Save Our Open Space

Response to the Wimpey Planning Application

Summary

1.

Loss of this open, green space is not acceptable to local people.

2.

Development would be contrary to the Local Plan.

3.

The 61 dwellings are not needed to fulfil Reading’s housing targets. If, at any future juncture, it emerged that there were a shortfall of housing against the defined targets, previously–developed land should be used, not this ‘greenfield’ site.

4.

The wildlife on the site is special and is threatened by the proposed development. The site itself is part of a green link in the Borough. The ecological survey presented by Wimpey Homes is totally inadequate, having been carried out in December and not even listing the habitats and species present. The badger mitigation proposals are unlikely to enable the clan to survive on the site and no thought has been given to alternatives. A thorough professional survey carried out at the correct time of year is essential to record all the species of flora and fauna.

5.

The extensive, panoramic views are enjoyed by all and must be protected. A development of 61 dwellings is not acceptable; views would be affected from all the aspects.

6.

Traffic already presents problems on Armour Hill and Kentwood Hill. Access onto both roads would be very difficult to achieve safely.

7.

Other infra-structure provision (public transport, schools, doctors etc) is already stretched to capacity. This is not sustainable development.

8.

The Recreation Ground is not a bargaining counter and a new car park is neither a popular option nor any sort of compensation for what would be lost forever.

9.

Allotments have an essential role to play in maintaining the health of the nation. They should be preserved to accommodate current and changing leisure needs in the future.

10.

Bearing in mind the needs of current and future generations, the open space should not be built on. It should be retained as currently, without public access, as a visual amenity, and to preserve the possibility of future public access. Every effort should be made to ensure that good use is made of the land as soon as possible.

1.	Loss of this open, green space is not acceptable to local people.
2.	Development would be contrary to the Local Plan.
3.	The 61 dwellings are not needed to fulfil Reading’s housing targets. If, at any future juncture, it emerged that there were a shortfall of housing against the defined targets, previously–developed land should be used, not this ‘greenfield’ site.
4.	The wildlife on the site is special and is threatened by the proposed development. The site itself is part of a green link in the Borough. The ecological survey presented by Wimpey Homes is totally inadequate, having been carried out in December and not even listing the habitats and species present. The badger mitigation proposals are unlikely to enable the clan to survive on the site and no thought has been given to alternatives. A thorough professional survey carried out at the correct time of year is essential to record all the species of flora and fauna.
5.	The extensive, panoramic views are enjoyed by all and must be protected. A development of 61 dwellings is not acceptable; views would be affected from all the aspects.
6.	Traffic already presents problems on Armour Hill and Kentwood Hill. Access onto both roads would be very difficult to achieve safely.
7.	Other infra-structure provision (public transport, schools, doctors etc) is already stretched to capacity. This is not sustainable development.
8.	The Recreation Ground is not a bargaining counter and a new car park is neither a popular option nor any sort of compensation for what would be lost forever.
9.	Allotments have an essential role to play in maintaining the health of the nation. They should be preserved to accommodate current and changing leisure needs in the future.
10.	Bearing in mind the needs of current and future generations, the open space should not be built on. It should be retained as currently, without public access, as a visual amenity, and to preserve the possibility of future public access. Every effort should be made to ensure that good use is made of the land as soon as possible.