News

Alderman Willey Close residents
advertisement

Plans to make cul-de-sac a through-road ditched

By Laura Herbert
July 06, 2012

A cul-de-sac will not be open to passing traffic in a bid to ease congestion around Wokingham train station following homeowners’ fears it would increase traffic and be used as a rat run.

Under initial proposals in the Wokingham Station Link Road plans drawn up by Wokingham Borough Council, Alderman Willey Close was to become a through-route for traffic.

'Station link road will turn cul-de-sac into rat run'

But following a consultation between February and April, the plans have now been changed to a footpath after feedback from residents, who reacted angrily to the original proposal.

Councillor Keith Baker, executive member for planning and highways, said: “The council has listened to residents’ feedback from Alderman Willey Close, and associated roads.

“We always said that if the majority of residents did not want it, it would not happen.

“So we won’t be progressing with a vehicle connection on to the Station Link Road, and will instead opt for a proposed footway to link the cul-de-sac directly to the new rail station.”

He added: “Each of the authors of the 165 letters received by the council are receiving personalised responses explaining why we can or cannot do what they ask.”

Consultation leaflets and feedback forms were sent to more than 2,500 homes and business with 62 per cent of residents in favour of the proposals to improve roads around the train station and Barkham Road level crossing.

Overall, 599 questionnaires were returned and 164 people completed the online survey, with a response rate of 19 per cent.

Cllr Baker said: “This response rate is very encouraging for a consultation of this nature and compares favourably with previous Wokingham Borough Council consultations. It shows just how keen people were to take part in this important consultation.”

Only 27 per cent of residents taking part in the consultation said they were against the proposals.

Cllr Baker said: “Very few respondents gave neutral responses – nine per cent had no feeling either way, and two per cent didn’t know – when asked about their overall opinion on the proposed scheme.”

A report of the consultation results will be submitted as part of a planning application this month.

The council is working with Network Rail and South West Trains over the proposals to make major improvements to Wokingham railway station.

A key part of the multi-million pound scheme is a link road between the station forecourt and A329 Reading Road to tackle traffic congestion and, as well as a new station building, create a gateway into the town centre.

Jane Brewer or Alderman Willey Close residents group said: “I believe 82 per cent of residents wrote in which was a huge amount of people against the idea of opening up the end of the road.

Residents' views: Station link road won't solve traffic problems

“People here are very pleased the road is going to remain a quiet little cul-de-sac, especially the elderly who were concerned about traffic.

“Everybody is really happy I believe. It just didn’t seem right as the road is lovely, it’s quiet and in the middle of town.

“Keith Baker has honoured his promise that if people didn’t want it then it wouldn’t happen.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (8)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 8 of 8

Residents of AW Close have been listened to. However, it is very likely that AW Close will be used as a dropping off area for drivers coming down Station Road as there is no right turn into the station. Cllr Baker ... Would you reconsider allowing a Right Turn from Station Road into a wider Station Approach.

Stig2, Wokingham
06/07/2012 at 16:32

There is a relief road planned for Winnersh - it's been planned for over 20 years and hopefully it will be built.

It's tied in to the planning for several hundred houses south of the village/town.

The centre of Winnersh and the many roads used as rat runs have suffered long enough with passing traffic.

Get it built - and quick!

come on lads
06/07/2012 at 13:07

Cllr Baker - thank you for your continued commitment to this site. I do remember berating the council, and I stand by my comments in genreral. I actually have noticed a recent improvement in the level of engagement with local people on planning matters, but in general I do not believe you always really listen to local people concerns on many issues to do with planning particularly when they disagree with something you have decided on. That you mandate residential properties in the middle of a current park, and are adding a town centre supermarket that has proven the end of many town centres across the country, yet are still to hold a "consultation" on Elms field, I believe to be an example of that. You won't change those bits. You've already decided your "listening" will be selective. I believe the "consultation" in this case to be red tape. I will attend, however, as I am acutely interested in repeating my concerns.

In the case of the station, I think you have listened to many concerns, and you have certainly made the effort, particularly over A-W Close, and it is a refreshing change. But the council's letter to me is very dismissive of two of my three main points. If you have included them in your design, or have tried but failed to represent my comments to Network Rail (you said SWT in your letter, so this comes from you, not me) as you have just said, then write that. Instead it came across as "not my problem".

With the taxis there are 10 spaces. When I come home from work every single day there are at least 17 or more taxis waiting. Half are dotted around the car park, mostly lying across the disabled bays near the exit. Some block the exit by joining onto the back of the rank. It is up to SWT, and I do mean SWT, to manage their car park, but if there is a requirement for 20 taxis to wait there, 20 taxi spaces should be available. There will be less "blank" space in the new design due to a more efficient and well planned use of space (in your design), and I don't want to still see the car park blocked up by the huge vans we have to have as taxis. If there is no requirement for 20 taxis to be waiting, they shouldn't be allowed to wait at the station, and there should be fines for people waiting for more than 10/20 mins in the car park to prevent it. SWT must be encouraged to enforce this.

As for the top car park - you are already changing it by moving the entrance, so I believe. If not, then you'll at least be blocking one of the entrances up. If you didn't do that, but instead used both entrances as they are, you'll solve the issue of access from the North in one swoop. No change to the car park, and concern solved!

mavdo, Wokingham
06/07/2012 at 13:00

"We have not carried out a consultation on a Winnersh Relief Road so you would not get a reply"

= We didn't ask so we don't have to listen .... its not your money being spent, is it? .... Sooooo there!!!

Peter Turner
06/07/2012 at 12:47

Winnersh_Paul: Sorry but we have not had a consultation on a Winnersh Relief Road so I am not sure why you would expect one. If you email me with your point to my Wokingham address I will respond.

Mavdo: I remember some time ago when you were berating the council for not listening to residents and you did not think you would get the questionnare. If you recall I promised you that you would get a questionnaire and your comments (and others) would be listened to.

We have made 18 changes as a direct result to the original design (excluding the Alderman Willey issue). To answer your 3 points: 1) we have removed the limitation of access to the drop off area for buses & taxi and made it now all traffic. We have also added 5 drop off slots for cars in this area. 2) the top car park is owned and operated by Network Rail and they pretty well do as they wish. However, with access to the bottom car park much easier through the drop off zone this will help. 3) The Taxi area has been completely revamped working jointly with taxi owners and they are confortable to this. We have 8 taxi slots on the Station Link Road side and 2 on the Oxford Road side.

Finally, regarding your comment about the council "heavily" influencing Network Rail - I wish! Whilst we talk to Network Rail they will do whatever they wish to regardless of what we say. Remember Network Rail do not even have to submit plannning applications unlike the rest of us. Even the Council has to submit applications for redevelopment of its property / land.

Cllr Keith Baker
06/07/2012 at 12:42

Winnersh_Paul: Sorry I do not understand your comment? We have not carried out a consultation on a Winnersh Relief Road so you would not get a reply. If you would like to send me an email to my wokingham email address I will respond.

Mavdo - glad you got your response. If you recall, a very long ago, you berated the council for not responding or listening to residents on this web site. You even questioned whether you would get a questionnaire. I did commit there and then you would get one and your comments wolud be listened to.

There were 18 modifications to the original design based on comments. To each of your points:

1) where access was bus & taxis only it is now all traffic. This has allowed us to add 5 drop off slots in this area. 2) the top car park is owned and operated by Network Rail and they want to keep it as originally designed. however, with access now to the drop off point it is easier to get to the bottom car park. 3) The taxi ranks have changed with 8 on Station Link Road side and 2 on Ocford Road side. This design was a joint effort with the taxi owners and they have said they are happy for this.

Finally on your comment about the council heavily influencing SWT (you mean Network Rail) I really wish we did. We have zero control on them and they are going to do what they want to do and whilst we talk we do not have much influence. Remember Network Rail did not even have to submit a planning application for their work. Even the council has to do this for redevelopment of thier property.

Cllr Keith Baker
06/07/2012 at 12:26

I wrote in and received a personal response. It was pleasing to know that at least my comments were read and time had been taken to respond.

I had 3 main points: access to the drop off areas to vehicles from *all* directions, access to the top car park to vehicles from *all* directions, and number of taxi waiting spaces.

The first seems to have been accepted, but I await modifications to the design to see what they have done. The second and third seemed to be declined because it was SWT responsibility to manage that. The no-left turn from station road was highlighted as a reason they couldn't change the car park access, but this limitation will mean that many buses will NOT divert to serve the station at all. They can't. Anyway, there is potential to put a second entrance into this car park. Why not do it!?

But as I am commenting on the whole design, not just the council part, and there is no separate way to raise comments with SWT on how they do things, my comments on that design are valid and should be passed on to SWT if it is "not the council's job". The council are dictating things like the number of car park spaces that should be present and where the road goes, so the *council* are limiting the space available for drop-off, and bus/taxi stops. If only 10 taxi spaces are provided, where do the other 15 taxis that are waiting go? Currently they are stewn around the car park. They argue with each other at times, they block the exit, and they push in when arriving/leaving. The council are *heavily* influencing how SWT can provide certain services, and then they will just dismiss that by saying it is SWTs fault that there are an extra 15 taxis blocking the car park! I am not happy that this comment was just dismissed as being nothing to do with the council. PASS IT ON! I pay £90 a month to use that car park, and at times those taxis are a pain in the ****.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/07/2012 at 10:42

“Each of the authors of the 165 letters received by the council are receiving personalised responses explaining why we can or cannot do what they ask.”

Cllr Baker, I shall look forward to a similar response for the Winnersh Relief Road.