Why continue with proven failed thinking over new housing?’
THE excellent article published in this paper on Watership Down: ‘Fact and Fiction’ (Dr David Cooper, Newbury Weekly News, April 1) highlights that the main reason the Sandleford development unravelled was because the planners accepted at face value the unlikely assertion that traffic access could be practical from one road.
When reality dawned that such an approach would lead to congestion and gridlock the plans quickly fell apart.
The history is intriguing; the site was originally identified as being unsustainable for development, in an area of unspoilt countryside, yet over successive years of lobbying from developers the Conservative council administration changed their mind and, placing all their eggs in one basket, chose this as a strategic site for development. Fast forward 10 years to the present time and we have history repeating itself in Thatcham.
In this case, an area of over 400 acres, four times the size of Sandleford, in unspoilt countryside that forms part of the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and recognised as a site for biodiversity improvement adjacent to ancient woodlands and wildlife sites, is also being proposed for development.
Similarly, the site had previously been assessed by the council as being unsuitable for development, but once again the developers lobbying for the site have persuaded the
Conservative administration to change their mind.
As history further mirrors the current time, we also see that the proposal for Thatcham chooses to ignore the fundamental constraints in the area which is that the entirety of Thatcham is served by a single east/west road suffering from traffic congestion at busy times, with traffic funnelled into an area that is already identified as an Air Quality Management Area as pollution levels are above a level of concern to health.
The access to the north would be via unsuitable rural roads in Cold Ash and Bucklebury, whilst access south would be through the most congested traffic spot in West Berkshire – the notorious Thatcham rail crossing.
Incredibly, as recently as April 2020, West Berkshire Council’s own site assessment identified the surrounding roads to the site as being unsuitable for carrying the huge volume of extra traffic (equivalent to a town the size of Hungerford being added to Thatcham) and recommending that relief roads would be required.
Yet, just recently we read reports from the planning officers promoting the Local Plan that no relief roads will be built, and the entirety of the offsite transport infrastructure
amounts to the widening of a short stretch of pavement to promote people to walk and cycle to the train station.
Whilst this is to be applauded, it completely fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of people will commute to employment centres that are not accessible by train, demanding the use of private vehicles, creating thousands of additional car journeys per day, inevitably adding to the congestion and air quality pollution in Thatcham. So, as bizarre as it may seem, the Conservative administration at West Berkshire Council appears to be hell-bent on pushing through another enormous site, destroying environmentally sensitive areas that form part of the setting of the AONB, without taking into account the learnings of previous failure.
It doesn’t have to be this way – there are various sites across West Berkshire, including the Chieveley showground, that are available for development and that have excellent highways access.
Why continue with this proven failed thinking that ultimately fails all residents in West Berkshire?
DAVID LISTER
Liberal Democrat, Thatcham West
Leader, Thatcham Town Council