AGLC Planning Application Community Steering Group Meeting 5 March 2013 Present: Gordon Veitch (Finchhamptead PC), Ken

n Lane (Barkham PC), James Thatcher (Arborfield and Newland PC), Alison Ward (Arborfield and Newland PC) Suzanne Sach (AG-RAG) Cllr Gary Cowan, Cllr Simon Weeks (first part), Cllr Ian Pittock (second part) Tracey Coleman (WBC), Matthew Melville (WBC)

WBC Update 1. AGLC have indicated that they are still intending to submit their planning application by the end of March (post-meeting update: AGLC now indicating first week of April). WBC officers are concerned that this is a very tight timescale and they have seen and agreed very few details. AGLC had not been invited to this meeting as nothing new has been agreed with the Council since the last meeting. About the planning application 2. It will be a hybrid planning application mainly in outline but with some elements in full. 3. The outline element will seek to fix the types and amounts of uses on the site (ie. number of dwellings, amounts of floorspace etc). 4. The full element seeks detailed permission for the SANGs, the principal highways accesses, and the conversion of the MoD gymnasium (to a proposed use that isnt currently clear). 5. Any approval would be subject to a legal agreement to secure the infrastructure, with grampian-style controls over timings. 6. It is normal for an application of this size to be hybrid. This allows the developers to start work constructing the SANG early so it is in place when the first dwellings are ready for occupation. The highways accesses can be constructed early to be used by the construction traffic. Information submitted so far 7. To date, AGLC has only submitted the application description and some plans (which were circulated at the meeting). These included parameter plans showing the distribution of different uses, densities, building heights, green infrastructure, movement corridors through the site, and an illustrative masterplan.

8. It was explained that the plans could not be fully assessed without supporting information to explain the opportunities and constraints, and information about the deliverability of different elements. In particular, officers had not seen an up to date Environmental Impact Assessment. 9. As an example of this, Cllr Cowan raised concerns about developing land in parcel R01 and the effect that residential development could have upon the mature trees. However, this could not be fully judged without a tree survey. 10. Cllr Pittock also pointed out that whilst the relocation of the secondary school might make sense in design terms, the financial viability of building a new school from scratch still needed to be understood. AGLC are producing an Education Strategy to explore this and further discussions would be necessary about this and the delivery of other elements of infrastructure. Discussion What is the relationship between the applicants highways studies and the Councils highways work? 11. The applicants Transport Assessment (TA) will focus solely upon the impact of their own development. The Councils TA will be broader and focus upon the cumulative effects of the development of all four SDLs. Both TAs will use the Councils modelling as their basis but may use slightly different assumptions. 12. The applicant is required to produce a TA to identify the highways impact of their development, and show how this is going to be mitigated (this would need to be submitted with their planning application). We would expect this to include detailed plans of off-site road improvements. The situation is somewhat different at Arborfield Cross as the development will only create part of the need for the relief road, so a proportional contribution will be sought. 13. By undertaking its own TA, and having its own evidence base, the Council will be in a strong position to negotiate with the developer. The part of the Councils TA covering the Arborfield area will be published in late May (though the emerging outcomes will probably be known sooner) so they can be fed into the determination of the application. 14. The Councils TA will also look at green networks, and link into the Rights of Way Improvement Plan. 15. The Council is also developing a Borough-wide Travel Plan (to encourage alternatives to the private car). This will mean that rather than each development making small gestures to encourage occupants away from their private car, the Council will be able to seek contributions towards larger-scale schemes which are likely to have more impact.

Can the AGLC development be approved without the Marino Family Trust land? Would this make a sustainable development? 16. Officers explained that: - The Council cannot refuse to validate a planning application if the requisite information is submitted. It therefore would have to be assessed and determined. - Appeal decisions at North Wokingham and Shinfield have shown that the Council cannot require a single SDL-wide planning application. TC has written to AGLC asking them to work with the MFT to either submit a single planning application, or to submit their applications at the same time - but they are not willing to do so. The Council will nonetheless expect a joined-up infrastructure delivery plan to show how the necessary infrastructure will be provided. - Development will take at least 20 years to build out, so the growth of any new community will only be gradual. The Section 106 will use triggers based upon impact. - It is not possible to determine whether the development would be sustainable on the basis of the information provided so far. What is the status of the micro Park and Ride (proposed by the WBC Park and Ride Strategy) at Arborfield? 17. Response to follow. Community Forum (next meeting on Monday 11th March) 18. Attendees raised concerns about the agenda setting, structure, and the delivery of outcomes from these meetings. Future Meetings 19. Arborfield PC had written to officers expressing concerns that all the meetings were taking place during the day and that some of their principal members could not attend. 20. TC explained that Arborfield SDL is the only major development in the Borough that has a Community Steering Group such as this. Given officers other commitments, these meetings would continue to need to take place during the day. Other attendees agreed that they were happy with this. 21. It was clarified that the purpose of these meetings is to discuss hot topics to disseminate information to the rest of the community, and to then bring back feedback from the community. People who do not attend the meetings therefore still had the opportunity to inform the discussion. 22. Alison said that A&N PC were happy to host future Community Group meetings in the Arborfield Pavilion, and would confirm the availability of the facility to WBC. Next meeting: Monday 8th April at 2.30pm in Arborfield Pavilion