Twyford 230-home plan refused amid strong flooding concerns

A controversial plan for 230 homes near Twyford has been turned down by Wokingham Borough Council.

The outline application for land north of New Bath Road was to look at the principle of whether 230 homes could be accommodated on the 16-hectare patch of land.

The site excludes Loddon Park Farm in the middle. It is used for fruit growing but is not considered high grade agricultural land.

This application has many objection letters and has instilled a great ‘strength of feeling’ from residents, councillors noted at a planning committee meeting on Wednesday (June 12).

One of the major issues of contention is the possibility of flooding in the area.

Multiple members of the public and councillors raised concerns over this at the meeting.

Officers highlighted that the risk, if there was one, would be surface water from heavy rainfall not flooding from the river – but stressed that the urban drainage plan would likely improve the site. The area is classed in Flood Zone 1, the lowest risk.

However, this did nothing to assuage fears, based on existing flooding near the site, and worries that this risk is likely to be reevaluated as more severe in the future.

In addition, Twyford Parish Council and Charvil Parish Council raised concerns that the development would destroy an important buffer between Twyford and neighbouring villages.

Cllr Stephen Conway (Lib Dem, Twyford, Ruscombe and Hurst), raised concerns that the barrier of the A4 was likely to deter pedestrians and cyclists, affecting its sustainable transport options.

Fellow Lib Dem ward councillor Martijn Andrea highlighted the ‘overwhelmingly negative’ response this application received.

He stressed the conflict with the council’s own planning policies.

“Ordinarily that would be fatal, but we’re not in usual territory,” he said, referring to the ‘tilted balance.’

A local authority should have a five-year housing land supply, in other words, a plan for where houses will be built in the next five years.

Without this, planning balance tilts in favour of developers sending out proposals for housing – unless there would be significant, demonstrable harm that outweighs the strengths of the scheme.

“I believe in this case, the harm does outweigh the benefits,” said Cllr Andrea.

Cllr Wayne Smith (Con, Thames) questioned the supposed accessibility of the site.

The developer had highlighted the connection to London via Twyford station - but Cllr Smith said it can take up to 35 minutes to get there.

He added that the site is not easy to access, despite being off the A4 – and concluded that it is ‘not accessible without the use of a motor vehicle.’

“If we had the local plan in place, we wouldn't even be talking about this tonight,” he said.

Cllr Sam Akhtar (Con, Thames) said of the flooding issue: “I’m not convinced this is a safe site to build on. I'm struggling to see how we can justify putting homes on this site.”

Meanwhile, Cllr Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey (Lib Dems, Winnersh) raised concerns over the possibility of an appeal in which WBC wouldn’t be able to defend its position if it refused these homes, costing Wokingham council.

She highlighted the requirement from central Government to build housing.

“I don't think this is the best site in the world but we have to build them somewhere,” she said.

Regardless, the committee voted to refuse the 230-home application.