Reading West MP Martin Salter has today written to Reading Borough Councils Head of Planning pressing for the public to be given more time to comment on the controversial application from Thames Water to build on the Bath Road Reservoir site in his constituency. Mr Salter has also taken issue with Thames Water’s claim to have listened and responded positively to local resident’s views.

In a letter to Alison Bell Mr Salter has taken issue with the timetable for public comments which is currently advertised for September 2^nd when many people are still away on holiday. The planning officers have agreed to extend this to the 14^th, but as yet the public have not been notified. Mr Salter wants the Planning Applications Committee to consider the application in November rather than October in order to give ample time for public engagement and for the Planning Officers to properly consider all submissions by local residents. Minster Labour Councillor Paul Gittings has also made similar representations.

Mr Salter said:

“I’m not accusing anyone of seeking to rush this application through or avoid proper public scrutiny but it is a simple fact of life that a consultation period spanning the prime holiday season in the month of August will inevitably mean that most people will find it difficult to respond to this highly controversial planning application. Even the current extension to September 14^th, which has still not been formally advertised, in reality only gives people a week to get their letters or e-mails in after the schools return from their summer break”.

Mr Salter has strongly criticised the recent statement by Kennet Properties on behalf of Thames Water who claimed that “the planning application follows a consultation period with local residents, whose views have helped shape Thames Waters proposals for the site”.

Mr Salter said:

“The developers are talking complete hogwash. I was at those meetings with Thames Water last year and the local residents made it perfectly clear that they wanted absolutely no development, on the rear of the site in particular, and that they certainly expected the existing reservoir embankments to be retained in order to provide screening for nearby properties as required in the 1996 planning brief. Thames Water have completely ignored these views and the suggestion that the site host a major nature and wildlife reserve. They began this process with plans for 110 homes, which have now been reduced to 96, with additional office provision. The plans are completely unacceptable to local residents and no amount of PR spin from the developers will convince anybody to the contrary.

Campaigner Mel Woodward said:

“It is difficult to see how we can adequately respond to the detailed proposals if we are not given a reasonable amount of time to consider them.  The details of the application should have been made available at the beginning of August, but have only just appeared on the website.  This would leave local people less than two weeks to respond to the stated deadline date (2^nd September) during a period of time when many people are on holiday. The proposed plans by Thames Water are little different to those submitted (and subsequently withdrawn) last year are hugely unpopular with local residents, councillors and MPs”