Last week the full council meeting was presented with a hugely detailed update to the local plan. The documents published included lengthy to and fro between the council and prospective developers around specific sites. Given the relatively light coverage in local media, I’ve pulled out some quotes that offer glimpses into the schemes that might be coming forward – or very much not in some cases – over the coming few years. I hope it’s useful…

Town Centre

The documents give some updates on potential schemes being worked up in the background. Firstly, it appears that Brunel Arcade, the old scaffolding-inspired station concourse could be on its way out:

“Network Rail and our partners are working up proposals to take forward a high density mixed
use redevelopment scheme, including station and public realm enhancements with baseline technical evidence gathering and master planning work currently underway.”

The local NHS organisations are already on the case here, although they’ve submitted the same comments on most of the town centre development sites:

“an appropriate and proportionate mitigation measure should be provided and to ensure that there is adequate primary healthcare provision to accommodate the population growth of this area. Given the strategic location of this opportunity area, the ICB considers that there may be an opportunity to provide a fitted-out facility for relocation of the existing GP practices within the town centre”

The other side of the station, it emerges that the old sorting office site is now in the hands of a developer called Moda Living, who operate a number of residential schemes around the country. Their submissions include an enthusiastic backing for co-living, a concept I covered recently.

“Moda strongly supports the creation of Co-Living accommodation. Provision of a communal model that increases opportunity for social activity and reduces housing costs within a managed environment can form part of a wider portfolio of housing products available to Reading. It is considered that support for Co-Living will increase housing delivery, provide more affordable housing options to address need, can reduce viability constraints on larger housing schemes and help create vibrant centres”

However, Moda uses further responses to try to persuade the council to let it replace proposed ground floor small retail and leisure with wall-to-wall residential use, to which the council thankfully rejects:

“residential on ground floors will only be appropriate away from the key frontages that require activation”

We conclude that a new planning application is on its way for the old sorting office. Meanwhile, at the adjacent Aldi site, owners Aviva make further comments implying possible amendments, although it could be their comments came before they won their appeal for their outline scheme. Now they seem to be back on the topic of links to the river, philosophising the definition of ‘direct’ by questioning:

“…whether a visual link should specifically be required and whether the link needs to be direct and whether ‘direct’ means that it should be straight. With appropriate design and wayfinding signage, it is possible to clearly define a route, without the need for this to include a visual connection or for the route to be straight.”

The council responds with exasperation:

“it is vital to the function of the link that visual links are provided along as much of the link as possible, without specifying specific start and end points.”

The whole topic of the intended new pedestrian route from the station to the river through multiple regeneration projects has been at the centre of constant bickering as developers seek to optimise their rectangular blocks. They should have just clubbed together to hire Brian Cox to record them a joint submission, perhaps musing skywards: “In a universe of curved spacetime, is there meaning behind the term straight line? Can light ever take a direct path between two points? Can two points ever both be defined simultaneously in a meaningful way? Can a visual link ever transcend the momentary existence of a single photon?”

It’s all a bit beyond parody now. I agreed with the endeavour, but it’s maybe time to just build the flats and we’ll find our own way to the station.

Agents acting on behalf of the owners of the vacant site behind Decathlon appear within the correspondence. Their challenge on scale is upheld by the council, who agree that:

“the Site has the potential to deliver in the order of 430 – 450 dwellings in a mix of open market, affordable and Build to Rent (BTR) units. The new units could be arranged in 4 blocks of development ranging from 4 to 9 storeys in height.”

Further details of a project at Sapphire House/Royal Court are divulged from the drawing board:

“…the proposed scheme comprises Build to Rent (BTR) and Co-living accommodation. In this manner, a scheme of 321 dwellings is proposed, alongside 725m2 (NIA) of non-residential uses. Within the residential accommodation, a tenure-blind scheme would come forward to provide affordable housing in line with policy expectations.
The ground floor plan identifies how it is intended to locate residential and non-residential uses alongside intervening spaces. It is considered that the approach will maximise activity and surveillance around the site, which is one of the current disadvantages with the layout of buildings and spaces. In this regard consideration is also being given to linking the site directly to the Public Open Space opposite and the Council’s views are therefore welcomed.
It is currently proposed to provide a split of accommodation, with BTR and Co-living currently favoured. The buildings, however, can be developed in a number of ways, including traditional Private for Sale and Affordable Housing, full BTR or full Co-living. The dual-accommodation BTR/Co-living scheme is proposed for the reasons highlighted above, particularly the benefit that could be afforded to key workers from Royal Berkshire Hospital and those on lower incomes with a desire to live close to Reading’s town centre.”

The owners of Aquis House are looking to redevelop an L-shaped plot to maximise the potential of the open car park behind. Their proposed allocation for a 10 to 15 storey building has not gone down well with Historic England. The council seems to be hedging its bets:

“Regarding a tall building, Aquis House immediately adjoins a conservation area and 33 Blagrave Street is within one, and both are in close proximity to a number of listed buildings. It is considered highly unlikely that the sites will be suitable for significant increase in height over the existing buildings. Nevertheless, the proposed allocations do not place any specific limits on height, with this needing to be decided through the development management process.”

Other sites to crop up within the town centre include the legendary Samuel Smith’s site variously known as The Lower Ship or Horse and Barge on Duke Street. The long-empty property is being put forward by the brewery for conversion and extensions to provide 30 flats. The council approves of the concept.

The Oracle also features. It fails to get its site added to the tall building zone, but does achieve a new designation of “area of less potential for tall buildings”, which does keep the door ajar for its submitted scheme at the former Debenham’s to yet be approved, despite a recent objection from Historic England. Although nothing should be allowed until they fix all the parking ticket machines.

South Reading

To the south of Reading, the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) has recently had the ominously-named “Detailed emergency planning zone” (DEPZ) around its Burghfield site expanded. This put paid to the proposed 15,000-home Grazeley new town south of the motorway. AWE has submitted some stern comments to the council vetoing any new development across the enlarged protected area that now includes Green Park.

“It is notable that the risks not only apply to any new population but also to existing populations, where the burden of managing existing residents and workers would come under more pressure if new housing and development increased populations and complexity. The Appendix to this letter shows how most recent appeals, even for single dwellings, have been dismissed. AWE/MOD consider that additional residential and other population generating development within the DEPZ poses a significant potential threat to the nation’s security.”
“The revised Local Plan should not allocate land (nor carry over existing allocations) for housing or other uses which increases the population within the DEPZ (including significant employment development or the enlargement of the Madejski Stadium for example).”

Clearly the change to the DEPZ has left landowners high and dry. Their submissions – from the likes of Crest Nicolson and St Edward Homes read like a whiney Mrs Doyle-esque “Ah go on, go on…” but the council clearly has no choice but to hold firm:

“Whatever way the DEPZ was originally defined, the fact remains that its boundaries now include those parts of Reading identified. Should an incident take place at AWE Burghfield, this will require a comprehensive emergency response”

The council has attempted to counter the AWE argument that existing permissions around the stadium should be refused, but if a single extra home constitutes a threat to national security, you have to presume that AWE could throw their weight around and block the Royal Elm Park scheme should it ever reemerge. Could they even try to stop empty offices from being re-occupied? If Reading FC were ever to see a return to the glory days, it would seem they might need to relocate should they require a larger or more commercially diverse stadium complex.

In the meeting, councillors celebrated the additional jobs that AWE is bringing to the area. I think this is the wrong line. The council should now be campaigning for the closure or relocation of the Burghfield site. I’m in no hurry to see green fields developed, but if populations are going to increase as they have been then the Grazeley site on the edge of an existing major urban area, near the motorway, train line, and fast bus links to town would surely have been the best way to accommodate housing pressures, especially given the relatively low level of local opposition. Now it seems that the future expansion areas of Green Park will never happen, and the stadium site is also locked down. AWE warns in its submission, of possible future changes to the DEPZ, presumably further expansion. At some stage the council is going to need to turn against AWE.

West Reading

The majority of consultation responses were from landowners and developers. The feedback from individual residents was almost universally in relation to a single site at Kentwood Hill in Tilehurst. Organised action has worked, and aided by the discovery of badgers, the council agreed to update its policy:

“It is proposed to remove approximately 0.46 ha of the areas of greatest sensitivity from the Land at Kentwood Hill allocation and to add it to the Local Green Space designation, which includes those areas of greatest importance for wildlife”

In the council meeting, councillors from multiple parties spoke of defending Kentwood Hill, and it was probably the dominant theme from the councillor debate on the whole plan update.

East Reading

The main story in East Reading is the hospital. But the council deems its potential relocation out of scope of the current planning process.

“The Hospital is not owned by RBC and its sale is beyond the scope of planning policy. Should RBH move elsewhere, there is a strong preference from the Council for the site to continue to meet healthcare needs albeit with some flexibility.”

There is no allocation proposed for the Morgan Road playing fields, but that doesn’t mean a planning application cannot be submitted.

Caversham / Emmer Green

Referring back to the diagram at the top of the article, you can see that the small areas north and north-east of Reading are the only ones not protected by flood plain, landscape designation, or the emergency planning zone discussed earlier. Gladman, who tried and failed for a development on the edge of Emmer Green is back again:

“A vision document promoting the sustainable development opportunity North of Reading accompanies this representation at Appendix 1 (document titled ‘Play Hatch & Emmer Green, Creating sustainable communities, A vision for land north of Reading’ which was also submitted alongside representation).”

I contacted the council asking whether that document could also be published but had no response.

The former Reading golf course is also being looked at for further expansion of the housing scheme under construction:

“…the golf course within Reading Borough subsequently received planning permission for up to 223 dwellings. These homes are being constructed by Vistry. The part of the former Golf Club south of Cucumber Wood has been promoted to South Oxfordshire District as a location for residential development. Given the acceptability by Reading of its section of the former Golf Club, through these representations to land in South Oxfordshire District is being advanced to contribute towards addressing the unresolved needs of Reading Borough. As the land at the former Golf Club is amongst the nearest areas to Reading station outside of the Borough, this is an illustration of its sustainability.

…Proposals have been designed to respect and respond to the existing ecological features of
the site such as the trees and hedgerows alongside levels, as well as the relationship of the development to the surrounding built context and settlement edge. Residential density is proposed at an average of 29 dph (dwellings per hectare) (net) which would enable around 100 dwellings to be delivered on the 5 ha site. This density is considered appropriate to reflect a transition from Reading into South Oxfordshire, in the context of the surrounding residential development along Soane End, Highdown Hill Road, Crawshaw Drive and Kidmore End Road. The proposals highlight the opportunity for a key new pedestrian and cycle route across the site providing significant new public open spaces, recreation spaces, parkland and ecological enhancement.”

The council isn’t interested. It simply states that all these proposals will be a matter for Oxfordshire. Talking of whom, needless to say we have representations from Oxfordshire and South Oxfordshire opposing the idea of a new Thames bridge. Fear of needing to accept that a bridge is necessary will mean Oxfordshire continues to resist any housing that constitutes an expansion of Reading. And equally, fear of the expansion of Reading becoming viable will mean they continue to oppose the bridge. Therefore, none of the above proposals north of the river are likely to happen, for at least as long as Oxfordshire can still deliver its government housing targets in Didcot instead.

In summary, all roads point to the town centre, where we can avoid roads altogether and get everyone onto the train instead – or off it if they’ve moved to Didcot to commute in from there. The council is increasing the proportion of 3-bed homes required within apartment schemes to 15% to compensate for the absence of suitable land for houses more locally. Whether families are prepared to go for that proposition remains to be seen. Otherwise, for many Reading might have run out of road.

Follow @readingonthames