How to get a resident's 30% discount at council leisure centres

See below for how to get a resident's 30% discount at Palmer Park, South Reading, Rivermead and Meadway leisure centres (now run by GLL/Better). We are sharing this information because unfortunately the council and GLL haven't made it easy to find.

You can get the discount by having a "Better Adult/Junior Resident" membership from the website. It costs £0.00.

1. Go to the website https://memberships.better.org.uk/centre/palmer-park

2. Select Palmer Park Stadium as your location (if it's not already selected)

3. Select "Single Payment" as your payment type (this is the important step, otherwise the resident membership doesn't come up!).

4. Select your appropriate resident membership for £0.00 "Better Adult Resident", "Better Adult Concessionary" or "Better Junior".

5. Follow the rest of the steps on the website to confirm your order and you should be emailed your resident membership details. 

Thanks to the resident who wrote this about how we can get a resident's discount of 30%. 

Kennet Side closure update – reopening may be further delayed

We just sent this update to people who signed the petition over the poorly coordinated closure of the Kennet Side by SGN at the same time that the Napier Road tunnel has been closed by Network Rail. Unfortunately it looks like the reopening of the Kennet Side may be further delayed. If you want to get further updates on when the Kennet Side will be reopened sign the petition here: https://bit.ly/rdghorseshoe

Subject: Kennet Side closure update – reopening may be further delayed

Dear resident

Your Green councillors have been working hard trying to get SGN to either accelerate the works to upgrade the gas main on the Kennet Side or provide a path around them. We know how frustrating it is to have to walk the long way around! Unfortunately it looks as though the works and closure are further delayed.

Following Cllr Brenda McGonigle’s petition I met with the person in charge of the contractors. He said they can’t work any quicker and a path can’t go through the school car park because of the extent of the works. He also said they don’t want to use a floating path or a ferry because of the expense and now the high level of the Thames. 

We have just heard that due to the high level of the Thames the works may be further delayed. SGN say they are bringing over extra resources this week to try to finish the works, but if they are unable they will need to extend the closure up until the end of March. We have asked that the out-of-date signage be updated.

This is clearly disappointing and we will keep up the pressure for the works to be completed as quickly as possible so the Kennet Side can be reopened.

Having said all of that we do obviously support works to upgrade the gas main, it is just frustrating about the timing and lack of coordination with Network Rail over the Napier Road tunnel closure at the same time.

On a related note it looks like one of the contractors working on this site has taken down a large tree without the correct permission as part of the works near the gas main site – well done Cllr  Josh Williams for spotting this. The council is currently pursuing this with them. Also locally you may have seen that SGN have delayed works to demolish the gas tower because excitingly the Peregrine Falcons are breeding (good work campaigners).

We think it is important that residents are kept informed. 

Please forward this on to anyone – especially new people - who you think might be interested. If you receive a forwarded email let us know if you would like to be added to the list for future updates about your road.

We care about the area and will keep working with you to improve it.

Best wishes,

Rob White 

Green Party councillor for Park Ward

PS If you need a helping hand to get through the Covid-19 crisis, the Council’s One Reading Community Hub is here to help. If they can’t do anything let us know https://www.reading.gov.uk/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-one-reading-community-hub-support

https://www.facebook.com/rdggreenparty

http://twitter.com/reading_greens

You are receiving this street email about an issue in or near your road because you signed the petition on this issue. If you no longer want to receive these emails, please let us know and we will remove you from the list. 

Palmer Park swimming pool planning application submitted

It's 4 years since Reading Labour councillors closed Arthur Hill swimming pool. Still no swimming pool in east Reading, but a planning application has now gone in.

Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) the organisation that Reading Labour Council were planning on outsourcing leisure to – before the pandemic – have put in for planning permission for a swimming pool in Palmer Park. You can view all of the documents and respond here.

At the moment there is still no contract between the council and GLL (Green councillors have been concerned about plans to outsource leisure rather than running it in-house).

A large number of documents make up the planning application and it will take us a while to get through them. I have had a quick look though as I know many residents are concerned about the loss of green space. We share these concerns and have lobbied for no green space to be lost. I have posted some plans from the planning application below.

Please let us know what you think.

This is the current footprint with 209 spaces in the car park is:

Below is the worst option from when the council consulted on council plans (development framework) a little while ago showing an expanded car park with 230 parking spaces:

This is the current planning application showing a reduced car park with 131 parking spaces:

When we have read through and got to grips with the application I will post some more detail here. In the meantime have a look and let me know what you think.

UPDATE 1: the planning documents clarify that "...992 square metres...0.6% of the overall greenspace provision at the park" will be lost to the development.

UPDATE 2: It looked like one of the large limes on the Palmer Park Avenue side of the park was going to be removed, but thanks to residents raising it and Greens lobbying on this the plans will be amended to save the tree.

UPDATE 3: Planning permission has been granted.

Black History Mural and sign Central Club petition - preserving our community heritage

Guest post by Louise Keane - Green campaigner for Katesgrove who finished in second place last time:

More protection needed for Reading's Black History Mural
At a recent council meeting, I was able to ask a public question about the fate of the Black History Mural at the bottom of London Street. This iconic image on the side of the Central Club is so important to the Black Diaspora, to Katesgrove and to Reading, and I fully support the initiative from the community to apply to Historic England to have it nationally listed. I also think the flawed bidding process for Central Club should be reopened - petition here www.bit.ly/savecentralclub and more below.

But we don’t know how long that process will take, and the building is unused and unloved by the Council. So, in the meantime, I asked the Council to Locally List the mural as a stopgap. Sadly, Labour Councillors say that this won’t happen as it isn’t needed – that because it falls inside a ‘Conservation Area’ it has protection anyway.

But the Conservation Area doesn't even mention the Mural, or list it as having any merit whatsoever, and goes so far as to say that modern development at the end of London Street actually spoils the appearance of the area. That doesn’t feel very protected at all.

The Council could have locally listed the mural, and perhaps it should look at Historic England’s advice that "Heritage assets can be added to a local heritage list regardless of whether they are in conservation areas." They even say that one thing you should look at is “unlisted buildings that make a ‘positive contribution’ to the character of a conservation area." The Conservation Area needs urgently updating to show what a positive contribution the Mural makes!

Sign Petition for Central Club bidding process to be reopened
The fate of Central Club building on the side of which the mural is located is now more uncertain than ever. Labour have unfortunately agreed to sell it to a developer primarily to build flats for profit. Now the developer has come back with a reduced offer, which the Council has accepted without even talking to the community bidder - Aspire. That isn’t right.

Green councillors supported the Aspire African Caribbean proposal for the Central Club which was knocked back by the council. If you agree that community should be before profit, you can sign our petition for the Central Club bidding process to be reopened www.bit.ly/savecentralclub.

What’s going on by the Thames?

Many people have contacted us about the works going on by the Thames – between the Thames Valley business Park and the Kennet Mouth – which look very similar to Reading Labour’s attempt to build a road here. I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that this isn’t a road, but a large electricity cable that SSE is putting in underground.

This cable will increase the supply of electricity into Reading – with all of the new development going on. This is different from the overhead power cables which will remain. The land that is being worked on mainly belongs to Reading University.

The electricity company says that the main works to dig the tunnel will be done by mid December and then the other works to lay the cable will be finished by March/April 2021.

A tunnel is being created under the Kennet Mouth and under the Coal Wood for the cable to go in so no trees will be lost and the Horseshoe Bridge won’t need to be closed.

Seeing the devastation is a good reminder of the value of this green space and why we must protect it. SSE say that they will be putting it back to how it was before. There is an opportunity to improve the value of this area though. Maybe it could be managed for wildflowers rather than a rough lawn. Let me know what you think on this rob@readinggreenparty.org.uk

If you have any other questions you can email them at glenn.beard@sse.com and if you have any other concerns on this feel free to get in contact. 

Donate to help David McElroy improve Reading East

Watch David McElroy on how your donation can help get our message of tackling climate change, a Peoples' Vote and creating a fairer society out to 55,000 households in Reading East.

Busted – Will East Reading MRT reduce congestion?

The Labour-run Council, and the Tony Page-run Labour Councillors, have made lots of claims for the huge, new road planned along our riverside in East Reading, but one of the most insulting is that it will be good for the people of East Reading. A road (that people in East Reading wont be able to access!!) will be good for us - because it will bust congestion coming into town, and - let's be honest - we all want that.

Will it?

'Congestion' is not the amount of traffic on a road, it's the point at which traffic becomes so saturated it leads to slower speeds, longer trip times, and more and more queuing - what the Council's documents term 'driver delay.' None of us want to be delayed, and none of us want queuing traffic outside our homes. What will be the effect then? The Council's planning application for the 'MRT' states an overall assessment of the effect on driver delay as negligible to, at best, not significant. (Environmental Statement Vol. 1 if you want to look it up.)

Wow!

- £35 million pounds.

- An unspoiled riverside we can never get back.

- And a 'negligible to insignificant' affect on congestion in East Reading.

You can view the plans and submit comments to the Council here: MRT Planning Application

or contact the Green Party and get involved, make a difference today

Will Reading and Wokingham Thamesside road reduce congestion?

A number of people, including me, have wondered how robust the traffic modelling for the East Reading 'MRT' (Mass Rapid Transit / bus lane by the Thames) can be, as it fails to include 'induced demand'. That is, if the MRT is built, and the London Road really was a bit freer in the peak times - wouldn't it just fill up again as people who previously weren't driving think they might now, as it's easier with less congestion?

This is what the Council's own business case says on 'Car Reduction Implications':

5.3.1 ...the reduction in car trips on the network would not be so large as to release substantial road capacity in the corridor.
5.3.3 ...the scale of car trip reductions on the network are quite small.
and
5.3.4 ...the scale of car trip reduction is unlikely to result in trip inducement in the corridor.

In plain English - any shift in usage from car to bus will be so small as to not be a factor in inducing increased demand. The shift, according to the Council, is so small, that the effect on 'driver delay' is classed as negligible - and 'negligible' is helpfully defined as 'average vehicle delay changes are less than 20 seconds as a result of the proposed development during the peak hour periods.'

Your Council will be millions of pounds poorer, your riverside will have been ruined, but the journey into Reading will be (less than) 20 seconds faster in the mornings…

PS: The 'business case' is here: http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/7933/East-Reading-MRT---Demand-Modelling-Report/pdf/East_Reading_MRT_-_Demand_Modelling_Report.pdf

The dice was loaded from the start (East Reading Mass Rapid Transit

Lots of residents have contacted me recently voicing their outrage at the devastating new road being proposed along the Thames riverside by the Labour-run Council. A lot of people are asking – why aren’t they doing something else?

There was an ‘options appraisal’ done by the firm of consultants hired by the Council. However, they were assessing options against a set of criteria that is already loading the dice. Will the option:

1. Increase capacity and connectivity for movement of people within east Reading and the town centre.

2. Reduce the journey times and congestion along the corridor.

3. Facilitate economic development in the Thames Valley.

4. Allow access for mobility impaired and pushchairs.

5. Develop a system which visibly has priority over the private car.

6. Facilitate a future MRT network for the Thames Valley.

So whilst residents want to know the cost to the taxpayer (massive) and the cost to the environment (enormous), and weigh this against the benefits to congestion (minimal at best) and air pollution (negligible), the Council wants to know if it will 'facilitate economic development' and 'facilitate a future MRT network'.

Other options need to be properly considered. A congestion charge might well be cheap in comparison (say, £5 million to get started,) would return money in the form of those paying the charge, and remove cars from the network, resulting in a reduction in congestion and air pollution. (Would it facilitate economic development? Yes, if the charge was re-invested properly.)

You can view the plans and submit comments to the Council here: East Reading Mass Rapid Transit planning application must click

Or contact us and get involved: https://reading.greenparty.org.uk/get-involved/.

East Reading Mass Rapid Transit public meeting

The turnout of over 200 people on a cold, wet Friday evening shows the strength of feeling against building a road and car park on the woodland and green space just metres from the River Thames (East Reading Mass Rapid Transit).

Every single person from the audience who stood up and spoke was against this destructive scheme – which the council's own modelling shows only has a minor impact on congestion. I think the £30 million of taxpayer money could be far better spent on measures that will actually reduce congestion whilst preserving our precious green spaces – such as a station at Thames Valley Park. Lead councillor for Transport Tony Page was sent packing by the audience and my colleagues on the panel. I hope that he now seriously considers alternatives to this scheme which will put the Thames path in darkness for much of the day.

I urge people to join the thousands of people who have signed the paper and electronic versions of the petition against this scheme and to respond to the planning application http://bit.ly/soarpetition

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.

Snap general election – vote Green and get involved

Reading and Wokingham Green Party have a selection process to go through, but I plan to put myself forward for selection as the candidate for the Reading East constituency.

I think calling a general election is the right thing for Teresa May to do. At the moment, she has no mandate for the extreme Brexit she is planning on inflicting on the country. If you oppose this extreme Brexit, if you believe in standing up for public services like children's centres and if you want a party that will protect precious green spaces like the Thamesside then your only option is to vote Green and get involved.