Thatcham councillors object to Tull Way housing application

Concerns over 75-homes impact on the town

THATCHAM Town Council has objected to plans for 75 homes off Tull Way; but only just.

Bloor Homes Southern has applied to build the homes on agricultural land north of the Henwick Worthy playing fields.

The application also includes flood defences and open space on the western edge of the site.

The application is a scaled-down version of one submitted for 90 homes on the site in 2012.

The plan was thrown out on appeal because of the impact it would have on the character of west Thatcham.

Residents have objected to the latest plans, again citing the impact on the town’s infrastructure, flooding and traffic.

Town councillors discussed the latest plan at a meeting last Thursday when the council’s technical consultant, Chris Watts, reminded them that the inspector had found no fault in the principal of developing the field.

He said the other “critical factor” is that the site lies within Thatcham’s settlement boundary and that a chance to protect it had been missed.

A review of settlement boundaries was carried out when West Berkshire Council published its list of preferred housing sites in the 2014 development plan document (DPD).

The boundary was moved to include the Lower Way field, which has been earmarked for 85 homes.

“The district council could have decided to move it so it was protected from development but that never took place,” Mr Watts said.

“The principal, therefore, is that there is a presumption in favour of the development in terms of planning on sites like this.

“If they are sustainable and there are no material factors, bearing in mind the inspector made no objection, if this goes to appeal you must expect it to be approved.”

Despite Mr Watt’s advice, Steve Ardagh-Walter (Con, Thatcham West) proposed that the town council object.

Mr Ardagh-Walter, who voted in favour of the DPD, raised concerns over the impact on infrastructure and whether money would be spent on improving health facilities.

Mr Watts replied that part of the developers’ contribution would be allocated towards this but it was down to the NHS as to how it was allocated.

John Cheliah (Con, Thatcham West) said that residents in neighbouring Bowling Green Road had complained about the loss of views.

However, Mr Watts said there was no private right to a view in planning law.

When asked how the town council could object, Mr Watts said he could only raise two grounds.

He recommended that the town council was not satisfied on the flood risk assessment or that the open space to the west would be protected to prevent further homes from being developed.

But again he warned that residents’ concerns over the impact on infrastructure had been dismissed by the planning inspectorate in 2013, which was for a higher number of homes.