Thames Farm housing site to go ahead after winning appeal

A Planning Inspector has allowed all three appeals by Taylor Wimpey relating to the Thames Farm development on the Reading Road, clearing the way for ground stabilisation works, approval of a revised drainage strategy, and amendments to the approved housing layout.

The decision overturns South Oxfordshire District Council’s refusal of applications linked to the long-running scheme for up to 95 homes on land off Reading Road. In January 2024 Taylor Wimpey lost their appeal for ground stabilization works under lawful use of development. The Planning Inspectorate said then “While it would be reasonable to expect that the construction of dwellings is likely to require some preparatory or enabling ground works, in this case the nature and scale of the ground works is such that they would be an engineering operation in their own right. It would have likely planning consequences that indicate that it would be of a different character to the permitted scheme.”

The approval will see the 95 homes reduced to 84 being built with a new drainage basin.

The appeal saw nine days of evidence, technical debate, and legal submissions in March.  The three local Councils (Henley Town, Harpsden and Shiplake Parishes) and Thames Farm Action Group obtained a ‘Rule 6’ status (representation at the enquiry to actively engage in the appeal process).

The main objection centred on the site’s location within a Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1) above a principal chalk aquifer that supplies the nearby Harpsden public water source, around 130 metres away.

South Oxfordshire District Council and the Rule 6 party argued that insufficient information had been provided about groundwater conditions, underground voids and potential contamination pathways. They claimed the proposed grouting and drainage works posed unacceptable risks to the aquifer and public water supply.

However, Inspector Matthew Shrigley concluded that while uncertainties remained about underground conditions, the evidence showed the risks could be managed safely. He stated that “the proposed compaction grouting process is a well-established engineering technique. The grout would set rapidly and was highly unlikely to migrate into the public water supply. Groundwater, pollution and flood risks could be adequately controlled through planning conditions and monitoring.”

The Environment Agency and Thames Water had not objected to the proposals.

A second major issue was the revised drainage strategy, which relies on detention basins and a pumped drainage system. Objectors argued that the system was overly complex, vulnerable to failure and unlikely to be adopted by a water company.

The Inspector acknowledged there were technical challenges but found they were not “insurmountable”. He said further design refinements could be secured through conditions and later approvals. He concluded that the revised drainage proposals would not create unacceptable flooding or pollution risks.

Although the appeal relating to ground stabilisation was not itself a housing application, the Inspector attached “substantial weight” to the role the works would play in enabling delivery of new homes in an area where housing land supply remains a concern.

Mr Shrigley stated that housing needs should not override public safety or water supply protection, but concluded that the evidence showed those risks could be adequately managed.

In his conclusion, he said the technical deficiencies identified by opponents were “not strong enough reasons to resist the appeals” and that the benefits of the scheme outweighed its adverse impacts.

Peter Boros from the Thames Farm Action Group said, “This is very disappointing news, after the very significant efforts made by both the Rule 6 party comprising TFAG, Henley Town Council, Shiplake Parish and also Harpsden Parish Council, not to mention the robust case made also by SODC and its expert witnesses.”

“It was however good to see that the Inspector clearly agrees with TFAG, and has major concerns over the drainage strategy and methodology put forwards by Taylor Wimpey. He has effectively said that the strategy needs review and that that strategy together with a Source Protection Strategy, and  confirmation that any drainage proposals will be required to be built to adoption standards are all now pre-conditions to the scheme moving forwards.

“The Rule 6 Group is now analysing the decision letter in detail and discussing next steps.”