Your ref: Our ref:

25 July 2011

Cris Lancaster Policy and Partnerships PO Box 157 Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR FAO: Cris Lancaster Dear Cris RE: OBJECTION TO MAY 2011 ARBORFIELD SDL MASTERPLAN I am writing in response to Wokingham District Councils 6 week consultation period for the Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Location Supplementary Planning Document and all supplementary documents. I OBJECT to the proposals laid out in the aforementioned documents for the reasons I have listed below:
Whilst I can understand the need to build on brown field sites currently occupied by the

Arborfield Garrison, there should be no development until the Garrison has closed and the brown field site has been physically vacated by the MOD. I note that MPs have recently gone on record so say that the Arborfield Garrison would be closed by 2015 with the REME moved to RAF Lyneham. This would be the same set of MPs who also recently said that RAF Lyneham is due to close by 2012 and sold off. This further confirms how the MOD are constantly changing their minds and just because they say its being closed today doesnt mean they wont be saying it will now be kept operational next week. How can the council approve plans for redevelopment without knowing whether the garrison will close or not, a closure that is the highest priority should development go ahead. I would propose all decisions should be delayed until the future of the Arborfield Garrison has been decisively established.
I completely object to the development of any green fields or the felling of any trees within the

Arborfield SDL. These green field areas are home to numerous wildlife and any development would greatly risk their habitat. There are surely enough brownfield sites within the garrison for a suitable sized development to take place. Does Wokingham Borough Council agree that development should be restricted to the brown sites only within the garrison wire
If the MOD do not close and vacate the Arborfield Garrison, the whole Arborfield project

becomes unviable. Does the Wokingham Borough Council agree with this view?
Currently, Sheerlands Road, Gerring Road and Tyler Drive are relatively quiet areas traffic-wise,

and as such provide a safe haven for children to play. Any development around Sheerlands Road and Tyler Drive would pose a real and severe threat to the safety of all the children caused by construction traffic and later from increased general traffic. My children regularly play outside our home where I currently feel happy that they are safe from traffic. Are Wokingham Borough Council prepared to accept such a danger to my/our childrens lives with the increased traffic that this development will inevitably bring to the area as we, most certainly, are not?
I object to the dust and noise pollution that would be caused by any development around Tyler

Drive, Gerring Road and Sheerlands Road as the area could be within/adjacent to a building site for 14 years.
The constraints plan on page 10 shows the Environment Agencys flood zones to be within the

north eastern part of the SDL boundary. The way these flood zones were developed means that

just because they do not show flooding in the upper parts of the catchments of these channels (moving south west through the SDL boundary) does not mean there is no risk in these areas and that a full study should be carried out. It is unlikely these catchments were even considered in the course hydraulic modelling used to produce these flood zones. The areas where the 2 channels run beneath Sheerlands Road and Baird Road are prone to flooding with major flooding occurring in the summer 2007. We regular see (every year) the channel which runs adjacent to Tyler Drive, under Baird Road and through into the rugby pitches flooding. Therefore a detailed flood study with hydraulic modelling of these watercourses should be carried out to ascertain the actual existing flood risk to the area in line with Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk.
There are major existing problems with the foul drainage in the area having had numerous

blockages in the public sewer opposite our property beneath the wooded area. A clear sign that the existing drainage in the area can not cope with the existing demand let alone development of this size. Does Wokingham Borough Council agree that the current sewer systems would not be able to cope with any additional discharge from new development and that substantial investments would be need to improve the sewer network?
The opportunity to open up Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive and Sheerlands Road to buses has still

been retained (as shown on page 56). Why is this the case? It certainly is not an opportunity!!. To do so would require both roads to be widened and the junction of Whitehall Drive, Tyler Drive and Baird Road to be enlarged, with buses travelling on what are currently cul-de-sacs and/or small roads. Again, this would increase the danger to my/our children who currently play with relative safety outside our homes, not to mention noise and air pollution for everyone close to the route. This would also have a big affect on our parking. We have limited parking available and use the roads outside our properties to park our cars. Opening this road up as a bus route will cause severe issues with car parking for the existing residents. The existing bus route uses suitably sized roads and is not close to any existing properties. Surely keeping the status quo is just logical!
I have noticed (and im sure others have also) that the latest masterplan shown on page 25 of the

latest SPD document now has the note Improvements to Arborfield Cross junction or new bypass needed beyond 750 homes. How can WBC feel that improvements to the Arborfield Cross junctions will alleviate the huge increase in traffic flows? This improvements to Arborfield Cross proposal was not shown on the October 2010 version of the document so why has this been added to the document? Were the council hoping to just slip this into the document hoping people would not notice? The local infrastructure will not be able to cope with this huge increase in traffic caused by this development.
What measures will be put in place when/IF the garrison is vacated to stop illegal camping on

the open areas e.g. rugby pitches? I strongly urge you to take my objections into consideration along with my neighbours and local community who will be the most affected by the plans. Yours sincerely,