Along with most of the population of Reading, I was not informed that there was a public exhibition coming along on the latest proposals for redeveloping Station Hill. I suspect most people in Reading were similarly unaware. So I’ve had a good look at the proposals online at http://www.stationhill-reading.co.uk – and filled in a feedback form.
While the plans are not the worst architectural scheme I’ve ever seen, they are completely out of scale and proportion for a site of this nature, and make the same mistakes as previous designs. This is largely due to the ineptitude of Reading Council which has failed time after time again to set out a planning brief worthy of the name, and to take the lead in promoting the town’s interests in what is a very important development area. In fact, what they did under the watch of one Tony Page (surprise, surprise) is roll over and let the developers tickle their tummies, deliberately letting commercial interests set out plans before the Council set out its strategic interests.
As far back as August 2008 I wrote that: ‘I (personally) have very deep reservations about any development that harms the potential for an integrated transport solution the correct side of the Station (ie Station Hill)……’. Yet that is precisely what Reading Council did: deliberately wreck the potential to provide a proper integrated transport hub. In the words of Reading Transport Ltd. (owners of Reading Buses, 100% owned by Reading Borough Council) in 2007, this would be the effect of the wrecking:-
“3.1 Currently, the majority of buses that use Station Hill do so as a through-route having arrived to set down customers before departing on the next journey by rejoining the town centre loop atStation RoadorBlagrave Street. The significance of this facility is that Reading Buses’ operation has 48 vehicles per hour that pass through the interchange. In addition, there are 8 vehicles per hour on premier routes 9 and 24 that are cross town services. A consequence of losing Station Approach would be an enormous increase in costs from operating additional mileage.
3.1.1 If the same timetable and service frequency was maintained then additional vehicles, staff and fuel would be needed to compensate for the time lost. This extra resource would produce no compensating increase in customers and add more buses to already congested road space in the town centre.
3.1.2 The alternative would be reduced frequencies and altered timetables. This would give customers fewer opportunities to travel and patronage would fall.
3.2 Both the scenarios result in increased fares either because there is unused capacity provided or because fewer customers will be asked to pay for the same resource. Demand for bus travel is elastic and customers will be deterred if fares rise with no improvement in service provided. The result will be to restart in Reading the spiral of decline associated with bus services from the 1950s. [My emphasis]
3.3 These scenarios do not assist measures to attain government’s policy objectives of increasing the use of public transport in urban areas thereby reducing environmental damage from travel.”
Here’s the highlights of the feedback I sent back to the developer:-
1) Notification of the exhibition was woefully inadequate for a project of this size and scale. Less than 24 hours, with no visibility for the thousands of commuters that would be affected by it. The feedback from the exhibition cannot be considered representative.
2) The developers will get what they want due to the supine attitude of a submissive Council administration, with planning presided over by a lead councillor who is a lobbyist, and was negligent in his duty to develop a robust planning brief for the area before the Station Hill development proposals were first brought forward.
3) NO scheme should be allowed to go ahead on this site without allowing for an integrated transport hub, preventing the blocking off of Station Hill for public transport traffic. The difference in heights should be used positively to allow for both pedestrian/cycle flow and the location of *all* buses and taxis in one integrated hub, which is the only commonsense solution for any town. Eastbound bus/taxi traffic could flow at natural ground level, with a pedestrian/cycle overbridge at current ground level. Otherwise the scheme will actively harm road safety for those using the surrounding roads, through the creation of bus stops in inappropriate places making life dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians anywhere near the Station, and inadequate access provisions for people with restricted mobility, particularly those unable to walk long distances.
4) Reading has strategic needs for leisure provision and open space which are not met by this proposal. Whereas this is not the ideal area to provide public open space, it is the obvious location for facilities absent from Reading, particularly those suitable for young people, such as a bowling alley. Some Section 106 provision could be made available for refurbishment of the nearby Kings Meadow Baths.
5) The previous outline permission contained a condition that a replacement be provided for the pub to be extinguished on demolition. It is not clear whether a proper, traditional community pub will be provided here. Community pubs are thriving in Reading at present.
6) Affordable housing provision needs to be made in full here. The balance of housing demand in Reading is for larger family housing, and it looks as though the residential element of this proposal is for the opposite: high-density flats. While the provision of residential as part of a mix of uses is right, there should be a mix of housing provision too.
Some regeneration on this site is certainly needed. However, it has been gone about in a manner that is shameful and farcical on the part of Reading Borough Council. Any developer would best advised to listen more to the people of Reading, and less to a council that has manifestly failed to do its job in strategic planning.
