Object to the East Reading MRT planning application

The proposed East Reading MRT is a destructive road that Reading and Wokingham councils propose to build beside the River Thames, linking the Napier Road carpark at Tesco to the proposed Park and Ride site in Wokingham by the Waterside Centre. This is planned to be used by buses, pedestrians and cyclists, not by cars and other traffic. You can see details on the Council website http://www.reading.gov.uk/east-reading-mrt

The road itself won’t be very accessible to residents of Redlands or Newtown, as access will be via the Napier Road Tesco carpark, or a new path through the Coal Wood (by Tesco) or at the Park and Ride site (beyond the Wokingham Waterside Centre.)

Despite many thousands of people signing a petition against the use of green space beside the river as a carpark, Wokingham Borough Council recently gave planning permission to the proposed Park and Ride.

Reading Borough Council has now applied for planning permission for the road, which they are calling an ‘MRT’. You can see the RBC Planning application, and object, here:
http://planning.reading.gov.uk/fastweb_PL/detail.asp?AltRef=171108&ApplicationNumber=171108&AddressPrefix=&Postcode=&Submit=Search

If you don’t have time to respond to the planning application, then sign the petition here: http://bit.ly/soarpetition

FAQ
What can I do now I know what’s proposed?
If you want to, you can comment through the planning website, as all comments through that route will be formally logged. Emails to the planner may or may not be logged and responded to.

Who is formally applying for this planning permission?
RBC Transport is the applicant, with Peter Brett the agents. Pre-application discussions have been held with RBC Planning officers and it is now a valid application.

Has a planner therefore already assessed it?
No, Reading Borough Council Planning officers have so far helped with some ‘pre-app’ advice only.

So, when will planners assess this application?
Planners will start to get to grips with the application (in all its 125 documents) in late July, early August, and will start by ensuring that all statutory consultations are requested and chased. During that time they will also receive comments and objections from the public. After the consultation phase is finished, the full assessment will take place.

How long is the consultation phase?
This isn’t entirely clear – statutory period is 21 days from when you as a resident were informed about the application – ie. Saw the sign or read the paper, but in practise RBC will accept any comments and objections right up to the committee meeting. However, note that the earlier it comes in, the more time and detail will be spent on it. However, all will be dealt with. The application covers land in two separate authorities and so the application is going to both RBC and WBC.
A ‘16 week consultation’ is also being mentioned by the Council – and it’s not clear what this means. Target dates for officers’ reports and recommendations are that Wokingham Council receive their report first, probably in September and RBC Planning Authority would then receive the report to Committee in either October or November.
It is very possible that details of the plans could change, or be tweaked a little, along the way and these will be allowed where they are done to overcome an objection – unless in the Planning Officer’s mind they are fundamental and therefore require a re-consultation.
This means the overall consultation phase could be July – October or November.

What if the plan doesn’t fulfil its stated purpose? Is this relevant to planning?
Yes. That is a material consideration. But note that there are multiple stated purposes, and each one is a material consideration within the overall assessment.
So if the plan claims to improve walking and cycling along the route, it should be shown that it does that, and an objection would ideally show that it does not.
So if the plan claims to improve congestion and therefore improve air quality, it should be shown that it does that, and an objection would ideally show that it does not.

What if the plan ignores alternatives that would also meet that stated purpose? Perhaps in a superior way. Is this relevant to planning?
Yes, in this case that is a material consideration. In planning it usually isn’t a consideration (planning to build a house on location A doesn’t usually involve proving that the site is superior to other options at locations B and C), however, it has been determined that this application must contain an Environmental Impact Assessment and that means that alternatives are now a specific material consideration. Could the stated aims of the project be met in better ways, with less impact on the environment now matters in approving the application.

What if the plan breaches any specific RBC policies? Eg. Listed buildings? Eg. Protected areas? Eg. Loss of amenity?
Yes, these will all be part of the assessment and will all be part of the planning balance in approving or refusing.

It has been repeatedly and often claimed that the bridge segment of the plan couldn’t operate as a carriageway for all traffic in the future as it is too narrow at only one lane – but it is over 10 meters wide. (Sonning Bridge is only half that.) So this statement is obviously factually incorrect both in terms of traffic moving on a single lane via traffic lights or a future adaptation of the bridge into two lanes, by removing or reducing the cycle and pedestrian element. Is this relevant to planning?
Yes, there will need to be specific and robust legal requirements that the road and bridge are never to be converted to full traffic use. We don’t yet know what those are, but without them the application would likely be refused, because it is being assessed as a bus use only application.
Although it should be noted that it will probably be bus use plus coach use (RailAir / TVP shuttle) plus emergency services use (should they require it), plus potentially breakdown/recovery use.

Resident are concerned that access to the river from NewTown is via the Kennetmouth – and it appears from plans that this access would be lost for large periods of time during construction. Residents object strongly to this. Is that a planning consideration?
Yes, there would need to be robust phasing plans for the construction and details of access for the public, but of course some disruption is going to occur if approved and funded.

Could I access the planned bridge or road as a pedestrian or cyclist at the Kennet Mouth? If not, surely this application is fundamentally flawed?
No, there is no access planned at the Kennet Mouth, but there is an access ramp planned in the Coal Wood area near Tesco. Access is restricted by construction being in a flood zone, and by minimising the impact on the riverside. Ramps for access could be fairly large. So this is a consideration, but again, just one in the overall planning balance.