‘Don’t build on Swallows Meadow’

Earley resident claims developer survey presented a one-sided picture for plan

AN EARLEY resident is fighting back against what he says is a “biased” survey over plans for Swallows Meadow.

Stewart Campbell said he thought it was inconceivable that more than 650 people supported the development, which would include a Lidl supermarket and 43 homes.

“I know they’re lying,” he said. “It doesn’t chime with local opinion. They’re trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”

The data came from Lower Earley Properties, which Mr Campbell said was based on a “biased” feedback form in July, making it hard for residents to object.

Instead, he spoilt his form, along with many others.

The developer said that it received 401 feedback forms supporting the plans, with 261 of them double-signed.

A company spokesperson said this meant 662 people supported the plan.

But Mr Campbell believes this is not representative of the true public feeling.

He conducted a poll on the Earley Residents Discussion Group, hosted on Facebook, for seven days.

During that time, 514 voted to oppose the plan, with just 156 votes in favour. Mr Campbell said there were also 37 comments under the poll against the development, and six in favour.

He said: “These results show clear opposition to building a Lidl on Swallows Meadow, with opposition outnumbering support by a ratio of greater than three to one.

“I find it inconceivable that a poll carried out fairly by the PR company could found such radically different results.

“While there are issues with Facebook polls, the process is at least open, unlike the poll conducted by the company.”

Mr Campbell has also formally objected to the plans via the council’s planning portal, submitting his own research as part of this.

He said the data from Lower Earley Properties is biased because the company did not declare how many forms opposing the plans were double-signed.

When Wokingham.Today asked the developer for this number, it declined to reveal it, stating instead that “we received 117 spoilt forms which indicated they were opposed to the plans.”

Mr Campbell was also concerned the company did not share how many forms were sent out to begin with.

The company told Wokingham. Today that 9,000 forms were sent out, in a radius of 1.8km (1.1 miles) from the site.

Disregarding the data for double signatures, this means just 4.5% of all forms were in support of the plans.

A spokesperson for Lower Earley Properties said: “The leaflet provided an update on the planning application and the opportunity for local people to sign and return the form if they supported the plans.

“We make no apology for proactively engaging with the local community as part of the planning process. We are aware that local Liberal Democrat councillors have prepared proforma objection guides with no opportunity to express support for the plans. This was never questioned, and we are simply playing by the same rules.”

Cllr Clive Jones, leader of Earley Town Council and deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, said the group did circulate objection guides after the planning application was submitted.

“After their leaflet was distributed, we also did a Facebook poll with options to support,” he added.

“It is interesting this multimillion-pound company is concerned about what a group of Liberal Democrats are doing. It shows we’re having an effect.

“It shows they recognise we are the opposition to them locally.”

The Lower Earley Properties spokesperson reiterated the statement that there is local support for the plan.

It comes as Earley Town Council’s Planning Committee recommended the application be refused.

As we revealed in July, councillors said they were against the plans, which would be built on designated countryside in the Adopted Local Plan.

The councillors were concerned the development would lead to the loss of the green corridor along Lower Earley Way, damaging the habitat for wildlife and animals.

Increased traffic flow and road safety were also a concern to the group, which raised questions over the parking allocation and noise impact as well.

Mr Campbell said he shares similar concerns, and was disgusted when the land was cleared back in November last year.

At the time, trees on the site were felled without warning, with some residents dubbing it “environmental vandalism”.

Mr Campbell said the developer “destroyed” a wildlife habitat that he and many other people use.

“I’ve got dogs and it’s becoming harder to find places to take them [for walks],” he said. “There is a slow destruction of green space, and this is adding to it.”

Mr Campbell said he would have likely supported the plans if they had been on a brownfield site.

He urged the developer to rethink and “listen to local people”.