Cris

Lancaster Master Planner Darren Rutter Wokingham Borough Council Arborfield Shute End Reading Wokingham Berkshire Berkshire RG40 1BN Tuesday 26th July 2011 Dear Mr Lancaster, Wokingham Borough Council has recently released plans to develop Arborfield Garrison, bringing an estimated 3,500 new houses, a new supermarket, a bus station, a community centre with sports facilities, a relocated secondary school and in excess of 7,000 cars to the area. Whilst most of the above sounds excellent to a budding small town; Arborfield, Arborfield Garrison, Finchampstead and other surrounding areas are known for their rural locations, with a range of wildlife, quiet roads and many woods where hundreds of animals including badgers, hedgehogs, deer, red kites, mice and foxes all call home. With this new development, where most of the new building will be on existing fields, hedgerows and woodland, what is the future for the animals in the Arborfield Garrison area? Is it fair to destroy the homes of hundreds of animals that have lived for years in the area just to meet targets? Furthermore, during the building phase of the project, there will be countless heavy vehicles and articulated lorries travelling down roads, what will the cost be to such animals that arent used to such heavy traffic travelling down roads that simply cant handle it? How many animals will suffer from such a development either directly from the destruction of their habitat or the increase in traffic, or from the loss of food chains, causing them to move elsewhere for food? This simply isnt fair on helpless animals that have no say in the destruction of something that has been theirs for years. But, what is the cause for the suffering of these animals? Greedy developers and councillors is the answer; where they have tried to benefit their wallet at the expense of so many others or even helpless animals. Not just animals will suffer though. Anyone could take a quick look through Arborfield and quickly see how many trees there in Arborfield. With the new development, there will be a massive cost to the environment through developers cutting down trees to make way for the development. Albert Schweitzer, a German Theologian from the 19th and 20th Century, said: A man is ethical only when life, as such, is sacred to him, that of plants and animals as that of his fellow men, and when he devotes himself helpfully to all life that is in need of help. In school, I was always told to respect life, that life was priceless and that caring for others was paramount. How does the development reflect on the council? To me, it shows that they are heartless killers, with no respect for the life around them, only trying to benefit their own pocket, where the life of hundreds of helpless animals is a minor drawback - new homes and money are the only things that matter, right? Referring to Schweitzers quote, it could be very easily argued that the development of Arborfield Garrison and, indeed, the council itself is unethical. Does the council know the full price to local wildlife of the proposed development? Is the council ignoring such a basic lesson everyone learns at such an early age? Whilst there is global concern over the CO2 emissions that were undeniably spewing into our atmosphere, experts are urging us to do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. With the new development, the council is practically putting our massive efforts to waste. At age 13, were taught about photosynthesis, where trees convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. This is a useful process, especially now as it is keeping our carbon dioxide levels lower rather than just destroying our atmosphere. By cutting down the many trees surrounding Arborfield Garrison, the council risks causing further damage to the environment, through higher CO2 levels, which will only aid global warming. This, again, promotes the question: Is the council ignoring such basics lessons everyone learns at an early age? Is the council totally contradicting itself, when it encourages people, like me,

to cycle or walk more, when they come and cut down hundreds of trees, ruining our efforts to save the planet? Even after the trees and local wildlife have been ruthlessly murdered by the council and developer, even after the lorries have destroyed the habitats of hundreds of animals or run animals over, the cost to the environment will continue with 3,500 houses and 7,000 cars to the area. Houses and cars will only destroy the environment further, emitting more and more carbon dioxide into the delicate atmosphere. There appears to be a total disregard for the already vulnerable atmosphere shown by the council in the plans for the new development. Not only do cars and lorries destroy the atmosphere and kill helpless animals; the roads in the Arborfield Garrison area simply cannot handle the massive increase in traffic volume. The roads are already in a terrible condition and with the massive increase in traffic, the roads will be in an even worse condition. Further to the problems to the roads that the increase in traffic will cause, there is no way of stopping people going way too fast in their cars. This could endanger the lives of people like myself who are used to the now quiet roads of Arborfield Garrison. This year, one of my best friends in school broke his collar bone and shattered his hip after being hit by a speeding truck on an Arborfield road. How many people will be affected by speeding cars and the increase in traffic? Traffic is a danger to people trying to get to the green spaces around Arborfield. At the moment, it takes a 5 minute walk from anywhere in Arborfield to get to a local green space. With the new development, nearby green spaces and fields could be as much as 5 miles from peoples homes. Walking to such spaces could endanger many peoples lives from the shear volume of traffic travelling down roads. What is the human life cost that the development will bring? The destruction of the many green spaces and fields around Arborfield is unacceptable. Everyday, especially now in summer, you will see young children and parents playing on the fields, tennis courts or rugby pitches in the garrison area and the destruction of these playing fields will spell the end for many childhood memories for me and many other children from garrison area. Why is the development scheduled to destroy many open places? What will future generations of the Arborfield Garrison area have to do to get to an open field? Is it fair to destroy future generations childhood times, having a kick-around with their Dad or throwing Frisbees, flying kites, to make way for the development? As the playing fields exist, there are many houses, including mine, which have beautiful views over the vast open fields and trees; these houses have unique selling points of these views, which adds value to the houses. By destroying the fields and views from the houses, the value of the houses could plummet, with ugly views of other houses becoming the new view. All of the above reasons lead to one easy solution. Only building on the existing army facilities, only once the army has moved out. Why does this benefit everyone? Simply, it allows the council to build houses to help meet their target, it leaves existing open fields and green spaces as they are, it keeps the toll to the roads at a minimum and it does not affect local wildlife and trees. This way, everyone wins. This way, there is a minimal cost to the microenvironment in the garrison area. This way, Arborfield maintains its sought-after status, with open fields and trees being left as they are. Keep the development only on the army area. Yours faithfully, Darren Rutter Age 16