Tull Way estate appeal – victory for campaigners

The outline planning application by landowner Caroline Graham went to appeal after West Berkshire Council refused to allow the estate to be erected on 7.4 hectares of agricultural land to the east of Tull Way last year.
Opposition from local people included a petition, which was signed by more than 400 people.
Behind the campaign was Lisa Burgess, of Bowling Green Road, who said this week that the result was unexpected but was the best outcome for the town.
“[The dismissal] was quite unexpected. It makes it all worthwhile. I’m glad I went to the trouble. I’m thrilled for Thatcham as a whole.”
The petitioners’ concerns included the loss of a greenfield site and reduction of the green gap between Newbury and Thatcham, the increased risk of flooding, a lack of infrastructure and the detrimental effect 90 new homes would have on highway safety, traffic and noise and light pollution.
On dismissing the appeal, inspector Jessica Graham said that the development would harm the character and appearance of that particular part of the town.
“The provision of much-needed affordable housing is a factor that weighs in favour of the proposed development, but neither this nor any other material considerations are sufficient to outweigh the identified conflict with development plan policy,” she said.
The residents had been supported in their fight by Thatcham West ward member Keith Woodhams (Lib Dem), who said this week: “We are all delighted with the inspector’s decision.
“The residents have told me that brownfield sites should be developed first and greenfield sites should be protected, especially in this case, where the development will result in the loss of green infrastructure, will harm its use, and take away enjoyment by the public.”
He also praised local people for their efforts in getting the application thrown out.
“Local residents worked really hard to prevent this development from going ahead on the greenfield site.
“I was delighted to present a petition containing 424 signatures on their behalf to the council executive in June last year and I feel this added weight to the inspector’s decision.”
Ms Graham could not be contacted for a comment.