New Local Plan

Feedback updated 4 Jul 2018

Results updated 4 Jul 2018

Some of the main points raised are set out below:

• Generally, there was support for trying to accommodate the need for 671 homes per annum from the development industry. Adjoining authorities noted the position regarding the expected unmet needs.
• Many individuals expressed support for encouraging higher density growth in the town centre, while some individuals expressed concern about the number of flats planned and the need for more family housing, as well as affordability concerns.
• Many developers requested more flexibility, particularly with regard to energy efficiency, design and affordable housing. Additionally, some developers consider the requirement of employment development to mitigate impacts on housing to be onerous.
• A number of developers supported the Council’s inclusion of a Private Rental Sector policy in order to encourage build-to-rent properties, but many disagreed with the specific approach taken and recommended changes.
• Many individuals expressed concern about the impacts of new development on existing infrastructure, citing traffic congestion, limited school places and crowded GP surgeries, particularly in the north of Reading.
• In terms of sites allocated for development, the sites that generated the largest volume of responses (most opposing development), were
  • Land at Kentwood Hill (WR3s) and Land at Armour Hill (WR3t)
  • Part of Reading Golf Course at Kidmore End Rd (CA1b)
  • Potential Traveller Transit Site at Cow Lane (WR4)
• Many developers and landowners who had put forth sites earlier in the process responded with support.
• Some individuals expressed concerns about the impacts of tall buildings on the character of the town.
• Some landowners and developers advocated other sites located just outside Reading’s boundary, around Grazeley in Wokingham Borough and around the edges of Caversham and Emmer Green in South Oxfordshire District, as potential sites to help meet Reading’s housing need.
• Numerous individuals and community groups expressed strong support for retention and improvement of existing open spaces. A number of responses were in relation to identification of sites as Local Green Space. The site most frequently mentioned was Mapledurham Playing Field.
• There were a number of detailed technical comments on the environmental policies from respondents such as the Environment Agency and Natural England.
• Historic England, community groups and individuals were pleased with the greater emphasis placed on heritage within the Local Plan.

Links:

• Statement of Consultation - describes process and summarises results, including council officer response to each point
• Submission Draft version of the Local Plan