Reading Green Park

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

An additional train would also mean much longer turnaround times at either end, which is less efficient but should improve timekeeping.  One less Turbo for the west though?

Or the retention of a 150 once released from the West?

[IndustryInsider]

Possible, though I would think the Turbo option would be likelier as that means crew knowledge would be much simplified.

[eightonedee]

Funding approved by RBC^‡(resolve), unsurprising as they don't have to fund any of it.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/green-park-station-funding-approved-13674198

Quote
which is now expected to be completed by May 2019
Now, where's that pig flying emoticon?

It looks like your scepticism was justified-

This is what the site looked like earlier today-

[jamestheredengine]

I'm not surprised that the station site still looks like that. What surprises me is the jump to using extra rolling stock, rather than inter-working with the Newbury local service, which already seems not to have very tidy turnarounds.

[grahame]

I'm not surprised that the station site still looks like that. What surprises me is the jump to using extra rolling stock, rather than inter-working with the Newbury local service, which already seems not to have very tidy turnarounds.

But the Newbury local service is electric ...

[stuving]

After the last new date (summer 2019 in place of 2020), things have got delayed again, by guess who? Wokingham Borough Planning, that's who. As the applicants' agents (Peter Brett Associates) explain:

An application for the construction of a railway station, multi-modal interchange and multi-storey car park was granted full planning permission by Reading Borough Council (Ref: 141944) and West Berkshire Council (Ref: 14/03289/COMIND) in Spring 2015. As a result of subsequent detailed design work and engineering constraints (such as the existing Foudry Brook culvert and high voltage cables), it is necessary for the approved platforms to be relocated further south and for the platforms to be extended to 165m to accommodate 6 carriage trains. This, in turn, requires relocation of the approved footbridge and a change to the location of the approved ditch diversion. These proposed amendments fall outside of the previously approved application boundary and therefore a new full application is hereby submitted.

There is a tiny wedge of wayward Wokingham in the immediate foreground of eightonedee's picture (from Kirtons Farm Road bridge). It only goes as far as the equipment cabinet and half as far again, but the platforms in their new positions come right up to the bridge. The rest of the station is in West Berkshire, except for just the front wall and road access (including a 4-storey car park) that are in Reading. So a new planning application was made to WBC last May ... and there it still rests, listed officially as recommendation made and awaiting the start of a consultation phase.

Having refused Reading's application to build their bus bridge (East Reading MRT), on the grounds that it would ruin the riverside environment (which looks suspiciously like a scruffy bit of ex-industrial canal bank), I wonder what objections WBC will come up with this time?

[eightonedee]

Having refused Reading's application to build their bus bridge (East Reading MRT), on the grounds that it would ruin the riverside environment (which looks suspiciously like a scruffy bit of ex-industrial canal bank), I wonder what objections WBC will come up with this time?

To be fair, Stuving, there was a lot of opposition (especially from "Green" groups) to the MRT. While I agree that it looks about the least attractive part of the Thames through Berkshire, there are a lot of people in east Reading/Newtown area who seem very attached to this their nearest bit of riverside greenery.

The same cannot however be said about Green Park Station. It has no effect on the amenity of any Wokingham residents at all so I cannot understand what WBC's problem is. I am also surprised that Councillor Page (who is not backward at coming forward!) has not been lambasting WBC in the local press about their delay in processing this application.

[stuving]

That very odd boundary, in case you were wondering, dates way back to when it divided the parishes of Shinfield and Burghfield. At that stage both parishes extended well to the north, with a somewhat wiggly boundary (probably following a tiny stream) but nothing unusual. It was also a Workhouse Union boundary, and that became the basis for sanitary districts and then (following 1894) rural districts (Wokingham and Bradfield). But in 1887, when the RDCs were created, Reading Borough was extended (and promoted to County Borough) and took over part of Shinfield and Wokingham Union to the east of the railway. That cut off this little snippet of Wokingham.

Now historically parishes didn't bother to follow even county boundaries, nor to join detached parts by narrow contiguating strips. This time they chose to do both of those things, hence the north half of Kirtons Farm Road from the bridge eastwards is in Wokingham. The bridge is one-way with traffic lights, which at 300 m are quite far apart, and four of the signal posts are in West Berkshire, one in Reading, and the cable between them can't avoid going through Wokingham.

I'm sure it all made sense at the time ... to someone ...

[stuving]

Did you spot this bit? "...for the platforms to be extended to 165m to accommodate 6 carriage trains"? Is that just "while we're at it let's cater for future growth"? That's hardly the usual style, not for NR^» (Network Rail - home page) nor any other funders. So is there a cunning plan hiding out of sight somewhere - or maybe it's "let's put 165 m in the planning application, but only build 3-car for now"!

When electrification was still on, Mortimer and Bramley were going to get stretched from 3-car to 4-car platform lengths. That bit of the plan is now just sitting there sulking and dreaming optimistically of CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024), unless anyone has heard any newer news.

[CyclingSid]

The other thing that struck me about the site of Reading Green Park, it would seem to be fairly close to having the National Grid lines overhead.

For those interested in the many and varied quirks of Berkshire boundaries might want to get sight of a copy of "An Historical Atlas of Berkshire". Also to show that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has a sense of humour, see some of the proposals before they ended up with six unitary authorities.

[IndustryInsider]

Did you spot this bit? "...for the platforms to be extended to 165m to accommodate 6 carriage trains"? Is that just "while we're at it let's cater for future growth"? That's hardly the usual style, not for NR^» (Network Rail - home page) nor any other funders. So is there a cunning plan hiding out of sight somewhere - or maybe it's "let's put 165 m in the planning application, but only build 3-car for now"!

To be able to operate match day specials for Reading F.C.?  Either 6-car Turbos, or 8-car 769s?

[stuving]

Did you spot this bit? "...for the platforms to be extended to 165m to accommodate 6 carriage trains"? Is that just "while we're at it let's cater for future growth"? That's hardly the usual style, not for NR^» (Network Rail - home page) nor any other funders. So is there a cunning plan hiding out of sight somewhere - or maybe it's "let's put 165 m in the planning application, but only build 3-car for now"!

To be able to operate match day specials for Reading F.C.?  Either 6-car Turbos, or 8-car 769s?

I thought not, as that would not have changed since 2015. However, the stock will change - now that the station design is for diesel rather than for electric. The earlier design was for 5-car (presumably 140 m), and it may be that one of the implications non-electrification is having to cope with only 3-car units.

I thought I'd just have a quick look at the new application - in whichever LPD it belongs to - and failed. It seems all three sets of planners think it's primarily someone else's, and haven't posted most of the documents. But I did find that it probably isn't Wokingham that's being difficult, but the other WBC (West Berks).

From various short summaries, it's clear the redesign has moved the platforms some 35 m southwards so as not to span Foudry Brook, and a bit less again to reach 6-car length. The old design stopped just short of Wokingham, so the move alone pushes into their patch and the extension is all theirs. So Wokingham got a full application, never having had one before, and so did Reading though with no visible documents; and both are just waiting.

West Berks only got a quickie non-material change application, presumably on the grounds (you don't get to explain why) that the only significant change is removing things to somewhere else. They have refused this, on the grounds that moving a planned building is material. I guess they should now get a full application, basically to explain why a full application wasn't needed. This of course is familiar territory for planning, where you can get a planning pseudo-consent (for permitted development) that says you don't need planning consent...

What is really odd though, is that Wokingham's site outline map shows an access route via West Berks,  while theirs doesn't and it wasn't in the first (approved) application to them. Isn't that a material change?

For completeness, and in case you want to look at the pretty pictures, the numbers are (the postcode is RG2 6GP, but so is a lot of Green Park, and no help if it was not entered):

Reading: 141944 full, 171011, 171064, 171258 conditions, 150254, 171205 minor, 181123 new one but no details

West Berks: 14/03289/COMIND full, 18/00034/NONMAT new one - refused

Wokingham: 181514 only one, full

[eightonedee]

As someone who has to deal with planning authorities all the time in my professional life, I normally have considerable sympathy with those whose plans get stuck in the mire of the planning system. However as this story unfolds I am beginning to question the way this has been dealt with.

Someone really should have settled the final design of this before going for planning in what is clearly a sensitive location, due to its unusual position in relation to the boundary between three different planning authorities. Perhaps this is why Tony Page has not been sounding off in the press - someone needs to explain

1  having got full permission - why have they gone back to change it?

2  If the change is essential  - why have they not made a new full application to West Berks in the nearly one year that has passed since West Berks decided that it was not a non-material change? That decision was made on 8 March 2018!

3  Why were the new applications to RBC^‡(resolve) and Wokingham made three and a half and two and a half months respectively after the West Berks application had already been determined? And why is the RBC application also undetermined?

You can view the documents on West Berks's planning website - the only thing missing is the covering letter accompanying the form and plan - which simply shows the old and new boundaries of the site.

Sorry - I've just had a "lightbulb moment!"

Just realised the answer to 2 above lies in the catchily named Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, Schedule 2 part 8 paragraph A2 - No planning permission is required for railway related development comprising alteration of a building or bridge unless

the external design or appearance would be materially affected

. This would probably override West Berks's guidance which requires a full application for moving any building. My guess is that someone pointed this out to West Berks after receiving the decision notice (which does not mention the permitted development rights), hence no further application! Someone should though have had a dialogue with the planning authority to flush this out first. This principle should also apply to the RBC element - and possibly Wokingham's too, as I do not think that a minor permitted change to a previously approved scheme would need a separate consent simply because it strays across a local government boundary, so it does not explain either the Wokingham application, nor the latest RBC one. What's going on here?

Something is odd here - there is a story to be told!

[eightonedee]

Sorry - there's another answer I can give - the access is development that does not require permission - it is noted on one of the plans lodged with Wokingham to this effect (see-http://publicaccess.wokingham.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00419682.pdf)

[stuving]

Sorry - there's another answer I can give - the access is development that does not require permission - it is noted on one of the plans lodged with Wokingham to this effect (see-http://publicaccess.wokingham.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00419682.pdf)

There is a lot more in the Planning Statement (bottom of page 2 of the document list), which also refers to a full application to West Berks (that didn't some up in my search, nor as a related application, but is 18/01451/COMIND). It refers to the haul road:

3.3.5 The access road would be constructed to provide access to the compound to facilitate construction and therefore falls under Part 2 Class B of the GPDO 2015 which permits:
“The formation, laying out and construction of a means of access to a highway which is not a trunk road or a classified road, where that access is required in connection with development permitted by any Class in this Schedule (other than by Class A of this Part).”
3.3.6 The development of the access road for use during construction can therefore proceed under permitted development rights. This was confirmed in writing by West Berkshire Council during pre-application discussions in November 2017.

I'm not familiar with GPDO 2015, but while that might apply to planning per se (i.e. to what is permanently built), surely controls still apply to construction phase aspects and all the environmental issues? There is also a construction management plan, from Balfour Beatty, which doesn't inspire confidence (even if it is only "outline"). It says its preferred traffic route is solely from the A33 at Mereoak and via Kirtons Farm Road over the railway bridge:

It is assumed there is no constraint on Heavy Commercial Vehicles using the rail bridge carriageway as they will be accessing premises along that stretch of road.

There is a 7.5t weight limit on the bridge. Now, that isn't the bridge's fault - it was rebuilt by Network rail in 2015 to "full strength", whatever that is, and the old limit of 3t was raised only to 7.5t after the local residents (all six of them) said they didn't want their peace and quiet disturbed. Now that might be negotiable for this project - but you'd think they would have found out about it first.