Pincents Lane housing plan gets another knock back

The Pincents Lane development plan in Tilehurst has again been rejected by West Berkshire councillors.

The district planning committee said no to the 165-home proposal – despite council officers recommending they accept it.

The council is now bracing itself for an appeal from developers Town and U+I.

Excessive traffic being generated was a key reason, along with the housing site not being listed in the current Local Plan for the area.

That plan has another four years to run and the new one for the next 30 years in the district is still being drafted.

“I prefer the concept that we had that we had an overarching strategy, and then we are there to debate bids for sites,” said Graham Bridgman (Con, Burghfield and Mortimer)

“This site is not in the current Local Plan. If we accept a development that we haven’t debated and hasn’t gone to consultation then it should not be development we adopt.”

Traffic data was also questioned, with councillors claiming that Pincents Lane itself wasn’t the issue, citing snarl ups in surrounding roads.

“We are muddling up traffic flow and length of queues on Pincents Lane itself and not in the wider area,” said Geoff Mayes (Lib Dem, Burghfield and Mortimer). "There can be up to 70 cars in the queue waiting to get out at the Sainsbury’s roundabout

“It’s all very well saying people will walk to school, but will they?” asked Tony Vickers (Lib Dem, Newbury Wash Common).

“We need to go the last mile to make sure alternative means of travel are available for all travel groups.”

Council officers warned that rejecting the application could result in a costly appeal process. But councillors rejected that premise.

“We should be proud to be a policy led authority and this is against policy,” added Mr Bridgman.

Other concerns were about the roads not being wide enough for emergency vehicles.

“We were out doing a community litter pick and I was on Pincents Lane,” said Richard Somner (Con, Tilehurst South and Holybrook).

“I nearly got mown down once by a cyclist and again by a small saloon car. To avoid collision I climbed up the bank and that was a small car, not a big fire engine.

"If we are asking people to use that lane to access Tilehurst there are safety concerns.”

Concerns were also aired on the housing mix, which is not determined at this stage of planning.

“We have a planning application with no one bed homes,” said Carolyne Culver (Green, Ridgeway).

“There is a need for housing and for one- and two-bed homes but this application shows no regard to our strategic housing assessment. We are saying that 15 per cent of homes need to be one-bed, but developers are not coming forward to meet this need.”

Speaking after the meeting, Joanne Stewart (Con, Tilehurst Birch Copse) paid tribute to campaigners who have been fighting development on the site for a decade.

She said: “I’m of course delighted that the district planning committee last night upheld the decision of the eastern area planning committee to refuse the application for Pincents Hill.

"I’d like to say well done to all the speakers at the meeting and to everyone in the Save Pincents Hill group led by Joan and Fiona Lawrie for a campaign running over 10 years, to protect our green space.

"I suspect this might not be the last we hear of this application, but for now at least we can celebrate another victory.”

The developer behind the rejected Pincents Lane housing proposal says it is now considering its next steps.

TOWN company director Jonny Anstead,said: “We are disappointed in the decision. There is a real need for new housing in Tilehurst as we have seen through our work with the community.

“Some 66 of the 165 homes would have been available at below market rent or shared ownership to meet the needs of young families and key workers, helping keep those with a local connection from being priced out.

“The significant public park would have opened up the land in perpetuity, creating a managed green space for people and wildlife to enjoy.

“We would like to thank officers for their strong recommendation to the committee for approval and are considering our next steps.”