O/2013/0600 AGLC Arborfield

Summary of public comments Wokingham Borough Council consulted on the planning application over a six week period up to 21 June 2013. This included sending more than 9000 consultation letters to every residential property in the parishes of Arborfield, Barkham, Finchampstead, Swallowfield, Eversley and Bramshill, and displaying twelve A2-sized site notices in prominent locations around the site. This report contains a summary of the written responses received over this period, and any other comments received by the Local Authority before the end of July 2013. In total, 665 individual responses were received. These comprised: 628 letters of objection; 4 letters with mixed comments (partly in favour and partly against); 9 letters of comment; and 24 letters of support. The Council also received one petition with 41 signatures.

Table of Contents
1. General objections to the proposal .................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Principle and scale of the proposal ............................................................................................ 3 1.2 Impact upon the rural character ................................................................................................ 3 1.3 General impact upon existing residents..................................................................................... 3 2. Infrastructure requirements ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1 General infrastructure requirements ......................................................................................... 4 2.2 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Flooding ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Air, noise, light and land quality ................................................................................................. 5 3. Impact on highways (general) ................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Traffic and congestion ................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Highway safety ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Character of rural roads ............................................................................................................. 6 3.4 Impact on other road users ........................................................................................................ 6 3.5 Mitigation and phasing............................................................................................................... 6 3.6 Other .......................................................................................................................................... 6 3.7 Transport strategy ...................................................................................................................... 6 3.9 Specific comments on the applicants Transport Assessment document (TA) .......................... 8 4. On-site - Development-specific issues..................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Residential Character ................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 District Centre ............................................................................................................................ 9 4.3 Education.................................................................................................................................. 11 4.4 Green infrastructure and open space ...................................................................................... 12 4.5 Site accesses/Internal highways............................................................................................... 12 5. Off-site impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 Arborfield ................................................................................................................................. 14 5.2 Barkham ................................................................................................................................... 14 5.3 Eversley, Eversley Cross, Bramshill and Hampshire (other) ..................................................... 16 5.4 Finchampstead / Nine Mile Ride / California Cross Roads ....................................................... 17 5.5 Swallowfield/Farley Hill ............................................................................................................ 18 5.6 Wokingham .............................................................................................................................. 18 5.7 Other locations ......................................................................................................................... 18 6. Other matters raised ............................................................................................................................. 19 7. Supporting comments ........................................................................................................................... 20

1. General objections to the proposal

1.1 Principle and scale of the proposal
General objections to the principle and scale of the development (over-development); Question need for development; Separate applications for the north and south of the SDL could result in a piecemeal development, which does not allow the full impact of the development to be assessed; Other brownfield sites in the Borough should be developed before this site; and The site is inherently unsustainable.

1.2 Impact upon the rural character

Any development should preserve the rural character of the area; Greenfield development beyond the garrison should be opposed; The large town being proposed does not fit in with the local character; The development would result in the urbanising of a rural area, with a loss of countryside, green belt land/green areas and agricultural/grazing land; Local area is becoming a concrete jungle; The development would result in a coalescence of villages (and towns) along the A327 and from Arborfield to Eversley, Barkham and Finchampstead; and Reading to Wokingham); Village identities would be lost; The loss of the countryside would also affect childrens play in these areas; Concern about loss of existing green spaces on Garrison which are an important amenity for the local community and wildlife. SANGs are man-made and sterile, and do not compensate for the loss of countryside; and Development should not harm the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

1.3 General impact upon existing residents

Harmful impact to the quality of life of the existing residents (general); Noise and disturbance during construction for residents living on or close to the site; Potential inconvenience for local community; Effect of development upon local communities (general); and Concern that the development will bring more crime and anti-social behaviour to the area. (other issues picked up in later sections of this report)

2. Infrastructure requirements
2.1 General infrastructure requirements
Permission should only be given if there is sufficient infrastructure to mitigate the development certainty over delivery and timing is therefore required; The Council made a commitment in 2011 that the application would not be granted for part of the site without the infrastructure for the whole SDL. MoDs relocation costs should not influence the infrastructure contribution; and More infrastructure is required (non-specific).

2.2 Utilities
Impact on sewerage (general); Concern about timescales for sewer upgrades and the lack of definitive plans; Thames Water must commit to do necessary upgrades when they are required rather than after homes have been flooded with sewage; Impact of the development on water supply infrastructure, which often has a low pressure at peak times and use restrictions; Greater stress on electricity supplies; Questioning whether BT has committed to provide high-speed broadband on the site; and Concern about future local disruption as utilities are dug up in the local area to increase capacity.

2.3 Flooding
Potential for the development to cause flooding on and off site. Flood mitigation measures required. Water courses on site could pose a flood risk. These should be modelled prior to determining the outline application as this may affect the site layout. Risk of surface water flooding is increased by low ground permeability; Aim to return the site to its original greenfield discharge is not sufficient, because the original runoff would have been high due to the low ground permeability; Insufficient detail provided about surface water and SuDS (even accepting this is an outline application). FRA contains insufficient information about how SUDS will be installed, managed, maintained and funded; FRA does not show a complete understanding of the SuDS management train. Developer should submit a full SuDS train management analysis. Concern about whether SuDS will be handed to Local Authority in good condition. Further groundwater investigations are required; Poorly maintained culverts can cause flooding. Proposed treatment of culverts is not consistent with the EAs approach. Proposed culvert would be inadequate; WBC should work with the Environment Agency and Thames Water to assess the Flood Risk Assessment to ensure that flooding will not occur; Flooding occurs in Penrose Park and the Poperinghe development (which flooded in 2007) these errors should not be repeated; The area is already prone to flooding. Recent flooding in Park Lane in July 2007 due to rainwater coming in from the garrison and developments in Penrose Park and Poperinghe. Flood defences have since been upgraded by WBC, but these may not be sufficient to cope with extra development; Concern that proposals could cause Mole Bridge Farm, Sindlesham Road to flood; The proposed new road should not be located in flood area; and Problems have been identified with the detail of the flood risk modelling (Ref; letter 524). Further channel modelling required. Appendix A of the FRA indicates that the EA has not accepted the applicants hydraulic modelling. 4

2.4 Air, noise, light and land quality

Impact of the additional cars and houses on the environment (general); Risk of on-site contamination; Impact of construction noise upon local residents; and The types and locations of street lights should be controlled in order to minimise light pollution.

3. Impact on highways (general)

3.1 Traffic and congestion
The development would increase traffic and congestion; The roads are already congested; Noise and pollution from additional traffic (general). WBC should monitor air quality in the area; Impact of additional traffic upon local communities; The impact of the development should be considered cumulatively with other developments within Wokingham Borough and at TRL; Impact of construction traffic; Buses and cyclists can bring traffic to a standstill as they cause queuing behind them;

3.2 Highway safety

Concern about the highway safety impact of the additional traffic, including for drivers and other road or footway users;

3.3 Character of rural roads

Congestion will turn country lanes, which are unsuitable for additional traffic, into rat-runs. As the repair of the country lanes is not prioritised, they are in poor condition. Passing cars may also damage verges; WBC should adopt a Rural Roads Protocol to ensure their protection and enhancement is considered in all decision-making; The proposed off-site highway improvements will alter the character of the area (general);

3.4 Impact on other road users

Impact of the increased use of the roads upon walkers and cyclists; Proposals to the junctions compromise walkers and cyclists; The extra traffic will discourage horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians, (and consequently harm public health);

3.5 Mitigation and phasing

Highways proposals do not mitigate the impact of development; The application should be refused unless nil detriment can be achieved on all roads; Highway improvements should be delivered before the bulk of houses;

3.6 Other
The roads are already in poor condition and should be repaired; The application is premature while Hampshire County Councils Judicial Review is pending.

3.7 Transport strategy

The transport strategy needs to consider the M3/M4 corridor links more broadly; The lowest cost traffic solutions are identified by the applicants;

Traffic lights (general) National studies have shown that traffic lights cause congestion; Objections to the principle of there being additional traffic lights, as they will increase congestion, air pollution (from waiting cars), light pollution etc; Traffic lights will have an urbanising impact on the area; Any new traffic lights should be part time or intelligent; The chaos caused by temporary traffic lights in the local area illustrates why they would not work as a traffic solution; 6

Green links A network of (preferably off-road) footpaths, bridleways and cycle ways is required to reduce car use; Cycleways should be added to all roads around the site linking to key destinations; The roads are too narrow to add cycle routes; The applicants walking and cycling strategy is based on obsolete documents. The proposed width of the bridleways is too narrow for a horse; Bridleways are required for horse riders; Do the proposed bridleways within the site connect to local stables? Site should connect to the bridleways in Coombes Woods and Farley Hill/Bramshill Forest, preferably without crossing busy roads (creating underpasses etc instead) The proposed greenway link to Barkham Hill along Commonfield Lane would not be suitable for walkers and cyclists with the extra traffic proposed; It is impractical and dangerous to combine bridleways and cycle routes horses would not be able to pass one another without encroaching onto the footpath or cycleway, and without a dividing fence, horses would use the cycleway in wet conditions; Barkham Neighbourhood Plan group has identified that residents will only choose to walk or cycle when it is away from main vehicular routes; Improvements to the Public Right of Way are not due to be completed until Phase 4 this is too late to embed habits, and should be required before secondary school is opened; Safe routes to schools are required, with consideration towards the following issues: o There is no safe route from Barkham to the secondary school a cycling/footpath link is required before the school opens, with consideration towards footpath improvements further along Barkham Ride to the Commonfield Lane junction; o There is no safe means for pupils walking from Barkham to cross Langley Common Road to access the school; o Street lighting required along Langley Common Road and Barkham Road to allow students to walk to school; o The bridleway running alongside California Country Park should be widened, tarmacked and lit to make it a safe route for Finchampstead children; and o Footpaths in the locality need upgrading to allow cycling and continued use when the ground is wet. Public transport The site (and the local area) currently has poor public transport links; It is not realistic to think that public transport will reduce car use; The developer has ignored WBC document, Active Travel Plan Supporting Local Transport Plan 2011-2026; Plans to reduce car usage based upon schemes in urban areas where uptake is likely to be different this is unproven for rural development; Trains are overcrowded; An express bus service should be provided to principal commuting locations; A more frequent bus service is required (to Reading, Wokingham and Bracknell). Increased service should take place from Phase 1 to help embed habits; The bus should go to Winnersh and other routes (unstated); There is no public transport to the south of Arborfield; The bus service would become ineffective if it was delayed by traffic (and traffic lights); Proper bus shelters are required at all bus stops; The bus service needs to be made profitable to run in perpetuity.

3.9 Specific comments on the applicants Transport Assessment document (TA)

The TA is not sufficiently detailed and includes errors describing existing roads. Does not create confidence in the document; The TA does not realistically assess traffic and includes unfounded assumptions (as per comments from Arborfield and Barkham PCs); The TA underestimates trip generation, particularly relating to: o Low trip generation from primary and secondary schools - parents living on the site may not choose to send their children to the local school, and so still create trips; o The trip generation to/from retail is considered unrealistic; and o The actual traffic volumes are not properly assessed - traffic flow monitoring took place during the summer holidays, and so is not considered representative. The TA modelling must take account of the Arborfield bypass route (further detail in Arborfield bypass section of this report); Does the TA take account of where the pupils are travelling from and the likely availability of public transport? If the school is built at an early stage of the development (with few houses on site), it will generate more trips from outside. This should be factored into the TA; The TA states that the garrison is only operating at 20% capacity, inferring a buffer capacity. Even if this was the case, as it was a training site, most extra journeys at peak time would have been on foot; The TA does not account for changing pattern of MoD travel from the retained homes (they were walking across site to work, now they are driving to destinations like Aldershot); Traffic model should include sensitivities in case it is wrong; The TA should be informed by travel-to-work information from 2011 census (available October 2013); The TA should properly consider Hampshire. Consideration should be given to need for improvements in Hampshire (further detail in Eversley/Hampshire section of this report); Other off-site highway improvements suggested including: o Further road improvements required (non-specific); o Improvement required on NMR at St Crispins TLs (in Bracknell Forest); o Improvement required at NMR and Coral Reef Rbt (in Bracknell Forest); o Improvement required at A322/M3 junction; o Improvement required on roads towards A329M; and o Problems with traffic at Pinewood Roundabout. It is considered unrealistic to think people will stagger journeys to avoid congestion; A risk assessment should be undertaken at all new/changed junctions, with particular consideration towards nearby (residential) accesses; The assumed increase in bus patronage (in the Travel Plan) is unrealistic; The TA only uses very broad assumptions over traffic generation from Hogwood Industrial Estate; The TA should identify and explain the impact upon smaller lanes (including Park Lane). Small absolute increases in traffic may result in considerable harm to a small, less-frequently used lanes; Construction traffic should be monitored by camera and pay accordingly for traffic calming measures a similar schemes operate in Oxfordshire; and Off-site improvements require the use of third party land (further detail in locationally-specific sections elsewhere in this report).

4. On-site - Development-specific issues

4.1 Residential Character
Arborfield must not become another faceless housing estate and must retain its rural, village character; Masterplan has improved from earlier iterations; and The application should refer to Barkham Village Design Statement.

Density The overall density is too high and urban; The density of development is too high at periphery of site - lower density should be required along Langley Common Road to soften appearance of site; Compressing development parcels has led to an increase in density, creating less of a rural character. Density exceeds the 35dph in Core Strategy, and is comparable to urban developments such as Jennetts Park; Some areas are 50% denser than Penrose Park; and A maximum density of 30dph is suggested. House scale/design/layout The layout would be harsh and urban when viewed from Langley Common Road; Every house should include a front garden; Green spaces are needed between houses, to create a spacious, semi-rural character; Three and four storey houses are not in keeping with the village feel and local character. Such houses on Poppyfields and Penrose Park are also out of character; The four storey buildings to the north of the core detract from the visual quality of the green corridor and would harm protected trees; The building designs illustrated in the DAS are not suitable; The mews layouts proposed would not work as they encourage on-street parking; Each house should have off-road parking for at least two cars; The development is dominated by car use and encourages it; Garages should not count towards car parking requirement as people never use them, resulting in on-street parking; House designs should maximise green energy/solar panels and have rainwater harvesting to minimise water demand; The heights proposed in development parcels R29 and R30 are considered particularly inappropriate due to their proximity to existing properties; and Multi-storey buildings are not appropriate for senior citizens - single storey properties should be provided for the elderly. Housing mix and tenure mix The proposal should include low cost housing for young families; A justification for the proposed housing mix should be provided - demographic projections suggest a greater need for small houses and more small apartments, suggesting that one- or two-bed properties are required; and 35% affordable homes is too high.

4.2 District Centre

Design and layout The design of the District Centre is too urban; 9

The supermarket and associated parking would visually dominate area and are considered too urban; The design of the District Centre needs reconsideration to ensure it creates vitality and takes advantage of green spaces; The traffic lights in the District Centre would give site an urban feel. Hungerford is considered to be an inappropriate comparison (as it is a town, rather than a village); and Village should look onto open space rather than car parking.

Community Facilities The size of the community facilities should consider the needs of existing residents (including Annington homes and Penrhose Park residents) and the extent of current use, as well as new residents; Accommodation suitable for multi-denominational church gatherings should be provided in the District Centre (even if the Church is retained); The Garrison Church lacks facilities to support a modern church and has no room for expansion; Finchampstead and California church has a sufficiently large congregation to require 4 services on a Sunday. New community will also require weddings, baptisms etc. Community facilities need to be viable to sustain future use, with particular consideration towards: o Retention of MoD buildings should consider future maintenance costs; and o The water tower was built in 1960s and has no architectural, historic or aesthetic merit. Future maintenance will become a burden, and it is not known whether it serves any useful purpose it should therefore be demolished. Loss of car parking for the church and sports facilities (particularly as additional parking will be required); Questioning whether club houses are being provided for the sports facilities; and Concern about the loss of the REME museum, as it provides a link to sites/communitys heritage and is an important community resource. Retail The food store should not be most prominent building in the District Centre. It is out-of-keeping with the Garden City concept. Reference was made to the soulless Asda in Lower Earley; There is no need for an additional supermarket; The retail space is excessive (particularly compared to community space); The supermarket is unnecessarily large and will attract traffic into the site; The supermarket should have a petrol station; The supermarket should not be occupied by a cheaper brand; The supermarket should not be in first phase of development, as it would suck trade (and traffic) in from elsewhere; Two smaller supermarkets would be more appropriate, to provide choice and not become a destination; and HGV routes for supermarket need to be identified and delivery times limited. Medical Medical facilities should be provided (doctors or dentists or hospital); o Lost opportunity not to re-use existing on-site medical facility (behind the wire but currently manned by civilians); o Doctors surgery and pharmacy required, as existing surgeries are already overloaded. Existing surgeries are distant and only accessible by car (one view to the contrary, as existing surgeries have plans to expand); o Impact study on medical facilities required.

10

Other community facilities Application should provide more details about form/functions/size of community building/specification to demonstrate how it would meet local needs; Childcare/pre-school facilities required in District Centre; District centre should be moved north to better relate to (and serve) the existing settlement of Arborfield; Development of this size needs a swimming pool and indoor sports facilities like Loddon Valley Leisure Centre in Lower Earley; Development should include facilities for young (skate park, youth centre); and Police and fire facilities required.

4.3 Education
Design and facilities Extra residents will place stress on school places; Design of schools should be sympathetic to rural character; Parents will only send their children to the school if it is high quality (in all respects); Floodlit pitches should not cause light pollution; 400m running track should be provided; and Pre-schools and nurseries should be provided. Highways impacts of schools Planning application should show how school drop-off/parking would work; Proximity of secondary school to primary school will cause traffic problems and potentially block surrounding roads; Circulation routes around schools need to be considered and applicants need to show it can work; Secondary school location would affect traffic flows on Langley Common Road; Further work required to demonstrate how pupils will get to secondary school (safe walking/cycling routes, buses etc). Will safe, lit routes from Barkham, Arborfield and Finchampstead be provided? Location of proposed site would allow easy access for Arborfield and Barkham children. Not so easy (more distant) for children from Finchampstead; and How will children get to/from school safely? Plans should include designated school transport. Timing and delivery Secondary school should not be started in temporary accommodation. Complete at opening (particular emphasis against portakabins); Schools required as soon as possible; School site should not have housing value. Will add premium to homes; and Council should be driving forward establishment of schools not relying on parents. Phasing Object to developing green fields first. Should develop behind the wire first (with some suggestions that all brownfield land should come forward before any greenfield); Building should not commence until MoD have entirely left site (as they frequently change plans and may just develop greenfield land); North of Biggs Lane should be developed first; Phasing strategy needs to be linked directly to the provision of the necessary infrastructure in each stage. This has not been done; If construction traffic for early phases used Sheerlands Road, there would be no need to develop the greenfield land identified as phase 1a; and Planned, phased adoption must be specified to prevent residents living in a building site.

11

4.4 Green infrastructure and open space

Public open space and green corridors Development needs high quality, natural open space; Green corridors required on/off site; How will allotments be managed? Should be managed by Parish Councils; Need realistic plan for future ownership and maintenance of open space; SuDS should include reed beds and treatment ponds; Undesirable for bridleways and cycle paths to be combined; and Conditions should prevent developers changing location of green space, densities etc at a later date. Impact on trees and hedges Harmful impact upon mature trees, ancient hedges and local woodland in particular from new A327 access; Important trees on site should be protected; No loss of any TPO trees should be allowed; Loss of any A or B trees should be justified; Important oak trees on site should be protected; Tree protection details required; Application does not consider impact upon hedges. Impact on ecology Harmful to flora and fauna on site and in local area. Comprehensive surveys required; Buffer zones required around water courses to protect ecology; Existing badger run should be protected; Impact on birds; Permanent nest boxes for species such as Swift, House Martin and Swallows should be required to encourage their nesting; and Development should provide habitats for frogs and bees. SANGs Rowcroft SANG would be in the middle of a building site and not easily accessed from early phases; West Court SANG could only be accessed by car and so would not meet SANG requirements; SANGs should be protected from future development; and Plans annotated with future connections on West Court SANG boundaries. What do these mean?

4.5 Site accesses/Internal highways

Nine Mile Ride Extension (NMRE) Create main access from A327/Sheerlands Rd rather than creating new roundabout; Access road from A327 should minimise tree loss; A327 junction arrangement does not take account of adjacent field accesses (used by Parsons Farm); Future bottleneck at junction of site and Park Lane Nine Mile Ride extension needed before bulk of new houses Nine Mile Ride extension will attract heavy lorry traffic through site Risk NMRE extension may not be delivered across MFT land. Right angle bend in NMRE not a good idea. Will slow journeys and deter traffic from using route and so reduce benefit to Park Lane. Measures should encourage new residents to use the new NMRE all the way across the site to the A327, rather than allowing them cutting south along Sheerlands Road.

12

Langley Common Road junctions Langley Common Road should not form a primary access into the development. Engineering should encourage cars exiting the development from Biggs Lane to turn towards the A327 rather than along Langley Common Road. Site access improved if A327/Langley Common Road and Langley Common Road/Biggs Lane junctions were combined. Langley Common Road should be reduced to 30mph near school. New road onto Langley Common Road in north-western corner of site (opposite tyre depot) will become rat-run for traffic heading towards Wokingham (and suggestions it would be unacceptable). NMRE should run directly across site from Nine Mile Ride to the Langley Common Road Rbt.

13

5. Off-site impacts
5.1 Arborfield
Impact on Arborfield village (and surrounds) Changes to Arborfield Cross (as proposed by application) would be unsafe and cause congestion; Demonstration of nil detriment solution from TLs at Arborfield Cross is based upon unreliable data; Increased traffic on A327 to the north of Arborfield; The expansion would result in loss of 'village' character to Arborfield; School Road would become even more of a rat-run; and Development would increase traffic on Mole Road (towards Sindlesham) and have a harmful impact. Arborfield Cross Relief Road (ACRR) Arborfield bypass is essential. Should be built before all/some of housing; Traffic modelling does not take account of route of ACRR. AGLC should support bypass solution and include it in their TA; No decisions should be made until ACRR route is finalised and delivery is assured; How would bypass be funded? Council should not allow developers to use traffic lights on the roundabout as a fallback option; Concern that the applicant is refusing to accept an occupations cap prior to the bypass being implemented; Comments on route/detail of ACRR; o Route of bypass should be informed by civilian travel patterns in area (not distorted by past MoD trips); o Object to Arborfield Relief Road route if: close to Farley Hill; shortest and cheapest route selected; or going to east of village, along Greensward Lane; o Arborfield bypass should join up with Shinfield Eastern Relief Rd; o Bypass route should be subject to full public consultation; and o Bypass should have SuDS. Impact upon Park Lane, Arborfield Intensification of Park Lane would be dangerous to walkers and cyclists and harm rural character; Construction traffic should be prevented/limited from using road; TA does not consider Park Lane to the south of Nine Mile Ride; Bend on Park Lane (near Commonfield Lane) has a poor accident history; Measures need to be put in place to stop SANG users parking in Park Lane; Given proposed NMRE, access to Park Lane should be modified at A327 and NMR junctions to discourage through traffic; Impact of additional bin lorries using Park Lane to access site; Vehicles going to Hogwood Industrial Estate should not use Park Lane; and New buildings in Hogwood IE should be low height and not have excessive signage or lighting facing Park Lane.

5.2 Barkham
Barkham Road (general) Concern about additional traffic on Langley Common Road which is an unclassified road in a residential area. Should reduce speed limit to 30mph; Junction of Langley Common Road and School Road has had many accidents and will become more hazardous with heavier traffic; Increased traffic / congestion on Barkham Road to Wokingham; Impact of proposed highways works upon rural character of Barkham; 14

ES should consider noise impact upon entire length of Barkham Road; Safe crossing required on Barkham Road (suggestion of by village store); Increased traffic flows along Barkham Road will make it harder to turn onto the road from side roads such as Sandy Lane, The Lilacs and Doles Lane, and from driveways; and Need safe and pleasant route from Barkham to new schools

Barkham Bridge and Commonfield Lane Bottleneck at Barkham Bridge. Should be upgraded/widened/include second bridge to reduce congestion and improve safety. Part time traffic lights should be considered; Traffic modelling showing decrease in traffic on Barkham Bridge is counter to logic; Commonfield Lane should be kept 2-way; Commonfield Lane should be widened and should include cycleway/pedestrian route to allow Barkham residents to access the SDL and schools. This is a useful link road and the environmental impact is a necessary compromise; Making Commonfield Lane 1-way would push traffic onto other roads, be inconvenient and cause operational difficulties to High Barn Farm; Junction of Commonfield Lane and Barkham Ride/Street is unsafe and should be improved. Offer of land at junction of Commonfield Lane and Barkham Ride/Street to enable improvements. Traffic light junctions on Barkham Road Object to traffic lights (TLs) along Barkham Road. Existing roundabouts work fine (and larger roundabouts suggested by some); Three sets of traffic lights on road to Wokingham will cause congestion. TLs unnecessarily delay traffic out of peak hours; TLs will affect quality of life (noise, air pollution from waiting cars, light pollution); TLs will be unsafe for nearby residents to join road; TLs will be unsafe as drivers speed up to get through them on green; TLs are too closely spaced. Queues will tail back through preceding junctions; Urbanising appearance of traffic lights; Loss of vegetation around junctions; Plans do not account for topography and steep hill and reduced visibility. Particular problem stopping and starting in icy conditions; How would vehicles enter/leave residential properties on Barkham Road and Aggisters Lane? Potentially unsafe (petition against, signed by 41 residents of Aggisters Lane); Aggisters Lane is a private road so should not have traffic lights; Footway widening to west of Bearwood Road would use 3rd party land. Would also result in loss of hedge that provides screening/attenuation for nearby properties; Difficulty for residents to enter/leave properties near Bearwood Lane junction and minor lanes near TLs. Existing grass verge (to be lost) improves visibility for cars to manoeuvre; Widening junction (and TLs) with Evendons Lane will increase prominence of road and encourage extra use. Dangerous and narrow; Lights were previously considered at the Bearwood Lane junction (late 1990s) and discounted; Impact of works upon structural stability of The Cottage, Barkham Road; How would traffic lights affect waste collection to adjacent properties? Traffic lights would be unsafe for cyclists and horses; and Planning application erroneously refers to Evendons Lane. Its correct name (as displayed on road sign) is Edneys Hill. Barkham Ride / Barkham Street (general) Insufficient room to accommodate proposed scheme outside Bull PH; Design does not adequately consider pedestrians or cyclists; Bull PH junction currently works well;

15

Development would result in additional traffic along Barkham Ride. Barkham Ride should be upgraded to increase capacity; Traffic lights would harm setting of historic pub (The Bull Grade II Listed) and the Grade II Sparks Farm. Grade II Listed wall at Barkham Manor should be protected. Increase in traffic along Barkham Street - where no pavements - pedestrian safety risk.

5.3 Eversley, Eversley Cross, Bramshill and Hampshire (other)

Eversley Communities in Hampshire were promised nil detriment by WBC (highway impact). Mitigation is required for the village but has not been considered by the applications TA; Eversley is already saturated with traffic and much of the traffic speeds; Traffic congestion in Eversley and along A327 south of site. Particularly unsuitable road infrastructure at Eversley Street, on Eversley Bridge and at the Fleet Hill/Tally Ho jcn. Highway safety through Eversley: o Narrow roads not designed for such volumes; o Impact upon pedestrians and cyclists discourages walking/cycling in village; o Insufficient room for lorries to pass. Vehicles already mount pavement at Fleet Hill junction and elsewhere in village; o Non-continuous pavements. Walk from Eversley Street to Charles Kingsley School requires resident to cross road twice as pavements stop; o Traffic intimidates elderly from using footpath, and children walking to school, and affects residents from walking to village amenities like pub, village hall and local shop; o Already lots of gravel-extraction and skip hire HGVs; o Already frequent fatalities on local roads; Noise from extra traffic in Eversley; Air pollution in Eversley; Vibration from additional vehicles going through Eversley (with damage to buildings including Listed Buildings). Old houses already shake from HGVs; Impact upon rural/village character of Eversley and quality of life of residents; Impact upon character of Conservation Area and Listed Buildings; Impact of construction traffic upon Eversley over a long period of time (for all the same reasons); Should be banned or have hours limited to outside peak. Not rigorously assessed by ES; TA does not account for HGVs sourcing aggregates for the SDL from near Eversley (and travelling through the village); Additional traffic would result in more difficulty entering/leaving properties in Eversley; Eversley bypass is required; Current Eversley bypass route is not supported as it would divide village and blight properties; Eversley bypass route could go straight on at Tally Ho corner thus removing that blockage. It would allow The Street to become one-way; Highway/footway improvements (including crossing points and speed reduction measures) required in Eversley (on the Street and in vicinity); Improvement required to bend at Tally Ho in Eversley required (or should at least be assessed and considered in the TA). TAs assumptions about bridge take no account of narrow approach or real data; Assumptions that underpin WSTM3 cease to be valid when traffic is non-free-flowing, so specific assessment is required for Tally Ho junction; Applicant's ES and Heritage Statement does not take into account impact upon Eversley (Tally Ho junction in TA, safety, noise, pollution in ES, Conservation Area in Heritage Statement etc); Support Hampshire CC, Eversley PC and Hart DC objections; and Impact on property values in Eversley.

16

Eversley Cross Impact of additional traffic in Eversley Cross and along Firgrove Road; Safety of young children accessing Charles Kingsley school. Highways improvements required on B3272; Impact of additional traffic upon character of Eversley Cross Conservation Area; and Potential impact from rat running through Up Green (Conservation Area) Bramshill Increased traffic along C24 Bramshill Rd causing additional noise for Bramshill residents; Danger from increased traffic in Bramshill in particular at dangerous Y-junction between C24 Bramshill Rd and B3011; and Bramshill Road needs upgrading to accommodate the extra traffic. Hampshire (other) Safety impact of additional traffic at A327/A30 staggered junction; Additional traffic through Yateley; and Question whether WBC are fulfilling their duty to cooperate with Hampshire CC and Hart DC?

5.4 Finchampstead / Nine Mile Ride / California Cross Roads

Nine Mile Ride (NMR) Development and routing of Nine Mile Ride Extension (NMRE) will attract additional through traffic and lorries along Nine Mile Ride. Highway safety impact; Difficulties accessing/leaving property/minor roads on NMR with extra traffic; Traffic calming required to slow vehicles on Nine Mile Ride (and 30mph speed limit suggested on existing road); Bus stops on NMR exit straight onto verges or small flagstones so unsafe; and Dangerous walking along NMR at present (back draught from lorries etc) would be made worse. Finchampstead and California Cross Roads Additional traffic and congestion in Finchampstead and at California Crossroads; Highway safety impact of additional traffic; Object to principle of traffic lights (TLs) at California cross roads; Existing junction at California X-Roads works fine and there is no need for changes out of peak hours. Current double roundabout design naturally keeps vehicle speed low; Traffic lights at California Crossroads will cause congestion (as evidenced by impact of temporary TLs over past years) and would need to be 4 or 5-way (so very slow changing); TLs will create additional safety problems; Traffic lights at California Crossroads would cause environmental harm (noise, pollution etc); Traffic lights at California crossroads would harm semi-rural character Proposals at California Crossroads would force garage to shut (and cause practical/regulatory operating difficulties) and result in motorists rat running across garage forecourt; California Crossroads - Cresswells Garage would not be willing to sell land; Proposals would reduce trade at local businesses as traffic will avoid the area; Difficulties for delivery vehicles entering/leaving nearby commercial properties; Traffic lights would create difficulties for vehicles accessing Nine Mile Ride School; Proposed layout of footpaths and crossing points is unsatisfactory: Particular consideration needs to be given to large numbers of children walking to Nine Mile Ride School and Bluebird Nursery from all directions in peak hours, and traffic parking/dropping off at these destinations. RSA at California X-roads does not take account for this; Proposed crossing points are away from desire lines (or, are not shown/planned). People want to cross centre of junction (as at present) and if this is not possible people will make their own way across potentially resulting in accidents; 17

Narrowing footway adjacent to Red Oak Stores (and elsewhere around junction) would cause a safety hazard to parents with pushchairs; Difficult accessing/leaving Red Oak Stores and chip shop (No 425 on OS Plan). Plans appear to show exit will be closed; Closure of exit to car park outside Finchampstead Post Office would cause safety/manoeuvring difficulties for customers and deliveries, and be hazardous to pedestrians; Where will bus stops be located? Proposals would discourage walking and cycling in locality; Keep existing arrangement but WBC should take funding for TLs as a contingency; Increased traffic likely on White Horse Lane as cars avoid California Crossroads. If receiving more traffic, White Horse Lane would require traffic calming; If TLs installed, residential roads like Windsor Ride, Foxcote and Church Lane should be made nothrough (or adapted to discourage through traffic); Footway required on S-W side of Gorse Ride to Warren Lane; Temporary traffic lights at California X-Roads have historically caused chaos; Chaos if traffic lights ever fail; TLs will cause lollypop lady to lose job; Put additional traffic on Kiln Ride and Finchampstead Road (to N and S); and Plans are insufficiently detailed. Harm to wildlife surrounding Finchampstead;

5.5 Swallowfield/Farley Hill

Impact on small rural lanes to west of site. Increased rat-running and danger to children at Farley Hill School; No measures to stop traffic travelling to Basingstoke through Swallowfield. Harmful to village and particular pinch point outside All Saints Church; Speed limit on Swallowfield Road should be reduced to 30mph; Construction traffic must be prevented from coming through villages; and Suggest dual carriageway from site to A33.

5.6 Wokingham
Extra traffic will increase congestion around Wokingham Station and town centre (level crossing, low bridges). Upgrades required particularly around station. Bridge suggested; and Barkham Road into Wokingham vulnerable to any kind of hold up.

5.7 Other locations

Cumulative impact of traffic from developments in Wokingham and Bracknell upon the character and appearance of Crowthorne.

18

6. Other matters raised

ES (and other documents) do not consider cumulative impact upon traffic, biodiversity, pollution and rural character from other the part of the SDL or the South of M4 SDL; Community should be consulted on S106 package before application is approved. Concerned developers not willing to contribute enough to make development sustainable; Potential implications from sale of Reading FC training ground; Waste of resources to scrap large new hangar on site; Retirement properties should be in quiet areas (not SDL).

Procedural Easy-to-read summary document would have been helpful; Planning application is too large and unwieldy and looks like it was put together in haste; Highway plans are misleading - and need clearer annotations; Plans are difficult to find on internet; Insufficient pre-application consultation with local community (by WBC and developers); Length of consultation period is insufficient; Insufficient consultation/co-ordination with neighbouring authorities. Wokingham Borough Council Wokingham Borough Council do not listen to residents' opinions; Possible impropriety in site allocation; Question professional qualifications of WBC officers; WBC has not kept Eversley residents informed of plans for SDL; Road changes will increase Council Tax. Other Piecemeal application and poorly considered highways proposals have upset the whole community; Masterplan focused upon maximising profit not creating a community; Impact on property values (including from off site highway works); and New settlement should be named something beginning with the letters REME (and not Arborfield).

19

7. Supporting comments
Development will boost local economy; Garrison itself is in need of redevelopment; Masterplan is better than previously proposed; Excited at prospect of new shops and community facilities; Support retention of green spaces; Support proposals to create horse routes/bridleways on and off site (that are joined up); Support new schools - New schools would stop children going to Hampshire schools; Support principle of new settlement; Support provision of affordable housing and schools;

20