AGLC Planning Application – Community Steering Group Meeting

5 March 2013

Present:

Gordon Veitch (Finchhamptead PC), Ken 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 isn’t 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 applicant’s highways studies and the Council’s

highways work?

11. The applicant’s Transport Assessment (TA) will focus solely upon the impact

of their own development. The Council’s TA will be broader and focus upon

the cumulative effects of the development of all four SDLs. Both TAs will use

the Council’s 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

Council’s 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 Council’s 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