Planning farce!

Last week’s WBC Planning Committee meeting was, in my humble opinion a complete and utter travesty. To say it made a mockery of our Planning Laws is to do an injustice to mockery. I refer to the way in which the proposal to build 70 houses behind the Coombes Primary School was agreed, despite none of the people present agreeing it was a “sustainable” site. Even the Planning Officer agreed it was “sub-optimal” with weasel words such as “caught between a rock and a hard place” being bandied about.

Video of the meeting is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frsPIt4wJWw

The “Land North of School Road”, Arborfield, Application # 250735 was passed, despite being unsustainable, because those voting on it were advised to do so by the Planning Officer. By whom the “Tilted Balance” of the NPPF was much quoted.

The "tilted balance" in planning refers to a policy where, under specific circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless the negative impacts of a development "significantly and demonstrably" outweigh the benefits. This usually applies when local planning policies are deemed "out of date" or when a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Essentially, it shifts the planning balance in favour of development, making it easier to obtain permission.

Lib Dem Cllr Lindsay Ferris, whilst Executive member for Planning, introduced a revised timetable for progressing Wokingham’s Local Plan Update during early 2023. Specifically, in a council meeting on 31 January 2023, he referred to waiting for clarifications to national planning policy before setting a new programme for the Local Plan Update.

However, that proposed timetable was later shelved. Ferris noted the council had even lost its five‑year land supply on 18 February 2022, and said they were “only doing background work” while awaiting clarity from national government, effectively pausing any firm schedule. So, back in February 2022 the current administration knew it had insufficient housing supply to meet legal requirements, making it INEVITABLE that every developer in the area would be pushing through applications because of the aforementioned “tilted balance”.

When the tilted balance is engaged, it is necessary to conduct a planning balance in determining applications and appeals. This is where the decision-making will afford varying degrees of weight to the harms and benefits associated with a proposed development. It is a nuanced and subjective process, and not as clear-cut as one benefit outweighs one harm. 

I was at the planning meeting to represent the views of Arborfield residents, though their representative body, Arborfield and Newland Parish Council.

As part of my allotted 3 minutes I made the following points, among several others:

• Decisions should be based solely on the merits of the proposal, not speculation about potential appeal outcomes. Predicting appeal results is not a material planning consideration.

• The absence of a five-year land supply engages the tilted balance but does not guarantee potential appeals will succeed—inspectors assess each case individually.

Did the committee listen? It seems not because they proceeded to discuss, at length, how various appeals in the past have been lost, and how WBC could not afford to pay for the same quality of legal advocate as the developers. The chair gave several monologues about the plight of those unable to afford to buy in this area, and the dreadful things that can happen as a consequence.

Apart from untruths such as claiming Arborfield Cross has medical facilities, the application also ignored the presence of endangered species on the site. Photographs of badgers on the site raised not one single question from the committee.

We still have a few green fields left in Arborfield, but as we all know, there are yet more, even bigger threats just around the corner. If we cannot get an unsustainable application like this one stopped, what hope is there for the future?

At about 1 hour 28 minutes into the meeting Cllr Wayne Smith says “If Joanna had a 5 year land supply we wouldn’t be here tonight. The only reason we are here tonight is because we have a 1.7 year land supply…. I don’t think any of us could agree that that site is sustainable.”

So if the site is not sustainable the tilted balance should not be applied!

Tonight I am off to another planning related meeting. This time it is the University of Reading (UoR) organising a “stakeholders” meeting in Shinfield. My notes are ready, my questions are primed, but will I be listened to? Is there any point in continuing to argue?

At least UoR are trying to engage with us. They have at least written some answers to our questions (raised at the previous stakeholders meeting). My problem is that so many of their answers require me to TRUST Wokingham Borough Council!

Here are some sample questions and answers.

How can residents be assured the ‘limit’ of 3,930 homes will be adhered to?

This ultimately is controlled by Wokingham Borough Council through the planning process.

What mechanism will be in place to guarantee that builders deliver on the promoters’ best intentions?

This would be controlled by Wokingham Borough Council through the planning approvals process.

Funding – what happens if funding falls short of requirements? What gets left out?

This will be reviewed and checked by an independent advisor appointed by Wokingham Borough Council.

Is it possible to appoint an independent development co-ordinator to monitor the infrastructure delivery, paid for by developers?  

We are committed to ensuring the timely delivery of all Section 106 commitments which will be legally set in that document and enforced by Wokingham Borough Council.

There you have it. Wokingham Borough Council, having proven once again how little they care for due process in planning and how they are more than happy to ignore the valid concerns of residents, will be in charge of making sure the University of Reading, set to profit to the tune of a reputed half a billion quid, do everything on time and as promised. Just like they did in Shinfield and at Arborfield Green? Just like the planning application approved at Bridge Farm? And now we can add School Road to the ever growing list of planning farces conducted over our heads and without proper consideration of the facts.

Sometimes I despair.

Written and illustrated by Roderick Paul Stevens. Published on 17/07/2025