Javascript is required for this site to function, please enable.
Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Manor Shinfield

126 homes on the remainder of the former research site operated by the National Dairy Institute in Shinfield.

The site is owned by the University of Reading and in due course they will market the land to potential developers who will construct and market the new homes.

This site has outline planning permission, under application reference O/2011/0204.

Click this link to view the application on the Wokingham Borough Council website.

The application was challenged through the planning appeal process and approved by the planning inspector. The reference for the appeal is APP/X0360/A/12/2179141/NWF . The planning inspectors report can be viewed by searching under Case Reference 2179141 using  this link. 

The plan below is an illustrative layout of the proposed development which includes some sports provision and an allotment site

Download (PDF, 5.14MB)

14 Comments

  1. Interested to know when The Manor planning application will be made available for the public to see ?

    It hasn’t been posted up on the Wokingham Borough Council website – do you have any idea when this will go into the public domain ?

  2. Hi James

    The Manor application (reference O/2011/0204) was submitted in early 2011 and has already been approved, on appeal. The Planning inspectors appeal reference is APP/X0360/A/12/2179141/NWF.

    There are some new SDL planning applications that have been submitted by the development consortium in the last month or so:

    O/2013/0346 – Church Lane, Hyde End Lane, Hyde End Road, Three Mile Cross. 900 dwellings.

    F/2013/0347 – Croft Road, Spencers Wood. 276 dwellings.

    O/2013/0101 – Land north of Cutbush Lane. Up to 126 dwellings.

    The documentation for these applications can be viewed online on the Wokingham Borough Council website or in the parish office.

    Thanks,
    Katy

    • I have just looked at the West of Shinfield Plans and I am staggered at how they are intending on building so many houses in such a small area. Regardless of how much of the colour green they use on the plans, there is no getting away from the serious lack of green and open space; and where are the wildlife/green corridors to link the existing and new developments?
      With so much evidence linking health and wellbeing with people’s needs to interact with the natural environment I fear that this is completely lost not just with Shinfield but all the SDL.
      I assume whilst Reading continues to apply for City status the council will be applying to become Shinfield Town?

  3. Thanks Katy.

    Remarkable that there have been no public comments from the Parish Council on the planning application under “O/2013/0346 – Church Lane, Hyde End Lane, Hyde End Road, Three Mile Cross. 900 dwellings” that was posted by Wokingham Borough Council on their website on the 6th March.

    It directly relates to the area of land that we have been discussing for the past 12 months for potential sports provision for the community. Yet the map that we have been working to for a year (as presented by the Development Consortium and circulated by the Parish Council) bears no relation to the actual planning permission request.

    In fact, it reduces the sports field provision by around 80%, allowing for what looks like just 2 football pitches with no building (pavilion), thereby immediately making it useless. Instead it seems that there is space allocated for allotments and then a 5 acre area designated for dog walking……….

    Is someone in the Parish Council in a position to comment on this and why there has been such a savage cut to what we (all the sports clubs) thought was an area that would be allocated for the use of and enjoyment by the children in the community ?

    I’m sure the dogs will be happy.

    • Hi James

      You are misreading the plans, the sports pitches shown here relate only to what the developers of Spencer Wood and Three Mile Cross developments will be providing, these are in addition to those provided by the Shinfield west development that already has outline planning permission. If you look at the master plan shown on South of M4 web site look, at the master plan shown on p6 of the overall SDL plan you will see all the sports fields as they have been shown since these plans were submitted. There is also a copy of this master plan in the parish office.

      Having said that this is not necessarily the place the sports fields will finally be constructed or indeed the volume that will built, much of that decision will come about after the sports assessment has been completed and the final outcome of Ryeish Green sports facilities known. As I have said before there is no requirement for the developers to provide sports facilities or land for the existing population and there is no land locally that is available that is not in the hands of the Consortium, so we have to tread carefully to get what we need.

      There is a need to provide open green space for the new residents for all kinds of activities and this cannot be filled with sports pitches, these needs are both governed by a number of central and local government policies so the amount of land for each kind of activity is determined by these policies. And once again remember this is to mitigate for the additional people not the existing residents.

      The Parish Council planning committee have spent a couple of meetings so far discussing these applications as you will appreciate there is a considerable amount of documentation to study and a wide range of issues to consider. We have already made a substantial list of comments relating to these developments, these did not include any comments on sports facilities. We will be publishing our draft comments on this site early next week and the final date for comments to WBC is 16 April but as we are a statutory consultee and received the documents late we have some days grace. We plan to actually meet with the senior planning officer for the SDL at WBC and discuss our comments with him direct.

      The Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Plan team are well aware of both you and the other existing sports clubs claimed requirements and please be assured that we are doing everything we can to try and meet your expectations.

      Regards

      Peter Hughes
      Chair Shinfield Parish Council Planning committee and Chair Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan

  4. Hi Peter,

    Thanks for your kind response.

    I (and many others) have looked at the South of M4 Masterplan map and the key clearly shows that proposed/possible sports pitches are marked with a little blue star.

    Other than those that we have identified above (2 pitches), we can’t see any further little blue stars. Therefore it may be that we have all been ‘misreading the plans’ or that we’re looking at different plans to those that are held in your offices.

    Either way, there needs to be clarification so I’ll need your help with this as soon as possible.

    I fully concur that the current sports assessment instructed by the Parish Council should have a bearing on what may eventually be built/provided (or not), but fundamentally, if one looks at the maps that are in the public domain, the provision doesn’t cater for current needs, let alone for those in the future.

    Can you explain why the Parish Council have not considered making any comments on sports facilities as yet (as per your statement above) – is this because you are waiting on the outcome of the sports assessment ?

    You have said above that there is “no requirement for the developers to provide sports facilities”, but my understanding was that the reason we were all asked to attend these meetings was to ensure that our views were heard, our needs quantified, then qualified and that the provision of sports facilities would be taken seriously and we would/could influence the eventual outcome.

    Are you now suggesting then that in fact, our views, etc., actually have no influence, or bearing on any decisions taken, as ultimately they count for nothing ?

    And can you clarify what you mean by the phrase ‘claimed requirements’ please – by use of the word ‘claimed’ this suggests that you believe that there is an element of doubt in the feedback and input made by the local sports clubs ?

    Thanks,

    Yours,
    James.

    • Hi James

      I don’t know what plan you have looked at, I will sort out the correct plan which shows the proposed sports facilities to be provided as part of the new developments when built. These are proposals to meet the space demanded by WBC as part of the planning permissions as far as I am aware the amount to be provided has never changed.Please don’t overlook the fact that these additional facilities are to be provided to take care of the needs of the new residents when they move in, the developers have no requirement to provide for the existing community to cover any shortfall in space, although of course whatever new space is provided will be used by current residents.

      We know that there is insufficient space for existing sports users, this is partly due to overuse and bad weather that has restricted playing on all pitches and the sharing of Millworth lane by cricket and football. What I am not sure about is how much space we actually need currently, because so many variable numbers of users have been stated at various meetings nor what these facilities need to be. There is a vast difference between the space required to construct a full size football pitch and a junior seven aside pitch, so we hope that the Sports assessment will at least give us all some positive information to work on.

      The next problem is that there is only a limited amount of land available at the moment that is in the hands of the Parish, the Shinfield Association and WBC namely; Spencers Wood Recreation ground, Millworth Lane, two pitches that the parish own on Ryeish Green plus the remainder of that site owned by WBC. We have been negotiating with WBC to get our hands on the whole of Ryeish Green and possibly the Sports Centre. Hopefully this might move forward now as a decision has been made not to progress with a new primary school on that site which clears the way to get some final decision from WBC. We have with the WBC arranged for an independent sports ground specialists to look at Ryeish Green and advise us if this site can be upgraded to provide year round sports on all areas by extensive drainage improvements and re-surfacing. This will then clearly give us plan for this area one way or another.

      Hopefully our sports assessment will show whether Ryeish Green alone is sufficiently large enough to accommodate all our existing needs along with the other sites we have use of.

      Onward from this point will then be the assessment of the needs as the new homes come on stream in terms of actual number, sizes and locations of sporting facilities.

      The current SDL plan includes a sports pitch at the Manor with a possible small pavilion, this has outline planning permission but it is unlikely that any work would start here until late 2014 as the site needs an environmental clean up and the University has yet to sell it.

      The west of Shinfield which is the largest site has outline planning permission for 1350 homes, once again this site has yet to be sold to developers and this includes sports pitch provision and a proposed pavilion.

      The plans you commented on are for Spencers Wood and Three Mile Cross, this is for 900 homes and includes sports pitch provision at Spencers Wood which adjoins the west of Shinfield sports provision and is also close to Ryeish Green, at Three Mile Cross there is a multi use games area to be built.

      We have to plan for several things

      1. That the sports assessment will give us a good guide to what we really need now and indeed can actually deliver on the existing land we hold, probably with the addition of the whole of Ryeish Green.

      2. We develop overall plan to deliver what we can and plan for the future when the new sports facilities are available, this may be a short term, medium and long term plans that change as we go along.

      3. We look to acquire external funding to enhance what we currently have and what the developers will spend

      4. That we can convince the developers to deliver some of their proposed sports facilities very early in any development rather than the point they are committed to (typically this will be after so many homes have been occupied)

      The reason we haven’t commented on Sports Facilities in the planning applications as they meet the specifications laid down by WBC and central government therefore we have no grounds to comment.

      We need your and others input if we are to have any chance of getting any additional facilities that start to meet the needs of the community, the alternative is that each club goes its own way and attempts to solve its own issues which will undoubtedly be to the detriment of all the clubs in the parish. As the Parish Council we also have to represent everyone and that includes those who are concerned with the construction of sports pitches in the green separation between the villages shown in the west of Shinfield plans.

      I think the sports assessment will hopefully give us the right information to argue the case for facilities with WBC and the developers

      Regards

      Peter Hughes

  5. Hi Peter

    In relation to the claimed needs of local sports clubs. As a coach of a local under 11 team, 50% of our training sessions have been cancelled since November. We have played only 5 matches since this date. I know a lot of other clubs who have had similar experiences. Of course this year has been a harsh winter, but from many accounts it would appear we need to get used to harsh winters.

    From my own point of view the sporting facilities in this area are under great strain already. Additional housing will bring greater strain to these resources.

    Of course the council must take into consideration all the residents of the locality. But I would urge that the provision of sporting facilities be taken as a high priority. If sporting facilities are inadequate I believe it will be to the detriment of the area and the community as a whole. In light of the very successful portrayal of the United Kingdom from the Olympics it would be shame not to see this legacy enhanced as part of this Development.

    Kindest Regards
    William

    • Hi William

      I agree but this season has been a wash out for a number of reasons, we are looking at improving the existing parish facilities at Ryeish Green, Millworth Lane is not under the control of the parish Council. We are also negotiating with WBC over the remainder of the Ryeish Green site and have arranged for specialist consultants to look at Ryeish Green and make recommendations on improving the playing surfaces and drainage.

      See also the reply to James below over possible new sports sites.

      Peter Hughes

  6. Hi Peter,

    As Child Welfare Officer of a local youth football club, currently oushed for space for matches and training, I would urge the provision for sporting facilities in the local area to be given priority.
    With our club already battling for training space in the local area, the planned growth can for the area should include additional recreational facilities for children as a high priority.

    Kindest Regards
    Sarah

    • Hi Sarah

      We are working on trying to deliver extra space for sporting facilities now, when the sports assessment is completed in the next few weeks we will hopefully have an accurate picture of existing needs and how this fits into the land we have access to.

      There is a fair amount of new space that comes with the new developments but this is intended to mitigate the increase in population and the developers do not have to provide for existing residents. The developers do not have to provide this new space until certain trigger points in developments happen, such as x number of homes occupied. We are working with Wokingham Borough Council and the developers to see what can be done fairly soon to try and solve some of the current problems.

      I think it will be several months before we get solution to this, you don’t say which club you represent, however the issues at Millworth Lane are not new and the situation has been the same for many years with the Football club vacating during the summer months to allow the cricket club to operate.

      We are on the but there is no simple solution

      Peter Hughes

  7. I submitted this on 20 Sep but cannot see on the web so I am resubmitting:

    I attended the evening meeting at WBC on 18 Sep 13 regarding the proposed plan to build 900 houses et al at Shinfield and Three Mile Cross. As highlighted in the article by Jon Nurse Wokingham Times of 18 Sep, it was already a done deal, and despite an eloquent case by Peter Hughes for a deferment, the proposal was approved. This was not democracy at work and I would reinforce Tony Weston’s letter in the “Times” about WBC ignoring the voters – how right he is!

    Surely, given the huge impact on the area, the Chairman should have co-opted/invited a member from Shinfield/Three Mile Cross to be on the Planning Committee or was this omission deliberate? An explanation is required because this is suspicious.

    The areas of concern were traffic flow(including public transport), affordable housing and schooling and Peter articulated the arguments very well, particularly the traffic flow situation but the committee ignored him in preference to the WBC traffic ‘guru, who was still sticking to the Traffic Model that has been used for some time and has proved inadequate. Furthermore and as an example of incompetence, not to have bus lay byes is ridiculous – it will be gridlock.

    To use those well known clichés, “The devil is in the detail” and “Time will tell” is appropriate for this situation but by then it will be too late because residents will wake up one morning to see chaos and disruption from all the construction, not to mention noise and dirt.

    It was a sad and disappointing meeting for Shinfield and Three Mile Cross.

  8. Can you provide some details on the fencing and work that is taking place on the field below the Manor site. I can’t see this on the plan that has been provided. Thanks.

Post a Reply