairns defended the trust's policy. Its sole concern was the poor of Tilehurst. Sale of this land for building would enable it to give more to the poor Most of those present should have a little more concern for the poorest.
21. The chair steered the meeting back to the planning application, despite many requests to have the floor to challenge Mr Cairns.
22. Gordon Sands, Reading Civic Society stated that he had studied the planning application. It had many characteristics of a full application, yet lacked important information which a full application should contain. First important supplementary documents had not been provided. A fence which would have major visual impact had not been shown pictorially. The plan was drawn up as though the site was flat. In fact the site was uneven and fell away steeply south to north. As drawn it could not be built. There were other shortcomings. Was this a deliberate attempt to mislead?
23. The application from Boyer Planning contained many factual inaccuracies. How could they be put right? Who had responsibility to do this? Two examples were quoted. First the impression was given that, in 1998 the trustees had carried out a full public consultation. In fact a small number of households had been informed of the proposals (about 50), allotment holders had been informed and a meeting held (at the request of plot-holders).At the meeting members of the public and the media were excluded. All the rest of the 'consultation was the result of concerned residents taking action, or the consultation organised by Reading Council. Second the development was described as affecting a 'small' part of the site -40%. Forty percent is not 'small', but this figure is arrived at by including the rec. which we have been told during the meeting is in no way part of the application. The site consists of 55% of the allotment land and the Withies, thus for 'small' substitute 'large part.'
24. Why do Reading's housing problems have to be solved in Tilehurst? Reading Green Park is creating thousands of new jobs, surely new housing should be sited there.
25. How are the Withies to be conserved? How is adequate access to the remaining allotments to be provided from Armour Hill whilst the allotments are to be kept secure?
26. Apart from the traffic, schools and general practitioners are overloaded
27. The trustees claim to have enquired into local opinion. Why have the results of these enquiries never been published?
28. The trustees have no moral right to dispose of the land left in their trust for the people of Tilehurst.
29. There has been a continuous loss of open space, during 32 years of residence in Tilehurst At the same time Tilehurst has become more and more built up. It is time to call a halt.
30. The recreation ground, and the land left derelict must all be kept .It is impossible to see what kind of open space or leisure use might be needed in the future. This land would provide the opportunity to respond to changing needs.
31. Is this process to be endlessly repeated, one application after another. How is this to be stopped?
32. I support this application. Shopkeepers struggle to survive. More houses mean more customers.
33. Is the land stable? There are regular problems on Kentwood Hill. The route proposed for the footpath is very muddy.
All the principal speakers were invited to make a brief closing statement.
Mr Wilmshurst spoke for Boyer and Wimpey Southern Homes Ltd. He said he noted the concerns and that they will be addressed viz: a fuller wildlife survey, a more acceptable footpath or none, plans showing contours, soil analysis, security for allotments, and convenient access.
Cllr Winfield -Chislett reminded the meeting of the next steps in the planning process. She asked those with ecological knowledge to make it available to the Planning Committee. All such developments must contain some affordable housing. Because of the controversial nature of this application it would be considered at a full committee at which individuals had a right to speak.
Viki Lloyd stated that it was her intention to seek changes to the local Plan, so that this site would be more protected. She objected to Colin Cairns' suggestion that only the Trust was charitable-locals are generous; many did lots of work for charity.
Martin Salter thanked Janet Bond for chairing the meeting, Jenny Cottee for organising it and Save our Open Space for their efficiency and energy in making so many people aware of this issue in such a short time. He also took issue with the 'more charitable than thou' attitude of the trust. He reiterated the achievements of the Labour government in tackling poverty. The trust 's Victorian values were now outdated.
Janet Bond, beset by many wishing to speak, indicated that the meeting must close. She thanked all who participated for their contributions and courtesy. She took the sense of the meeting by a show of hands, overwhelmingly in favour of saving the open space.
The meeting closed at 9.25 pm
The exit collection for Save Our Open Space funds for campaign expenses totalled £150.64
Record produced by B. L. Cottee