Here’s what Thatcham residents have to say as a consultation begins on thousands of new homes across the district
The battle for Pincents Hill has erupted again.
The developers have been given another go at it after West Berkshire Council’s hand was forced by this, and the previous Government, to find sites which can be developed for housing in the next five years.
An eight-week public consultation will now get under way about all the allocated sites, prompting a desperate plea from the council.
“This is your last possible chance to tell the inspector that you are unhappy about the sites proposed in this plan,” deputy leader Denise Gaines told Thursday’s council meeting.
“We were left no choice but to allocate sites that can be delivered in the next five years.”
The council has produced a revised plan now running to 2041, showing where extra housing demanded by the Government will be put up until then.
This has increased the overall housing requirement for the plan from at least 8,721 additional dwellings to at least 9,270 more homes.
Development on the North East Thatcham Strategic Housing Allocation has been increased from 1,500 dwellings to 2,500.
Space for around 500 extra homes on top of that has also been found elsewhere – including 138 at Pincents Hill.
That’s despite numerous rejections of previous attempts to put houses on it.
Back in January 2022, even the then Reading West MP Alok Sharma joined campaigners against the 165 dwellings put forward.
The Local Plan is considered something of a political hospital pass to the Lib Dem administration, which inherited the plan it maintains is flawed from the previous Conservative-run council.
“It was rushed through 35 days before they lost control of this council, and is a flawed Local Plan,” added Ms Gaines.
“We will continue to forcefully state that the plan is not right for the residents of West Berkshire; the policies developed within it are sound, but the allocation of sites is not.”
The West Berkshire Local Plan Review (LPR) is currently being independently examined by a planning inspector appointed by the secretary of state.
The council was directed by the minister of state for housing, planning and building safety on December 19, 2023, to not withdraw the plan and to progress it through the examination process.
There is a significant risk of Government intervention should the council decline to comply with the inspector’s action points.
It is estimated that the cost of preparation of a plan through to adoption is around £1.5m.
“The legal implications states that should the council not follow the requirements of the inspector it is highly likely that MHCLG will intervene and take over the process,” said Ms Gaines.
This would necessitate the Local Plan being highjacked by the Government and West Berkshire having any influence over the Local Plan completely removed – and then being charged for that privilege.
“So much for local democracy!” Ms Gaines added. “Local people are denied the ability to make local choices.
“Both those directions set in motion a set of actions which we have had no choice but to commit to.”
Alan Macro, (Lib Dem, Theale) said: “The inspector is not proposing to remove the extra 100 homes in Theale being added to the 420 currently being constructed, increasing the village size by 40 per cent.”
Jo Stewart (Con, Tilehurst Birch Copse) added: “Pincents Hill has been a long and fought for battle. It may not be the prettiest space, but it is open and wild and natural.
“Residents love this open space and use it for exercise, walking dogs and recreation.
“Any residents know already just how terrible the traffic is around the Sainsbury’s and IKEA junction, causing gridlock on the A4 to the M4.
“The proposed development if it goes through will feed traffic through those same bottlenecks and this is why the proposal has been rejected before.
“I am so disappointed that we are here again fighting this battle. We must hear our residents’ voices.”
Clive Taylor for Labour in the same ward told the meeting he was “flabbergasted” that this site was proposed for inclusion given the history of refusals.
“I was also disturbed to read the settlement boundary has been moved,” he said. ”We have made it easier to build on it.”
Worries about the removal of control on planning was summed up by Richard Somner (Con, Tilehurst South and Holybrook), who said: “I’m also concerned about Pincents.
“Public opinion has been heard time and time again. Developing that site is not sustainable.
“But it begs the question if it comes back again with another application how do we have to treat it? That concerns me.”
Adrian Abbs (Independent, Newbury Wash Common) said 26 per cent of councils in England don’t have a Local Plan and that the council shouldn’t be too worried about it, suggesting instead that the council does not adopt one, as the Government planning framework (NPPF) will decide what happens anyway.
“Sites are brought forward by developers, and then assessed by the council – so we are developer led anyway,” he added.
The Greens agreed with him.
David Marsh (Green, Newbury Wash Common) added: “Some of the things in the last plan have been watered down, such as destroying protected trees, which will now be assessed on the amenity of the area.
“Similarly, infrastructure which previously had to be phased now says ‘where necessary’.
“If you want to see the effects of development with no infrastructure, go to the racecourse.”
Janine Lewis (Lib Dem, Tilehurst and Purley) said: “Pincents Hill is under threat.
“The so-called benefit is affordable housing… for which household budget?
“And infrastructure? It is practically gridlocked and the neighbourhood already under pressure for flooding since land was cleared of shrubs and trees.
“As for the loss of the green space and the wildlife, when it is gone, it is gone.
“I stood to be a councillor and naively believed in local democracy but this is undermined by central government.”
Christopher Read (Lib Dem,Bucklebury) said it can’t get any worse for residents.
“We are now at the mercy of the developers,” he said.
“They are going to squeeze every acre out of that [North East Thatcham] site and the expense of our quality of life.
“Developers are squeezing a new town the size of Hungerford between two well-established existing settlements.
“There is still no commitment to a new secondary school to serve young families for the next 70 years.
“I understand it will need significantly more investment than can be raised through the developer’s contribution.
“There is no answer to the over-stretched Thatcham sewage works with Thames Water in a precarious financial position.
“There is no position on maintaining the ecological links between the Pang and Kennet Valleys.
“This is for developers to build and sell with no regard for the consequences. I cannot vote for this motion to consult.”
