Latest News

See the articles below, listed in descending date order (i.e. latest first), for regular updates.

Local Area

What's on?

Thames Farm Appeal Update March 2026

Thames Farm – Appeals Update 17 March 2026

TFAG has been very busy since the turn of the year preparing and managing the team that has been put together, to take part as a Rule 6 Party, at the forthcoming 3 con joined Planning Appeals that commences on 24 March.

The Rule 6 Party comprises Henley Town Council, Shiplake Parish Council, Harpsden Parish Council and TFAG, and The financing of the Appeals is being jointly funded by all 4 parties, albeit with different levels of contribution.

The main Appeal relates to the proposed groundworks that Taylor Wimpey want to undertake, in order to prepare the site so it can then be developed for its scheme of residential development.

The other 2 Applications relate primarily to a drainage strategy for the site after it has been prepared with the groundworks and other detailed changes to the original scheme of development consequent upon the groundworks. This includes the reduction in density of development down to 84 houses, the drainage of the site through a complex method of collecting all of the surface water run off, and then pumping this up to a large detention basin on the west of the site, from where it is planned that the surface water will infiltrate back down into the ground.

SODC the Local Planning Authority, are the main opponent to the scheme having rejected the 3 Planning Applications at its Planning Committee, despite officers recommending that it be approved.

We are very happy that SODC has put together a good team to opposes the Appeal, and are fielding 4 expert witnesses. We have seen their proofs of evidence and liaised with their team so that we may support them as a Rule 6 Party and will have equal standing to the 2 other main parties.

A big vote of thanks goes out to the huge effort that has been made and invested by both paid advisors and the volunteers who have helped get us to this point.

Similarly without the financial support and assistance of the 3 local Councils and the contributions of local residents, none of this will have been possible. The costs of attending the Inquiry with barrister and expert witnesses etc will ultimately be in excess of £100,000, and TFAG raised apprx £31,000 from residents since TFAG was set up. Thank you to everyone that has helped either financially, by volunteering and also simply supporting the campaign.

TFAG will be attending the Inquiry every day it is scheduled to sit, and we intend to provide a brief commentary on proceedings as the Inquiry goes about its business on the Shiplake website Forum so that those who cannot attend in person will be kept up to date. See link below.

Shiplake Villages - Forum Post

Details of where and when the Inquiry sits are as below. Do please come and support the team if you can.

PUBLIC INQUIRY
At Great Hall, Cholsey, Wallingford, OX10 9GW (week 1), Tuesday to Friday, and

Fountain Conference Centre, Howberry Park, Walingford, OX10 8BA (week 2). Tuesday to Thursday.

Opening on 24th March 2026 at 10.00am
REASON FOR INQUIRY Appeal by Taylor Wimpey West London

Article created / last edited: 17 March 2026

Thames Farm Update as at 15 November

The 3 Local Councils - Henley Town Council, Harpsden Parish and Shiplake Parish, have jointly agreed to fund the Case to be made at the forthcoming Public Inquiry, and have joined together with TFAG to be a ‘Rule 6 Party’.

A Rule 6 Party, is afforded similar status and rights, as the defending LPA in any Inquiry, which is an important point, particularly where the LPA is defending a Committee decision that has over turned or rejected an Officers recommendation to approve, as is the case here.

TFAG will be responsible for managing the processes for the Rule 6 Party as a whole, and for liaising with the 3 Councils.

We have been formally accepted as a ‘Rule 6 Party’ by the Government PINS Office responsible for Planning Appeal Inquiries, and there is now an initial timetable set for the Inquiry as below.

Key dates are:

Statement of Case due 24 November 2025 – changed to 8 December requested by SODC

Online Case Management Conference 10 December 2025

Evidence Proofs due 4 weeks before opening of Hearing

Hearing to start 24 March 2026

Hearing currently listed for 8 days

Location, possible split in hearing locations – TBA

The Rule 6 Party, is assembling its Statement of Case, and has retained expert witnesses to produce Proofs of Evidence and give expert witness testimony at the forthcoming Inquiry.

We have retained the services for the Inquiry of JBA Consulting, who have a long history with this matter, in acting for TFAG and also the Councils. Secondly we have  also retained Beverley Parrish of Parrish Environmental, as a expert, who has significant experience in dealing with Groundwater/Bore Holes/Contamination issues etc. Beverley also has a long and succesful history/track record in Planning Appeals

An initial discussion has been held with SODC to ensure that both parties co-operate and do not duplicate what each is presenting to the Inquiry.

Our retained Barrister is now Richard Banwell of Pump Court Chambers, as our originally selected barrister was unable to be released from a clash in hearing dates.

At the Case Management  Conference, we think it fairly likely that the hearing timetable may be reduced  from the current 8 day allowance, which seems very long, but was set, given that this is a hearing for 3 con-joined Appeals taken together and with 2 principal parties making a case for refusal.

We will continue to update residents as matters progress.

Article created / last edited: 17 November 2025

Thames Farm Update 4 October 2025

TFAG has been advised by SODC, that they have been formally notified that Taylor Wimpey has submitted Appeals in relation to its 3 most recently rejected Planning Applications, namely the Application to undertake groundworks to enable it to stabilise the ground upon which it plans to develop houses, the Application for its revised drainage strategy and the detailed proposals thereof, and its application to vary the proposed layout of its development to create the space necessary for its drainage and other proposals.

Whilst we had expected an Appeal against the refusal of it’s Groundworks Application we were a little surprised over the Appeal for the other 2 matters.

We expect therefore that PINS, the Government Office that administers planning Appeals will now appoint one or more inspectors and set out the workings and timetable for progress.

TFAG has been in consultation with the three local councils, ie Henley Town Council, Harpsden Parish and Shiplake Parish, and they have confirmed agreement to fighting the Appeals and providing the funding that will be necessary to do this, for which we thank them for their support and generosity.

TFAG will therefore be making a formal Application to PINS for what is known as  Rule 6 Party status.

This status if granted, will provide the ‘Party’ of 4, the equivalent status to that afforded to the Planning Authority in the Appeals process. We believe that this is extremely important, since SODC whilst making the case for rejection, will be somewhat compromised, by the fact that it had recommended to the Planning Committee to grant the consents. The Planning Committee members rejected that recommendation, and refused consnet, as they were concerned that Taylor Wimpey had not proven that the underlying risk to the Aquifer beneath the site was negligible as was argued by the developer and its advisors. Hence there was a difference of opinion between the Members and the Planning Officers.

The proposed members of the rule 6 Party have therefore identified a leading barrister in this field, and we are also lining up expert witnesses to make our case.

It is not possible at this time to say exactly when the Appeal will take place or for how long it will sit, however we are taking all the necessary steps to prepare for the hearing in advance of a time table being published, and statement of case made.

It is now likely that the Hearing will last quite a bit longer than originally expected as the 3 Appeals are likely to be heard at a single Inquiry. The issues and arguments will therefore need to cover not just the principle of the Groundworks, but also the hugely important matter of how surface water will be managed and disposed of and also the issue of Foul sewerage.

We will of course keep residents advised as matters progress.

 PB @ TFAG

Article created / last edited: 6 October 2025

TFAG Needs You!

 

Skilled Volunteers Required

TFAG is about to embark on an intense period of activity, and is looking for help
In some specific areas from those who have the time and inclination to help for a prolonged/intensive period in making a case to defeat Taylor Wimpey. Likely time lines for help and input say next 6 months.

Helpful skill sets needed are one or more of :-

Project Management
Environmental and Property Law
Social media and PR
Crowd Funding
Hydrogeology
Engineering and Construction

Please write/call
Greg, Stephen, or Peter at

greg@shiplakestones.com

stephen.seabury@gmail.com

Tfag.peter.boros@btinternet.com 

Article created / last edited: 3 August 2025

Update, and Call to Action!

Residents will be aware that over the last 10 months, Taylor Wimpey has submitted a series of amendments to the 3 Planning Applications currently with SODC for determination.

TFAG with the help of its advisors and the 3 impacted parish and town Councils has responded to each of these in turn. It’s quite alarming that a developer can just go on and on with these applications hoping that one day it might finally come up with a workable plan, or, exhaust any opposition that it is facing.

What has become quite apparent over these 10 months is how hit and miss, even experimental all of this seems to be! Taylor Wimpey has submitted a succession of variations and amendments, and, as we critique each variation, further work is done to rectify things. Yes, the authorities are listening, but for how long must this go on, and when will the ‘penny drop’, that you cannot just experiment when such important issues are at stake as the drinking water of 50,000 people, and the local environment of dozens more.

To us, this really means that the whole matter of the groundworks and surface water capture and disposal is such a novel and unusual set of circumstances, that firstly the outline consent should never have been granted, and secondly, the risks in proceeding are simply too great.

In short, Thames Farm would be an experiment!! Worse still, one where there seems to be very little attempt at mitigation, and no obvious way to ‘put the cork back into the bottle once the genie is out’!

TFAG believes that an ‘experiment’, where the drinking water of 50,000 people is placed in jeopardy, and where there is a ongoing risk that the surface water disposal methods may cause environmental harm by resulting in local flooding, is simply a risk too far!

Our latest representations document says exactly that! We do not want to be an experiment by a developer that has made a mistake in buying this site, and who will simply walk away at the end, leaving Authorities and residents to pick up the pieces.  How can a house builder be given the right to cause such mayhem, and to then be able to just walk away with its profit while others are left with the mess. What meaningful sanction or obligation will there be, if our worst fears come to fruition and they do get it wrong! It’s exactly this question that never gets asked, a condition that never gets included – and…..what happens whilst all of the arguments are taking place for years afterwards!

However bad the housing shortage might be….and notwithstanding the very large number of new homes constructed and proposed in the immediate environs, the c 84 units at Thames Farm, are not worth the risks being taken given the experimental nature of what is proposed.

At least 2 Councillors have requested that these Applications be ‘called in’. This means that if the Officers at SODC were recommending approval of the proposals, then the Applications would have to be considered by the Council members, not simply the officers.

That is quite right, in our opinion, and we shall keep residents appraised as matters move on. It may well be necessary, for residents to contact the local Councillors once again, to ensure that they make the right decisions and that in extremis, there is adequate security/guarantees in place to deal with any issues that might arise should the proposals be ultimately approved.

In the interim residents may care to read our latest statement to SODC, and JBA’s latest Technical Note, which essentially says that Taylor Wimpey has got it wrong yet again!

The link to these documents is here:-

TFAG Submission to SODC 13 June 2025

JBA Technical Note 10 June 2025

We would urge residents to make their feelings known to the LPA SODC, by sending them a strong response to the consultation exercise currently occurring. A template is below should you require this:-

Address for objections

SODC
Amended Planning Applications P24/S2642/FUL, P24/S2652/S73, P24/S2651/DIS

Emma Bowerman

Principal Major Applications Officer
Planning Services
South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
01235 422600

Emma.bowerman@southandvale.gov.uk
CC to : planning@southoxon.gov.uk

 TFAG, would also suggest that you lobby your local political representatives on the Councils, for which a draft is shown below. This should be sent to your local Councillor at SODC and also our MP Freddie Van Mierlo viz:

  Councillor                                            Email Addy

AND/OR OUR MP

Article created / last edited: 16 June 2025

EA Response to Thames Farm Applications

Following TFAG’s submission of representations to the 3 current Planning Applications with SODC, the Environment Agency also submitted its views on the FUL Application at the same time, and  Thames Water’s comments werr also published, in respect of the DIS Drainage Strategy Application.

A copy of the EA’s comments may be seen here. Essentially, this document withdraws the EA’s outstanding objection to the grouting proposals, but maintains that there remain some very important outstanding matters that need to be addressed. They suggest these matters can be addressed via conditions to a consent.

As these conditions include some quite fundamental points :-

·        Need for an agreed, detailed source protection strategy

·       Need to account for grout volumes

·       Locations and methodology for for monitoring

·       Surface water infiltration area location

·      The need for  an Environment permit

and which matters go to the heart of the issue i.e. protecting the aquifer and its source, we do not understand how the EA can justifiably withdraw its previous objection. The entire purpose of all objections has been that of protecting the environment and the aquifer, which provides the regions potable water supply.

As such, TFAG has submitted a further objection to the Applications recording our disagreement. A copy of this objection can be seen here.

If residents feel as strongly about this issue, and ensuring that our water supply is robustly protected, then it would be good to follow our lead, and object, letting SODC and its Councillors know the strength of feeling over this issue.

We have seen too many failures by Planning Authorities to adequately address concerns in a robust fashion; or when it is too late to do so, hence wanting to avoid that occouring here.

As previously, a template objection my be found below to assist.

 Residents Address for objections.

Eg. 1 Any Road, Lower Shiplake, RG9 xxx

To: Emma Bowerman

Principal Major Applications Officer

Planning Services

South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils

01235 422600

Email: Emma.bowerman@southandvale.gov.uk

CC. Email: planning@southoxon.gov.uk

Dear SODC,

Representations re: Amended Planning Applications P24/S2642/FUL, P24/S2652/S73, P24/S2651/DIS Submitted 09/01/2025.

We are aware that the Environment Agency has withdrawn its objection to the FUL Planning Application referred to above. We are also aware that Thames Water believe that it is premature for a drainage strategy to be determined at the present time and prior to the proposed groundworks that the Applicant proposes.

We would urge SODC not to approve the FUL Application unless and until the Applicant has been able to adequately demonstrate that the proposals are safe and will not harm the quality or flow of potable water from the underlying aquifer. We do not believe that it is correct for the EA to withdraw its objections, until such time as an adequate source protection strategy and detailed methodology has been prepared and approved, together with a robust and workable emergency action plan in case of breach is also identified and approved.

Protecting the regions potable water supply is entirely why the site is designated as an SPZ1, and as such no consent to permit these works should be entertained until SODC and its consultees have a 100% guarantee together with adequate security to secure the performance of that guarantee has been provided.

We also agree with Thames Water that the surface water drainage strategy contained within the DIS Application is not robust and contains numerous unanswered technical questions /a shortage of factual data to ensure  that it is a safe and robust means of discharging the planning condition.

We therefore maintain our objections to these 3 Planning Applications.

YF.

Article created / last edited: 11 March 2025

Planning Applications Update February 2025

Residents will be aware, that in January of 2025, Taylor Wimpey, submitted very considerable updated information to accompany and update the 3 Planning Applications that it submitted to SODC last August, and to which TFAG and the 3 Local Councils then objected.

The most significant of these is the Application for Planning Permission to undertake ‘groundworks’ at the site in order to remediate the underground dissolution features caused by years of water flows beneath the site and which has eroded the chalk causing sinkholes and underground voids to form as well as making large areas of the site unstable. That flowing water, is known as an aquifer, and is vital to the regions supply of clean fresh drinking water. This supply of water for this region, is said to service some 50,000 residents (according to the Thames Water website). There is also no backup piped supply of any description.

TFAG’s engineers JBA, and also our noise and vibration specialists were once again asked to review the updated information.

And, once again, the applications have been found to be deficient, to have failed to undertake any form of risk analysis, and has not produced the Environmental Impact Assessment that the Secretary of State ruled should form part of the proposals, to enable a full, balanced and well informed decision to be made by SODC.

As a result, TFAG has submitted further representations to SODC about these shortcomings, and the proposals generally.

A copy of this submission can be accessed here. It also contains a full copy of JBA’s latest advice note.

If residents want to make their own representations to these proposals which we believe is a very important thing for them to do, then a template form of objection can be found, with the latest TFAG update document here.

This is the first time that SODC has been asked to consider a detailed Application for Planning Permission for the proposed ‘groundworks’, and our view is that this work willl not only be highly disruptive and uncomfortable for residents, but also, the developer simply does not know enough about the site it has purchased, nor the potential impact of its proposals, on both the underground aquifer, and also the impact upon the existing pattern of surface water flows.

We are also concerned over the method and specification of how Taylor Wimpey proposes to deal with the enormous amount of surface water that will run off from the site, both in the short term, and also after the development is finished, as there is a complex proposal to collect water from around the site, send it to a detention basin for storage, and then hope that it will naturally infiltrate the ground. The movement of large volumes of water like this and the storage of it in an area that has suspect ground conditions below, is extremely worrying, and risks both over topping of the facility, structural failure of the storage area, and it also is a potential danger having a steep 1:3 side slope which creates a potential danger for anyone who might fall into the detention basin.

We will naturally keep residents updated as further information becomes available, and in the meantime would urge residents to strongly object to these proposals.

Article created / last edited: 31 October 2025

Thames Farm...So what next?

A big thank you from all at TFAG!

We counted approx. 135 separate objections to the 3 current Planning Applications as being shown on SODC’s Planning portal as at 10 October. This includes all 3 local Councils, The Henley Society, The Chiltern Society, and even Thames Water who say they are unable to establish from the information given whether the proposals are acceptable or not. This is such a large number that we believe SODC cannot simply ignore us!

What happens next is going to be very interesting therefore. At a practical level, the Officers at SODC now need to consider all of the material that has been submitted to them and make a judgement call.

They have a couple of options open to them as such……..

1. Reject the Applications. One would hope that this will be the outcome given the weight of evidence pointing at the huge risks involved to the community’s water supply were they to permit the groundworks to go ahead.
   
   
2. Invite Taylor Wimpey to provide more information and details about their proposals in order to persuade SODC et al, and the community that the proposals are safe, and will not place the water supply at risk? Its hard to imagine that Taylor Wimpey can do that, as presumably if they had the evidence and a better case then they would already have done that. That said, the developer has consistently failed to do the ‘hard yards’ and provide irrefutable evidence of the safety of its proposals.
   
   
3. Form the opinion that they accept Taylor Wimpey’s proposals. If this were to come about, then we know that a number of the SODC’s Councilors share our concerns over the proposals, and have requested that the Applications go before the Planning Committee for a decision.

Based on previous experience of how Taylor Wimpey operate, we also think it highly likely that if their proposals are rejected, or if SODC seek an extension of time to make a decision, then the developer will try and bludgeon their way through by lodging an Appeal application, or request for the matter to be determined by the Secretary of State, in the hope that the Government's desire to get housing built quickly will drive a quick approval of the proposals irrespective of how unsafe we all feel that the proposals might be.

So once again, thank you for your help and support, and, we await SODC Planners doing the right thing, and summarily dismissing these ridiculous and dangerous proposals. 

Article created / last edited: 15 October 2024

Thames Farm as of 2 October 2024

Your Drinking Water Needs You! 

Your Drinking Water Needs You!

If you were not aware that the Thames Farm grouting proposals by Taylor Wimpey are at risk of interfering with your drinking water supply and at worst contaminating it, then you are now!!!

TFAG, The Parish Council, Harpsden Parish and Henley Town Council, all have major concerns over this issue and are objecting to the 3 Planning Applications now before SODC for determination. The objection information can be seen here.

Residents can help by letting SODC know how strongly we feel that our drinking water should not be placed at risk in this way!!!

Support the 3 Councils by writing to SODC to let them know how you feel!

A template is below to help if required, and objections need to be submitted by 7 October latest.

Thank You

TFAG & Shiplake Parish Council

TO: SODC Planning - Emma Bowerman > 

CC: planning@southoxon.gov.uk 

South Oxfordshire District Council  

Abbey House  

Abbey Close 
Abingdon OX14 3JE 

Dear Sirs, 

Objection to Planning Applications: P24/S2642/FUL, P24/S2652/S73, P24/S2651/DIS

I am writing to object to the following planning applications pursuant to Thames Farm, Lower Shiplake, that are awaiting determination by SODC. 

·         Fresh, drinkable water is a very scarce resource and there are unquantifiable risks associated with the grouting of the site and the potential effects to the aquifer particularly interrupting the flow of the aquifer and contamination. This is the only potable water supply for the surrounding area and serves approx. 50,000 people. The aquifer below the Thames Farm is in an area designated as an SPZ1 which should be respected. 

·         An independent report produced by JBA Consulting, hydrological engineers has assessed that the drainage strategy proposed by the developer is inadequate and the design is fundamentally flawed. 

·         The drainage design is carbon intensive and contrary to NPPF, SODC’s local plan and OCC Guidance documents. The costs of running and managing these facilities will most likely be borne by the tax payer and customers of the water utility company. 

·         The noise vibration, air quality and disruption to the local community will be excessive and environmentally unacceptable. 

·         Thames Water has itself been unable to determine approval to the infrastructure to accommodate the waste water and foul sewerage from the Thames Farm site due to a lack of detail and information. 

I would ask SODC to refuse the Applications above for the reasons given 

Yours Faithfully, 

xxxxxxx 

Article created / last edited: 3 October 2024

The Three New Planning Applications, September 2024

Residents will be aware from TFAG’s recent posts that Taylor Wimpy has submitted 3 new Planning Applications to SODC at the end of August, and just prior to the bank holiday, hence the short delay in being able to report back with this update.

The 3 Applications are fundamentally a series of linked Applications that:

1. P24/S2642/FUL - Seeks Permission to undertake the Groundworks that Taylor Wimpy say are necessary to enable the site to be developed with a medium density residential development.

This Application has appended an Environmental Impact Assessment, albeit in fairly short and we believe incomplete/inadequate form. We found the attachment of this document and its positioning by the developer in the covering letter to be somewhat unusual. Indeed the covering letter quite bizarrely suggests that the EIA is not necessary at all, and that this is a precautionary step to enable the consideration of the Application by the LPA, since the Secretary of State has yet to determine the earlier ‘EIA Screening Application’ submitted by the developer in May.

The covering letter also infers that if the SofS decides that no further EIA is required, that it might somehow be removed! Our view is that such a step is wholly unacceptable, and that having chosen to require the Screening Application to be determined by the SoS rather than await its determination by SODC, it is not now open to the applicant to try and ‘twin track’ matters in this way.

SODC has confirmed to TFAG, that notwithstanding the contents of the covering letter which dealt with this question, and, which also asks that the applications should be determined in a particular sequence; SODC will treat the Applications as confirmed and registered and will proceed with their determinations as they see best.

It is noteworthy, that the EIA is severely lacking in scope and content, and majors on standards and guidance rather than effects, measurement and mitigation. It also primarily deals with ground conditions and hydrogeological matters. It does not however adequately focus on the major issues that will arise from the works being implemented, namely noise, vibration, emissions such as dust and CO2 & NO2, and also the huge volume of HGV movements that would have to occur if the application is approved. There seems to be very little in the way of actual ‘live’ recent measured data provided as a baseline assessment of these factors, nor any real attempt at pro-actively offering the best measures to mitigate these impacts. One of those mitigation options of course, which the legislation refers to is that of an alternative scheme layout ie the re-planning of the entire proposal and replacement with a low density form of development that does not require the very significant groundworks or drainage provisions that are now proposed.

We are amazed at this shortfall, which further demonstrates that Taylor Wimpy has given virtually no consideration to making these works bearable for local residents by either the use of very robust mitigation measures or, a completely alternative form of development of the site.

To recap, it is the developers intention to undertake grouting of large parts of the site by drilling holes at 6m centers, and then injecting into those holes a form of concrete slurry, which may or may not contain PFA (pulverized fly ash - known to be hazardous to health), to a depth varying but perhaps as much as 16m, in order to fill the voids beneath the ground. This essentially creates an underground platform on top of which the development would sit. The top 3m of the surface would be treated (likely with stones) and then vibro-compacted with vibrating rods in order to ensure the ground is compacted and becomes a solid mass.

The essence of what the developer is proposing after creating this impermeable mass beneath the ground, is to then capture surface water around the site, filter it and transfer it to holding tanks and then, pump it back to the SW corner of the site, where the balancing Lake will be located. This arrangement could not be said to be remotely green or environmentally friendly in its approach; it will create a large system that might easily fail at some point (particularly with inadequate maintenance) and will consume huge energy resources over its lifetime. This would be a classic ‘single point of failure approach’ with no means of providing any form of backup.

2. P24/S2651/DIS - Seeks to Discharge (a second time and in a revised way) conditions 4 (vehicular access, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas), 5 (construction management plan ), 8(landscape management plan), 9(method statement) and 11(drainage strategy) on application P16/S0970/O.(Outline Planning Application for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping. Means of access and strategic landscaping not reserved).

3. P24/S2652/S73 – Seeks (a second time and in a revised way) the Variation of conditions 1 (Approved plans) and 3 (Landscaping implementation and retention) on application P19/S0245/RM (Reserved Matters for 95 dwellings (appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) pursuant to outline application P16/S0970/O).

This application is the one that shows the detail of the overall appearance, look and feel of the revised scheme, including the reduction to 84 houses from the previous 95 approved, the location of 2 extremely large concrete tanks for holding liquids pending their being pumped elsewhere. These tanks amount to a staggering superficial ground area of c 1.5 acres!

Secondly, the other main change is reducing the housing numbers in order to make way for a very large balancing pond which is to be located in the SW corner of the site of perhaps a further 1.5 - 2 acres, and will hold excess surface water (pumped from the tanks), until it infiltrates into the ground naturally.

A graphic showing the scheme is below:-

The large open area at the back of the site is the proposed balancing pond, and the 2 concrete vessels are located to the rear of the Thames Farm Barns where the pumping stations are also sited. It is further understood that on site road adoption is now a feature of the scheme also, no doubt to try to move responsibility for roads and drainage maintenance to the authorities or otherwise to the residents of the site who will be paying for these services.

Foul drainage is to be pumped off site and taken to Station road, and there discharged into a new upgraded sewer that is to be constructed in Station Road – c. 0.5m in diameter.

Commentary

These changes are very significant indeed to the original proposals. Their implementation if approved will have major and in some cases very long lasting impacts upon Lower Shiplake its surrounds and its residents and also to the residents in Woodlands Road. 

The groundworks and site deliveries during the groundworks phase alone, will involve some 26 or more heavy goods vehicles a day (travelling each way so 52 daily movements plus smaller vehicles and staff vehicles as necessary) coming from the Reading direction to and from the site. Many vehicles will no doubt also seek to head in the direction of Henley or the village center, for fuel, refreshments and recreation/rest/comfort breaks. The works which are always highly weather dependent will take c 8 months to complete before the main scheme can then begin.

To suggest therefore that the impact on residents will be ‘negligible’ by saying that the movements each hour will be small, demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend how these works will effect the local population who are of course more senior, some elderly and often self employed or remote workers. These are on the whole at home during the day, and not away from the location at a place of work.

The single hour impact assessment therefore simply seeks to disguise and mislead.

The impacts of noise, vibration, dust and the like will be huge and unrelenting during this period, worse still if any weekend working were to be permitted. Vehicles will no doubt arrive very early in order to be on site immediately on opening and to avoid traffic backlogs; and local streets will no doubt be inundated with parked vehicles. Noise and Dust particularly in dryer spells will be very considerable indeed and even if mitigation measures are adopted they will have very limited effect. The constant vibration will permeate the area, may cause structural damage to local buildings and sites, and may cause other areas of land to move/open up. In short living close to the site will be sheer hell, so much so, that rating reductions may well have to be given by the local Valuation Office that sets the RV’s.

Residents would be well advised to take a record of the state and condition of their premises if nearby, so that they have proof should problems arise. Equally the dust plumes may well be very significant, and the noise pretty constant hence the need to insist on large scale mitigation measures via SODC and the EHO, including high boundary cladding to prevent noise travel, and base line noise measurements at strategic points along the boundary. A noise emissions limit ideally should be imposed by SODC if the applications are to be approved together with a whole myriad of properly enforceable and regularly monitored/checked mitigations.

There is also a suggestion in the documentation, that excess SW from Reading Road will be taken into the TW site and held/redirected there to avoid any further flooding along the road itself. Locals will be aware that there has been a long saga of the road flooding during heavy rainfall, so much so that it would be hard to describe such falls as infrequent and exceptional, which perhaps in another era they might have been.

The issue of surface water and what happens to it both on the Road and also on the site itself is a major one. After the site has been grouted and vibro-compacted it will be a bit like a sealed drum skin! Water will no longer be able to permeate the surface, and so very extensive means of capturing this water need to be included in the scheme, enough to also cater for further climate change effects and a much increased frequency of heavy / torrential rain fall. Engineers may well try and predict these things but with so much environmental and other change occurring, not just here but everywhere and at every level, this will be exceptionally difficult to do accurately. Hence the need for very large allowances for error must be made.

These new applications and the extreme lengths that a developer will go to in order to develop a site it purchased, without adequate or proper due diligence are quite remarkable. The original in principle approvals after years of trying and failure were granted by the government via something of a technical loop hole (ie SODC’s failure to meet its rolling housing targets). This shows how broken our Planning system is, as common sense would suggest that no resident should need to put up with this type of extreme interference with their rights to the quiet enjoyment of their home. 

Such a scheme should never have been approved in principle at the outset, and no scheme of this nature should be permitted without very extensive due diligence particularly in an area known for its chalk and for quarrying, with the inevitable sinkholes and dissolution features that arise in such areas.

If you add to this, the very real risk of contamination of the region's drinking water, the lack of any planning for containment or curtailment of contamination of the water supply should contamination actually arise; the consequences of contamination could affect maybe 50,000 residents who take their drinking water from this Thames Water region, and for which there is no piped backup facility.

In short, with all of the new proposals to fix the ‘problems’ with this site; the risks to local residents and the region, and with the quantity and volume of disturbance and health risks posed, this scheme should simply not be permitted.

If however the LPA or at a later stage the government are minded to consider approving the Applications, a much more comprehensive EIA containing baseline data, stringent steps to mitigate and a comprehensive management plan to ensure pro-active enforcement of the mitigation measures, the level of noise emissions and vibration emanating from the site and its impacts on local ‘receptors’ should be applied as mandatory conditions of the development proceeding. This should also include automated equipment signalling to highlight and prevent the continuance of any failure to meet the tolerances and hours of operation imposed, as well as the facility to modify those tolerances and hours, should local receptors find matters unbearable.

TFAG is taking engineering and legal advice on these applications, and will feedback to residents about objections and the like when more information is to hand from the advisors.

TFAG 04 September 2024

Article created / last edited: 24 November 2024

SODC Fails to Determine Application for EIA Screening @ 10 July 2024

Somewhat surprisingly, SODC has chosen not to make a decision on the EIA Screening Application submitted by Taylor Wimpey!

The reason given is that the Environment Agency did not provide SODC with any comments after they had been consulted on the Application. SODC say it was unable to take a decision in the matter, albeit numerous other decisions on this site have been taken, in many instances despite the EA failing to provide comment. TFAG sees this as something of an abrogation of responsibility by both the EA and SODC, when it is clear that Taylor Wimpey do not have a viable solution to dealing with the issue of the disposal of surface water run off from the site, having made 3 earlier (failed) attempts to achieve one

The net effect of SODC’s failure to decide, is that a decision will now be taken by the Secretary for State of the new Government. Essentially the process will be the same as previous decisions by the government whereby a Government Inspector will be appointed to make a decision.

TFAG is proposing to involve itself in the process, and we will ensure that this matter is properly considered, and not taken as an early ‘win’ by the Government, who have a desire to build thousands of new houses quickly. We believe therefore that it is in danger of making a bad decision over a highly complex site which might have major ramifications for the area. We are  ensuring that the 3 local Councils are kept appraised and up to date, and have asked if they wish to join in with our efforts following their own objections to the Application whilst it was with SODC.

TFAG has also raised the matter with the newly elected MP for the area, and a copy of our correspondence may be found here

We may very well also ask residents to indicate their support for the need to produce a full blown EIA, and will keep residents appraised.

Article created / last edited: 24 November 2024

Thames Farm - What Next - February 2024

Achieving the dismissal of Taylor Wimpey’s Appeal against SODC’s refusal to grant an LDC on 24 January 2024 is a major ‘win’ for TFAG and leaves the developer with a very complex and difficult position on its hands.

We think it unlikely however that this is the end of the story, as they simply have too much invested in this proposal to just walk away. Something must now happen, and Taylor Wimpey will have to decide what their next step is?

We don’t believe they can appeal any further, hence their next steps are likely to be one or more of the following:

 1.     A Judicial Review.

This has a very strict time limit, is quite expensive to mount, and in our view unlikely to succeed given that the Inspector seems to have made a comprehensive job in explaining how he arrived at his decision.

 2.     Submit a full new Planning Application for the proposed groundworks.

 This is not in the overall scheme of things hugely expensive as much of the data can be recycled/re packaged. We see this as their most likely next step.

 3.     Re-plan for a different development

 A lower density scheme could for instance avoid the need for grouting and vibro-compaction altogether! This is highly risky, would be very expensive to do and would probably create something that is not a ‘core product’ in the Taylor Wimpey stable. Hence would probably result in a sale of the site, and possibly a large loss in value.

 4.     Review whether a different ground works solution could work for the current scheme.

 One that does not need further planning permission, just revised approvals of conditions previously discharged. This one is hard to know without all of the design information and, presumably, this would previously have been considered and dismissed.

 5.     Sell the site

After taking a hit on their P & L if the site has not already been written down in their accounts.

One of the big unknowns in all of this, is a/the drainage solution. It is still an outstanding matter, after 3 failed attempts to find a solution, and may be further complicated by the Prime Minister's statement in Parliament in October 2023, that new developments must not be allowed to take surface water drainage off of sites. This was said against the backdrop of the significant floods arising recently throughout the Country.

How will the government give this effect? Will it include sites that are already consented? How does this inter-play with the extant consent? It was after all, the grouting proposal that caused the need for an off-site drainage solution hence the position might be different with a different form of groundworks!

TFAG’s Governance

All expenditure by TFAG is approved by a quorum of TFAG members and requires 3 members' signatures for any payment cheque.

We also have an agenda and formal minutes of each of our meetings, of which there have been c. 45 to date.

During the last year, our work extended to include the former Wyevale site when it became apparent that they were experiencing ground problems similar to those at Thames Farm.

TFAG has kept affected local councils updated on the issues and its activities.

The Bottom Line.

TFAG raised £17,975 in the ‘fund raise’ of November 2020. This was further bolstered by 6 additional individual contributions at the end of last year of a further £5,500.

In addition, specific items of direct expenditure on advice and reports plus legal input have been met jointly by the 3 Councils, Henley Town Council, Harpsden Parish Council and Shiplake Parish Counsel.

The money raised by TFAG has been spent as follows:-

JBA Consultancy   £8,150

Temple Bright Legal £5,900

Kings Counsel £5,100

Current Balance – £4,274

Whilst we cannot be sure of Taylor Wimpey’s next steps, the bottom line is that TFAG will require additional funds to continue the fight to a point whereby the integrity of our water supply is guaranteed to be safe.

You might ask what TFAG has achieved to date.

• Without resident’s contributions in 2020 and a huge lobbying campaign, it is highly likely that Station Road would have been dug up and a pipe would now be discharging runoff from Thames Farm into Lashbrook or another unsuitable location.

• Most residents would be unaware of the danger threatening the aquifer and therefore the risk to the drinking water in the area. Indeed, the authorities for a long time also seem to have overlooked its existence until TFAG’s actions, the hundreds of resident’s complaints we orchestrated and submitted with the reports from our engineers.

• The Environment Agency is being held to account at a time when it has been found wanting as the custodian of the welfare of our drinking water. TFAG is taking the fight to their ‘front door’.

• TFAG has been able to bring expert advice to bear on potentially catastrophic at worst, and damaging at best, decisions which will negatively affect our environment.

• The developers of both sites have been forced to modify their proposals and provide much more comprehensive information about what they are planning and its likely impacts, thereby allowing far better scrutiny and decision-making.

• Holding SODC and the EA’s feet to the flames! When the residents speak, no longer are we faced with the ‘wringing of hands’ and the usual fob off statements from the regulatory bodies. They take us very seriously and know that when we provide input it is generally very necessary and  correct in its demands.

• Brought together the 3 Local Councils and moved forward with a co-ordinated approach to hold the authorities to account.

• Submitted representations to Taylor Wimpey’s Appeal, whilst also lobbying the Councils and Government, resulting in the dismissal just received.

Any monies not spent in the campaign to monitor developments at Thames Farm and the former Wyevale site will be returned to residents pro-rata to contributions received.

If you want TFAG to be able to continue to protect the aquifer supplying all of the district's drinking water, and the local environment, please contribute to the following account:

 Account Name; Peter Boros (and others).

Account type; Personal.

Account number: 17453259

Sort code 60-10-35

Branch; NatWest, Henley on Thames

DO PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AS THE PAYMENT REFERENCE FOR ANY CONTRIBUTOR SO WE CAN RETURN ANY FUNDS IN DUE COURSE

If you have any queries, do please contact:

Greg Stone: greg@shiplakestones.com or

Peter Boros: tfag.peter.boros@btinternet.com

Thank you for your support.

TFAG

Article created / last edited: 5 February 2024

Thames Farm - Breaking News 24 January 2024

We are pleased to be able to announce, that Taylor Wimpey's Appeal against SODC's refusal to grant an LDC for the carrying out of grouting and site preparation/stabilisation works has today been dismissed by the government's appointed Planning Inspector.

A copy of the decision notice can be seen here

This is a major victory for common sense and means that if the developer does not try to challenge the decision via a Judicial Review, then they will need to submit a separate Planning Application for the proposed groundworks.

Article created / last edited: 30 January 2024

TFAG UPDATE 28 NOVEMBER 2023

Residents will be aware from the last update to this web site that two matters were actively being progressed by TFAG.

Former Wyevale Site

In so far as the former Wyevale site is concerned, a Pre Action Protocol (PAP) letter had been issued to SODC and others alerting them to the possibility of a challenge to the 3 decisions made by SODC in approving the discharge applications for the approval of conditions 3, 4 and 13 of the Outline Consent to permit this development. These decisions were made and dated 13 October 2023.

The PAP was submitted on behalf of TFAG, Henley Town Council, Shiplake Parish Council and Harpsden Parish Council and was funded by the latter 3 authorities. This action was taken to maintain and keep live the right to challenge SODC’s decision until 24 November 2023, as a PAP is a necessary and required step that has to be taken prior to an Application to the High Court for Judicial Review (JR). The response date on the PAP was 21^st November ie 3 days before the expiry of the deadline to make the JR Application.

The PAP was submitted, and achieved the necessary time required for all three Councils to consider the Counsels Opinion that had been obtained earlier in November dealing with the prospect for success is making a JR challenge, and also the likely cost implications of doing so.

Leading Counsel considered that the chances of success were no better than 50/50, and the costs of making the case were estimated at c £65,000 or more if the case lasted more than a single day in Court. The second issue that had to be considered was the extent and risk faced by the 3 Councils were they to fail with any JR as that would then mean that the costs of the other parties would be awarded against them. So all up, the potential costs at stake were perhaps as much as £200,000.

Whilst the Councils and TFAG continued to have concerns about the way in which the Environment Agency in particular had responded to and considered the Applications, it remained likely that SODC’s approval of the Applications would not be found to have been at fault nevertheless, i.e.  SODC were entitled to rely upon the expertise of the EA who had stated they were satisfied that the proposal involving the sinking of in excess of 400 piles into the site would not carry a material risk to the areas drinking water supply.

The EA reiterated this ‘approval’ in their response to the PAP letter and the Councils by a majority decision decided that they should not proceed with the Application for a JR.

Although perhaps disappointing, TFAG believe that in all of the circumstances this was the correct decision for the Councils to make given the risk profile of the challenge and likely outcomes/costs to residents via Council Tax payments. The EA’s position has been tested and reaffirmed by them and as such should something subsequently go wrong and impact the local drinking water, there is a very clear line of responsibility for the decisions permitting the development to proceed.

 Thames Farm

The second matter which remains ‘live’ is the Appeal by Taylor Wimpey against SODC’s failure to approve an Application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDP) on 13 January 2022. Shown here.

This is an Appeal by way of written representations, and residents will have seen TFAG’s submitted document making representations here.

SODC has also submitted their case and this is contained in their letter to the Planning Inspectorate of 31 October shown here.

The final document in this Appeal is Taylor Wimpey’s comments on the other parties representations, and this is attached and shown here.

The Appeal will now close, and the Inspector will make a final decision in the matter over the next few weeks. This decision will essentially determine whether Taylor Wimpey can proceed with their proposed grouting works under the extant Planning Permission that they already have, or whether they will be required to submit a further Planning Application for those works as a separate matter and a separate engineering operation requiring a separate consent.

Residents should also remember that Taylor Wimpey do not have an approved scheme for dealing with surface water disposal and that their last 3 proposals did not get approved by SODC /The EA.

Whatever the outcome of the Appeal that very contentious issue will remain to be dealt with at some future point.

We will keep residents appraised of developments, and finally take this opportunity to thank you for your ongoing support, and to wish everyone a happy and safe Christmas.

Article created / last edited: 9 December 2023

Thames Farm Update - 10 November 2023

It’s has been an exceptionally busy period for TFAG during the last few weeks, and frankly,  hard to find the time to update residents with all that has been going on. 

We continue to be constantly surprised at how the regulatory authorities go about their day-to-day work, which is supposedly there to serve and safeguard the community. Yet time and time again they seem to find it impossible to do that work thoroughly and diligently such that residents can ignore things, safe in the knowledge that their best interests are being looked after. One can only assume that these functions are so short of financial and people resources that they can't fulfil those functions properly. One would hope that is the case because anything else would be a horrifying prospect. 

The surprises came fast and furious firstly about the former Wyevale site, when the EA, after months of not being prepared to engage or comment on the various controversial applications to discharge planning conditions, suddenly stated that they were happy with everything put before them. TFAG’s Hydrogeological Engineers JBA had reviewed 3 data/information sets submitted for the developer and found/highlighted several problems inadequacies and deficiencies in the submissions. So TFAG requested SODC to withhold from issuing decision notices until the latest information could be reviewed, particularly knowing that TFAG had initiated complaints with the EA itself, and also with the OfEP (Office for Environmental Protection).

 Ironically, on the very day that the EA announced that it would appoint an investigation team to review its consideration and treatment of the applications independently, SODC issued approval notices with no form of explanation supporting its decisions. There is a requirement upon decision makers to consider the material put to it and to keep a record of how and why any decision is taken and the thought processes and factors that were either accepted or rejected by the decision taker.  This does not appear to have happened, however!

JBA reported on the latest iteration of updated information in late October and found little had changed since its earlier reports. As a result and also knowing that the EA were carrying out their own internal investigation due to report on or about 17 November, we invited SODC to take action over its seemingly erroneous issue of approval notices. It in some ways understandably, said it had issued the consents based on the advice of the EA and thus did not intend to rescind or vary the Notices.

Having spent some time reviewing the issues TFAG concluded that such an important matter, that had the potential to directly impact the community water supply was of such importance, and our confidence levels in the work done by the EA so low, that something had to be done. Accordingly we in very short order had to raise funds to seek Counsel's opinion. Three members of TFAG each contributed a further £1000 to the fund, which together with 2 other residents gave us the necessary short-term funds to secure Counsel's opinion.

We were due to meet Henley Council on 6 November in any event, together with members of Shiplake and Harpsden Parish Councils. Counsel's opinion arrived at lunchtime on the day of the meeting and we duly met at 3.00 pm. The meeting and subsequent discussions within and between the 3 Councils meant that by the end of Tuesday 7th of November and with burning a lot of midnight oil, Counsel, our Lawyer and TFAG settled upon and issued a Pre-Action Protocol Letter to SODC, the site Developer, and also The Environment Agency. This letter has been submitted in the names of TFAG and the 3 Local Councils following the agreement reached at Monday's meeting and back with each of the Councils for endorsement by other members.

A copy of the letter which sets out the reasons why the various participants agreed to challenge the Approval notices, is set out in the PAP which may be accessed here. SODC has until 21 November to respond.

Whilst all of this was going on, and as referenced above, the Thames Farm Appeal opened, and we submitted a very significant rebuttal paper to the Appeal Inspector, who will be a Barrister given that this is a legal dispute and not a pure Planning matter. The Appeal which is a written appeal rather than a public hearing, will conclude around the 21st of November, following which a decision will be made to either allow Taylor Wimpey to grout the site or require them to submit a further Planning Application if they wish to undertake grouting works.

An interesting aside to all of this is that a question was raised in Parliament on 25 October 2023 about property development in the UK. The Prime Minister in response, confirmed that all new developments are required to have a sustainable drainage system. The Taylor Wimpey proposals have been for a pumped system which is not classified as ‘sustainable’. We will be interested to learn precisely what is meant by the exact words used, which said that the government had committed to requiring sustainable drainage systems in all new developments.

There is likely to be a fairly active run-up to the year-end, with SODC responding to the PAP letter re: Wyevale by 21 November; The Thames Farm Appeal closing towards the end of November; the results of the EA Investigation into the Wyevale matter by 17 November and an update as to the possibility of a JR in respect of the Wyevale approval notices by 24 November.

Finally, and with so much activity occouring in the last 3 months, TFAG will be embarking upon a further fundraising exercise, the first in 3 years of operations, so for further information please and details of our bank account etc please see this page on this website

We will keep residents updated as things progress.

Article created / last edited: 16 November 2023

Thames Farm Update - 02 OCTOBER 2023

Some residents will be aware of some of the most recent events following Greg Stones 2 emails (Updates 14 and 15) to the TFAG supporters and financial contributors database. This web update is to ensure that everyone else is also up to speed given that after a year of little activity suddenly there have been significant developments both at Thames Farm and also in respect of the former Wyevale site.

 It is all about the Aquifers.

To remind residents, the Thames Farm and Wyevale sites lie above major aquifers which are the primary source of Henley’s and Shiplake’s drinking water supply. It is the reason why the Thames Farm site has dissolution features (sink holes) as the aquifers continually erode the chalk substrata and it is also why Taylor Wimpey planned to concrete the whole site to stabilise the ground on which they intend to build a significant housing estate. It is also the reason why the developers of the Wyevale site are proposing to pile the ground to a depth of 16 metres or more to stabilise the ground for their development.

Both SODC and the Environment Agency appear to have overlooked the ‘protected status’ of the land on multiple occasions and cursorily waived both developments through, without adequate due care and attention. Odd you might think when the aquifers are rated by their own standards as being worthy of the highest level of protection (SPZ1 Source Protection Zone 1) and indeed when it is clear that the need for water supply is so important in the UK.

TFAG has used a leading firm of Hydrological Engineers to comment on matters as they have developed – the firm is the one that SODC originally used to prepare their flood map database/risk assessment. JBA has raised a large number of points about the deficiency and unsuitability of the data and information generated by the developers.

As a result, we have been very concerned at the lack of interest and poor reaction from the EA, whose responsibility it is to monitor and protect Source Protection Zones where aquifers exist. They have largely failed to engage with SODC over the latest information about the former Wyevale site where it is now proposed that in order to make the site suitable to develop with the 40 houses and the small commercial unit for which they have Outline consent, it will seemingly be necessary to install a network of 390 piles! We find it hard to believe that this action will have no physical impact on the underground aquifers and certainly having a full and proper Hydrological Risk Assessment produced which the EA reviews and confirms is a true reflection showing that there will be no ill effects from that work is about the minimum we would want to see.

The land above and around the aquifers has been designated by the Environment Agency within the highest possible category of protection, and so it is incredulous that the EA should simply say they have no comments because the conditions within the extant planning permission were not introduced by them!

We think it irrelevant who introduced those conditions, particularly as it seems that SODC failed to consult with the EA when the original application was considered by them.

As a result, TFAG and subsequently our Lawyer has written to both SODC and the EA asking them to :

1. Not make a decision upon the current applications to discharge conditions until both the conditions of the consent have been complied with ie. production of model, and secondly a risk assessment approved.
2. That the EA should properly engage in the process and be seen to be carrying out their statutory duty diligently and comprehensively to monitor and protect the SPZ
3. That if the EA do not have the necessary resources to do this then to hire advisors who are capable of doing it.

We have yet to hear back from the EA, and SODC seem to be ready to issue a decision, hence we have also made a complaint to the Office for Environmental Protection being the regulator here.

TFAG will of course update residents when we have news.

A copy of our lawyers letter to SODC may be seen here

A copy of the letter to the EA may be seen here,

Thames Farm

Two of TFAGs members received a personal letter from SODC advising that Thames Farm was under Appeal. The letters were received on 20 September and stated that the Appeal had opened on 19 September! The letter advised that if the recipient wanted to make comment to the Inspector then that should be submitted by 3 October ie within 13 days including weekends!

Once again, the wheels of bureaucracy grind painfully slow, given that the Planning Inspectorate received the Appeal itself in mid July!

We are further concerned, that the Appeal documents contain many items of new information. This is surprising since the Appeal is one against SODC’s refusal to issue a LDC Lawful Development Certificate at the end of 2021/early 2022 confirming that Taylor Wimpey may carry out its Ground Remediation program (grouting the site with cement and filler material to a depth of 16m) under the terms of the original Planning Permission for the site granted in 2016/17.

Of course in 2016 there was no suggestion that the site might need to be grouted to a depth of c 16m and as such neither SODC nor the other regulatory bodies could consider that aspect.

In view of the short timescale and the late-breaking refusal by the Planning Inspectorate to extend the timetable, we have had to move very rapidly to prepare our response submission on the matter to the Planning Inspectorate.

A copy of the Grounds for Appeal can be seen here

A copy of the submission can be seen here

Once again we will keep residents informed!

Article created / last edited: 3 November 2023

FOUL & SURFACE WATER ISSUES & PILING CONCERNS AT FORMER WYEVALE

The last few weeks have been quite active for TFAG as matters related to the former Wyevale site next door to Thames Farm, have begun to unfold. 

Residents will know that this site, which was also identified in the Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan update was granted an outline planning approval for UPTO 40 residential dwellings plus commercial content. All matters apart from access were reserved for further consideration.

We think it is fair to say that at the time of this Application and outline approval, there was no expectation that the site had underground problems nor that a major Aquifer might be put at risk or that piling would be generally necessary to develop the site.

As matters have evolved and further due diligence undertaken by the developer, a series of further applications have come forward to discharge outstanding conditions. These include foul and surface water discharge and also the developer now seeking approval to piling of the foundations down into and through the Aquifers.

We are concerned about a number of issues that have/are arising as more information is brought to light.

Firstly, piling was not seemingly considered to be a possibility at the time of the original Application. We suspect that because of this, SODC did not consult on this application with the Environmental Agency (EA). 

Secondly, the site sits within a drinking water Source Protection Zone (SPZ grade 1, the highest level of protection afforded) yet still the EA were not consulted

Thirdly, as the original details of the scheme did not envisage major groundworks we question, whether as with Thames Farm,  a fresh Planning Application is needed to permit piling to take place.

As with Thames Farm, inadequate due diligence information was available about the site when the Outline Application was made. However, as further studies have taken place, it is apparent that the ground here may also not be very stable,  hence an apparent need for piling. We think it is quite wrong that Outline Applications should be determined, particularly in areas where there is known to be an SPZ or where the ground itself is known to be problematic .ie. gravel extraction areas, areas with significant chalk deposits and the like.

Fourthly, the EA were consulted on some of the current ‘discharge of reserved matters applications’. These are required to comply with conditions made in the earlier consent. We assume this consultation has happened because either SODC realised its failure to consult the EA on the Outline Application,  or because the issue of ground conditions and piling only arose in these latest applications following more detailed due diligence work.

The EA has responded to these invitations to be consulted as follows :-

From: Planning_THM

Sent: 08 April 2023 11:03 AM

To: registraton@southandvale.gov.uk

Subject: RE: Planning Consultaon - P23/S0994/DIS -

 Dear Emma,

Thank you for consulng us on the above discharge of condion.

This applicaon relates to a condion that was not requested by us, we therefore have no comments to make with regards to the discharge of condition.

The applicant should contact 03708 506 506 or consult our website (hps://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if- you-need-an-environmental-permit) to establish whether a consent will be required.

If you have any other queries please email KSLPLANNING@environment-agency.gov.uk

The EA remains the authority charged with protecting and monitoring SPZ’s. New policy guidance was issued in February 2018 and, for those interested, a copy of this guidance may be found in our documents and evidence store here. This guidance essentially confirms that SPZ’s are there to be protected and usually the EA should not allow development to occur in such areas, and certainly not where the Aquifer is at risk of mechanical damage or contamination.

TFAG believes that the EA has been deficient in its actions (or more accurately its lack of actions) in protecting the aquifer, borehole and water supplies and is not following its own published guidance for groundwater protection.

TFAG has notified both SODC and the EA of its concerns and we are also in contact with our MP, Local Councillors, the 3 Parish and Town Councils affected and in time we will contact the Environment Secretary, the Office for Environmental Protection, Leader of SODC and the media.

Finally, we are sad to see John Sawbridge leave our team due to full time work commitments, and thank him for his invaluable help over the last couple of years.

We are also very pleased to announce that Stephen Seabury has joined us to replace John.Stephen has lived in the village for 30 years and for several years was a governor of Shiplake Primary School.

Now retired, Stephen has a Master’s degree from the University of Birmingham in Water Engineering and takes a keen interest in water resources and the protection of these supplies. He is a very welcome addition to the team where his skills can be put to very good use.

We will keep residents posted of developments as they arise.

PB @ TFAG

NOTE: TFAG provides updates of developments/matters of concern at the sites mentioned to Shiplake Parish Council and, as appropriate, Harpsden and Henley councils. Individual and  joint intiatives may arise from discusions.

Article created / last edited: 12 August 2023

UPDATE Re: FORMER WYEVALE SITE AS AT 03 JULY 2023

It is possible that residents will not be aware of the recent Planning Applications and submission of more comprehensive information that have been submitted in respect of the former Wyevale site by/for its new owners, these include inter alia:

• P23/S0966/DIS – condition 12, foul drainage works
• P23/S0992/DIS – condition 13, surface water drainage works
• P23/S0993/DIS – condition 3, source protection strategy
• P23/S0994/DIS – condition 4, piling method

These discharge Applications seeking the discharge of previous conditional matters were submitted earlier in the year in March when TFAG arranged for its engineers JBA to review the Applications and subsequently to object to those applications.

The objections were made because the Applicant had not provided sufficient due diligence information or complied with the terms of the conditions made when the previous outline approvals were granted / subsequently modified.  We felt that without the additional knowledge about the site and particularly what lay beneath it, and where, it was impossible to quantify the risk of potentially polluting, or indeed the possible extent of such contamination, to the underground aquifers/groundwater that provides the area with its potable water supply via the Thames Water boreholes close by the site.

Our fears and concerns have been heightened as a result of both Thames Water’s and also the EA’s poor record of activity or indeed interest in the activities potentially taking place in or on the edge of Shiplake. Arguably these fears were well founded given the recent publicity over Thames Waters's ability to manage its affairs and further due to the apparent lack of interest being shown by the EA as evidenced in its letter to SODC of 08 April 2023 shown below:

We have therefore kept a watchful eye out for further developments; and the applicant submitted further, more comprehensive information on 16 June.

We have once again asked JBA to review the additional information submitted, as it includes various concerning documents eg. a piling method statement indicating piles are to be driven down through the aquifer layer and beyond, a statement about the low levels of contamination found on site and various other technical reports.

Some of our ongoing concerns are:

1. That the EA’s guidance says to avoid piling if possible. Hence, is there an argument for saying it could be avoided completely with a different layout or a lower density? Is the number of dwellings to be built fixed, or was the illustrative material outwith the original application and subsequent approval?

2. The piles go well down into and perhaps beyond the aquifer. Is that acceptable as a methodology because none of the site contaminants are above trigger levels? What level of certainty do we have of this going forwards?

3. Bizarrely and as stated above, the EA is withholding from commenting because the condition was not one that they had actually requested. This seems a complete abrogation of responsibility particularly as there was an inadequate level of support data submitted initially!

Our lack of confidence in all of the regulatory bodies continues, and they certainly seem to have other bigger issues to contend with, hence our fear that a small place like Shiplake and its issues will simply ‘fall between the cracks as it has so often done in the past.

We will provide a further update when JBA have completed their work.

Article created / last edited: 11 July 2023

UPDATE AS AT @ 22/04/2023

Residents may recall that TFAG objected to the Reserved Matters Planning Application P21/S4271/RM made by Beechcroft Developments in respect of the former Wyevale Garden Center site last year. 

We were concerned that insufficient investigations and due diligence had been undertaken by the developer having regard to what was known about Thames Farm; its geology, and of course the aquifers beneath that site which provide the local supply of drinking water.

SODC took on board many of our engineer's comments and attached a number of conditions to the consent requiring the developer to undertake further investigations and detailed designs of the proposed groundworks and foundations to ensure that the works would not be detrimental to the aquifers beneath the ground or to other residents and their premises in the locality.

In March of 2023, Beechcroft Developments submitted 6 separate Applications seeking to discharge the conditions attached to their earlier consent. These applications deal with issues such as providing full details and the design of any piling; measures to protect the zone in which our drinking water is collected; full details of the collection and discharge of surface water and its transfer free of contaminants to the ground for infiltration; the design of the pumped foul drainage system etc.

We felt that these Applications lacked adequate data and the information needed to address the overarching issues, and therefore sought a further report from JBA to verify this.

TFAG has now submitted JBA's report to SODC and objected to the proposals in view of the inadequacy of the information submitted by the Developer.

A copy of our objection may be seen here.

A copy of JBA's report may be seen here.

We will of course keep residents appraised of further developments as they occur

Article created / last edited: 11 July 2023

THAMES FARM UPDATE @ 05 JANUARY 2022

RESPONDING TO TAYLOR WIMPEY’S 2 NEW APPLICATIONS - YOUR VIEWS ARE IMPORTANT

Residents will know from TFAG's last web update in October and subsequent events that Taylor Wimpey withdrew their Reserved Matters Application P20/S2808/DIS when they were informed by SODC of its intention to reject that Application.

Shortly thereafter and registered by SODC on 08 November, Taylor Wimpey submitted  Application P21/S4524/DIS for the approval of a new Construction Management Plan, but still pursuant to their original Outline Planning Approval. This application to discharge condition 5 of the original consent envisaged proceeding with grouting and vibro-compaction works on the site as part of that Planning Permission. This is, in fact, a second application to discharge condition 5, as an earlier approved application did not envisage any grouting or vibro-compaction of the site at all.

We objected to this application and shortly afterwards, SODC displayed on their web portal a further application  pregistered by SODC on 18 November (but received by them on 8 November 2021). This application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness, essentially asking SODC to confirm that the proposed grouting and vibro-compaction works are works that are permitted and included under that original outline planning permission and also the Certificate of Lawfulness issued by SODC on 6 November 2020. The application provided with it, both a lawyers opinion and also a leading barristers opinion, that this assertion was correct.

TFAG has taken legal advice on this point, and in addition engineering advice on the revised method statement provided with P21/S4524/DIS.

As a result, we believe that those additional works are not works permitted by the extant Outline Planning Permission nor the Certificate of Lawfulness to build the 95 houses.

 TFAG have therefore objected to these applications on the basis that SODC has previously advised residents (on 7th May 2021), that they also believe that those works are NOT included in the base Planning Permission and should be the subject of a fresh and separate planning application.

 TFAG has no reason to believe that SODC is going to change its position of 7 May 2021. However, following the unexpected decisions in 2020 to approve the substantial (in our opinion) amendment to that original consent and also the then inevitable issuing of a certificate of lawfulness, somewhat illogically and contrasting with the views of the responsible planning officers, we have to be sure that SODC will continue to maintain its stance in the matter.

TFAG’s letter of objection is shown here and in the database and evidence page of this website. There is also a template for residents to join with us and object here.

We know that this process is lengthy and tiresome but unfortunately we have no control over the submissions that Taylor Wimpey choose to make, which have been a relentless effort to avoid having to make a completely new and fresh application on the site for these new/additional works.

As residents your support is IMPORTANT and strongly appreciated.

Our thanks ...TFAG

Article created / last edited: 6 January 2022

THAMES FARM DRAINAGE - UPDATE AS AT 10th OCTOBER

Since Taylor Wimpey submitted their additional information regarding the ground remediation project that they intend to undertake before building their houses on 15 September, we have received some quite confusing messages/statements from SODC. The latest being on Thursday 7th October. This is reproduced verbatim below:

Dear Peter

 My apologies for the delay in getting back to you.  Adrian has asked me to respond to your most recent queries and I hope that I will be able to provide some clarity and assistance on the issues that you have raised. 

P20/S2808/DIS is an ‘application for the approval of details reserved by condition’ and is not a mechanism for the council to make a formal determination on whether the groundworks are an engineering operation that requires planning permission.  The only matter that we will consider under P20/S2808/DIS is whether the drainage strategy that Taylor Wimpey has proposed is acceptable.  

 As the additional information submitted for P20/S2808/DIS also included further information on the nature and extent of the groundworks we shared this as we knew that it will be of interest to the local community.  Having returned from a fortnight's leave this week, I have not yet had an opportunity to review the additional information.  As previously advised, our current view is that the proposed groundworks go beyond the scope of the existing consent and require planning permission.   

 As with previous consultations, we will accept comments on the additional information up until the date that we determine the application.  As we now have a target date of 27 October I recommend submitting comments no later than 25 October.  I hope that this provides sufficient time to comment on the proposed drainage strategy.

 In terms of other updates, Taylor Wimpey emailed me the attached plan whilst I was on leave.  This is to accompany the information that they submitted on 15 September.  I will add this to the file so that it is available on the website. 

 If you have any further questions about the process please feel free to come back to me or give me a call on the number below. 

Kind regards

Emma 

This is a fairly confusing response of course as the additional grouting 'project' information has been submitted as part of what should be a simple Reserved Matters submission dealing with an outline drainage strategy for the site. Such a submission is not the correct place to consider a separate and new ground remediation project, which Adrian Duffield has confirmed in his letter to residents of 7 May would require an entirely separate Planning Permission and would be subject to the normal forms of scrutiny that any full application has to go through. Taylor Wimpey however, does not accept that position and is clearly trying to get the matter approved as part of their drainage submission.

TFAG is taking legal advice on a number of points and is meeting tomorrow 11 October to discuss that advice and consider what to do as a result.

In addition, JBA the engineers, who have worked with Shiplake Parish and ourselves since the outset, and who are now also representing Harpsden and Henley Councils have been commissioned to report on the latest information submitted. Their report will not be available for review until the week after next due to holidays and other commitments. 

TFAG has also asked SODC to clarify exactly what they are consulting on given the contents of the email reproduced above since the submission from Taylor Wimpey with this ground remediation information has been referred to as an amendment to the Application which of course conflicts with what SODC say above.

This is all very unfortunate and confusing which given the history of the matter is no great surprise. It is also the exact situation that TFAG identified as the most likely end position given the way in which SODC has permitted this situation to arise. It causes considerable difficulty in terms of the timescales for responses from consultees as no one is clear exactly what SODC are seeking consultation responses about given in one letter they refer to responses to the amended plans and in this latest note they say they will only be considering the drainage strategy and nothing else at this stage.

We apologise to residents for this very muddled situation, but SODC has not been prepared to listen or modify how they have been treating the situation hence resulting in what we felt was the inevitable confused outcome.

An extension of time for deciding this matter has been requested on 3 occasions now from SODC, and as yet they have not agreed to this. It has been requested yet again following receipt of the above email, and we await their response yet again.

We know that many of you are keen to support TFAG and submit representations to SODC over the application/situation, and we expect to be able to give you guidance on this soon. In addition, we are working on a position statement for the Annual Parish Meeting due on 20th October

We thank you for your support, patience, and forbearance in what has been a very complex and difficult 12 months.

Article created / last edited: 8 December 2021

THAMES FARM DRAINAGE - UPDATE 25th SEPTEMBER 2021!

PREPARE FOR ACTION!

The latest developments at Thames Farm came last week when Taylor Wimpey finally submitted the supporting documentation to their Drainage Strategy Application requested by Thames Water.

What is most conspicuous by its absence is a fresh Planning Application for the ground stabilisation and compaction work as promised by Adrian Duffield (Head of Planning at SODC) in his letter to residents of May 7^th.

Clearly Taylor Wimpey has no intention of submitting such an application and believe that they have sufficient authority to complete all the works under their existing Planning Permission. We agree with SODC that they do not!

What is not clear, is whether SODC is going to stand fast and enforce their requirement for a separate Planning Application, or allow the current Reserved Matters application to proceed to a final decision. A date has been set by SODC of 27^th October for a final decision. They have also called for consultation responses by 11 October, and we have requested an extension given the short period and the huge amount of information to be considered. TFAG has also asked Mr Duffield to confirm that SODC will indeed require a full Planning Application here.

Residents should be aware that the rights of objection and rejection that go with a fresh application are far greater than with those of just considering supporting information to an existing consent. The principle of the proposal/development submitted for example, can be considered with a fresh application!

PLEASE REMEMBER, aside from the potential flooding and significant disruption that is highly likely to result if the proposed offsite drainage scheme is permitted, the ground stabilisation and compaction is the major issue for us all. It will require filling the ground with concrete grout material up to a depth of 16 metres across much of the 5.7 hectares site. It will also involve vibrating and compacting most of the surface area of the site. The 16 metres will be above the precious AQUIFER that Thames Water uses to abstract  OUR DRINKING WATER - for Harpsden Henley and Shiplake and which is abstracted just a few short metres away!

THE RISK OF CONTAMINATION OF OUR WATER SOURCE IS TOO HIGH!

Also, flow rates may well be affected meaning Thames Water may not be able to abstract the volumes of water required.

The grouting and compaction work itself will take c. 25-34 weeks to do. Taylor Wimpey's reports refer to both periods! It will involve an estimated (by Taylor Wimpey!) 3,700 heavy goods and other delivery vehicle movements to deliver the  thousands of tonnes of concrete and other material to fill in the sinkholes and voids beneath the site. Total vehicle movement are said to be c 6,000 for just the ground stabilisation works let alone any other work on site. If the program is 34 weeks then presumably the movements will be greater pro-rata. The vehicle movements alone will be relentless! The noise dust and vibrations will be constant, and how this will affect nearby properties and also the existing water flows is anyone’s guess. We will be perched on the edge of a massive building site for maybe 3 years as the ground is first prepared and the houses built!

WE MUST MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD YET AGAIN !

We can make a difference to the process, if SODC enforces the need for a separate Planning Approval, which we think they MUST. We can engage in that process and influence any ultimate outcome.

We are genuinely at risk. We must pressurise SODC to stand by the undertaking given by Mr Duffield and make them insist on a separate Planning Application from Taylor Wimpey to cover the ground remediation work. This engineering operation is huge, completely unexpected and was never envisaged. This is the only way that this work which we feel will result in ecological and environmental vandalism can be given the proper rigorous scrutiny it undoubtedly requires.

TFAG is urgently appraising all the latest documentation submitted and is getting professional Engineering and Legal advice. Once this is done (within the next three weeks), TFAG will issue (via this website and an Update email to subscribed supporters) a briefing for the community and a template of objections to refer to SODC.

SO PLEASE STAND READY TO ACT!

YOUR VOICE IS NEEDED.

Article created / last edited: 13 October 2021

THAMES FARM OBJECTIONS: FINAL CALL

Many thanks to the many who have objected to date. You  all make a difference! Holidays and other commitments may have meant you have been unable to. If so, please object to ensure a safer, better future for Shiplake - Harpsden and Henley too - it makes sense at every level. It is as easy as clicking here. Go to the template response, copy the text and before the end of August send to:

planning@southoxon.gov.uk

planning reference: P20/S2808/DIS-HAR  

Article created / last edited: 27 August 2021

THAMES FARM: HAVE YOU REGISTERED YOUR OBJECTIONS?

We reserve contacting residents by direct email for important information and issues. In this case it is to ensure everyone is aware of the potential damage to Shiplake’s (your) drinking water, alongside flooding concerns resulting from Taylor Wimpey’s (TW) development plans at Thames Farm. YOUR strong support in opposing the prior application for drainage for this site resulted in Taylor Wimpey having to change their plans; Lower Shiplake should now not be liable to additional flooding and trees damaged /destroyed /removed. TW’s own consultants subsequently concurred that the proposals were inappropriate. There is little doubt your objections stopped the application being approved.

Flooding is not the only issue, however, and TW’s revised plans for the site include the potential destruction of the underground aquifer, which is the source of Shiplake, Harpsden and Henley’s drinking water. The three councils have co-funded hydrogeological consultants to assess the potential damage to our water supply alongside flooding concerns and are strongly objecting to TW’s revised proposals, as have over 120 residents already. Thames Water are also objecting to the proposals and requesting necessary information to substantiate the viability of TW’s proposals.

Conscious of objector’s fatigue and the holiday season, this is a short note to encourage all residents to object to the Taylor Wimpey Planning application that will potentially imperil our water supply and cause flooding in the parish and beyond. You can find out more by visiting the TFAG website pages AND, conscious of your time, you can access a template response to register your objections to SODC. YOU WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

A final thought for your consideration is the government’s high priority concerns regarding climate and ecological issues with a commitment to ensuring governments around the world do all they can to prevent further damage to the environment. Why would you approve a scheme that involves building 2 pumping stations, underground water concrete collection tanks and the potential contamination/destruction of our drinking water source; a scheme requiring long term energy requirements and other operational and maintenance costs, ultimately borne by residents c/o Thames Water utility bills? Meanwhile TW have no long-term financial costs or liabilities? It does not make sense unless contributing to TW’s increasing profits! There is another alternative utilising conventional natural drainage systems! Why not?

Please object to ensure a safer, better future for Shiplake - Harpsden and Henley too - it makes sense at every level.

Many thanks for your support.

Article created / last edited: 9 August 2021

NEW DRAINAGE SUBMISSION BY TAYLOR WIMPEY JUNE 2021

SAVE OUR AQUIFER!!! 

Residents will be aware that Taylor Wimpey has submitted updated details of its drainage strategy proposals to SODC in late June. 

We thought, therefore, that it would be useful to provide a general update of the last few months activities whilst we awaited responses from JBA the Water Engineers and Temple Bright our Lawyers to the new submissions and also some specific questions we have asked of both. 

General Update

May 2021

A letter was sent to residents from Adrian Duffield (Head of Planning SODC) on 7^th May stating that the proposal by Taylor Wimpey to grout the Thames Farm site and fill up the sink holes will require a formal planning application and public consultation; ie the changes proposed by Taylor Wimpey ARE MATERIAL as TFAG has been arguing since October last year.

June 2021

After persistent lobbying from TFAG Chair, Peter Boros, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has agreed to investigate the actions of SODC Planning in its granting of a retrospective variation permission to Taylor Wimpey last year.  TFAG has been adamant that the variations proposed by Taylor Wimpey were material and that the variation should not have been granted, and that a further full application or a material variation application be made so that the complex drainage issue is not dealt with under reserved matters.

The Ombudsman has yet to publish the decision, and we continue to have a dialogue with them over the detail. It should be noted however, that the Ombudsman can only consider SODC's processes in this matter and has no say over whether the decisions taken are good or bad ones or taken in a timely manner for that matter. 

TFAG has requested full disclosure from the Environment Agency and Thames Water on all correspondence and exchange of information with SODC and Taylor Wimpey with particular reference to the proposed grouting of the site and data on the water table and aquifer. TFAG is still awaiting a response from the EA.

 July 2021

The long-awaited submission from Taylor Wimpey has been made, but for a revised drainage strategy taking the ‘Northern Route’ along the A4155 towards Henley and pumping the surface water into the Thames via a watercourse alongside Sheep House Farm and down Mill Road in Henley. There is no mention of the grouting/groundworks.

TFAG, Shiplake Parish Council, Harpsden Parish Council and Henley Town Council have all requested an extension to respond to this application via its legal representatives as SODC has only given residents 14 days to respond which is unreasonable given that Taylor Wimpey had 8 months to produce its most recent proposal.  

TFAG, Shiplake Parish Council, Harpsden Parish Council and Henley Town Council have together commissioned independent reports on the latest Taylor Wimpey submission. These will be available during w/c 19 July

TFAG believes that Taylor Wimpey will attempt to get the drainage position agreed and then will challenge the decision by SODC as stated in the letter from Adrian Duffield, that a new application will be required for the grouting activity. We do not have confidence that SODC will hold this position firm, and we know from our FoI requests that Taylor Wimpeys initial reaction was to refute the suggestion that a further Planning Application is needed!!!

Considerations for Residents.

Why does TFAG believe that the grouting of the site and the drainage are linked?

Quite simply the new pumped drainage plan is necessary because Taylor Wimpey believe that the site cannot sustain on-site drainage as the ground has to be stabilised to enable the proposed 95 dwellings to be built. The grouting will prevent the surface water from draining through the ground as normal, so an off-site solution is required they say. However, we believe that if grouting is required, then the extent of the grouting works needs to be designed and modelled in order to determine how much surface water needs to be taken off-site and what attenuation is needed on-site?

 Does the proposed ‘Northern Route’ concern Shiplake residents?

Very much so, even though the initial plan of discharging the surface water into the Lashbrook seems to have been dropped, if Taylor Wimpey is successful in its application then the ‘end game’ is solely concerning the water table and the aquifer. This could then possibly be a legal decision if SODC insist upon Taylor Wimpey submitting a new planning application for the ground stabilisation, and Taylor Wimpey challenges this. Should Taylor Wimpey take a legal position then residents would have no say whatsoever., as the matter would be decided by the Courts, and go against SODC potentially, assuming of course that they did indeed agree to defend that decision in the first place. There would also be massive disruption to the A4155 for a considerable period of time as well as potential flooding of local amenities. The pumped solution also runs volte face to environmental considerations.

What is an Aquifer?

Per National Geographic:-

An aquifer is a body of rock and/or sediment that holds groundwater. ie. precipitation that has infiltrated the soil beyond the surface and collected in empty spaces underground. There are two general types of aquifers: confined and unconfined. Confined aquifers have a layer of impenetrable rock or clay above them, while unconfined aquifers lie below a permeable layer of soil.

Many different types of sediments and rocks can form aquifers, including gravel, sandstone, conglomerates, and fractured limestone. Aquifers are sometimes categorized according to the type of rock or sediments of which they are composed. A common misconception about aquifers is that they are underground rivers or lakes. While groundwater can seep into or out of aquifers due to their porous nature, it cannot move fast enough to flow like a river. The rate at which groundwater moves through an aquifer varies depending on the rock’s permeability.

Much of the water we use for domestic, industrial, or agricultural purposes is groundwater. Most groundwater, including a significant amount of our drinking water, comes from aquifers. In order to access this water, a well must be created by drilling a hole that reaches the aquifer. While wells are manmade points of discharge for aquifers, they also discharge naturally at springs and in wetlands.

Groundwater can become depleted if we use it at a faster rate than it can replenish itself. The replenishment of aquifers by precipitation is called recharging. Depletion of aquifers has increased primarily due to expanding agricultural irrigation. Groundwater can become contaminated when an excessive amount of pesticides and herbicides are sprayed on agricultural fields, septic tanks leak, or landfills are improperly lined or managed and toxic materials seep through the soil into the aquifer. Aquifers naturally filter groundwater by forcing it to pass through small pores and between sediments, which helps to remove substances from the water. This natural filtration process, however, may not be enough to remove all of the contaminants.

The Aquifers at Thames Farm are accessed via the borehole(s) on the corner of Bolney Lane and Reading Road, ie just diagonally opposite Thames Farm by Thames Water in order to supply Henley and environs with its drinking water supply!

Why should Shiplake residents oppose the latest drainage scheme from Taylor Wimpey?

Should Taylor Wimpey be successful with its latest drainage application then the real concerns already communicated by TFAG over the danger to Shiplake and Henley’s drinking water, the potential damage to the flow of the aquifer and ensuing environmental damage, flooding of local amenities and major disruption to everyday lives becomes one step closer.

What can Shiplake residents do?

If you believe that the proposal from Taylor Wimpey is wrong then object, object and object again, by email, letter, social media and lobbying SODC, OCC, The Environment Agency, John Howell and Thames Water.

The reason that Taylor Wimpey is having to submit a revised plan to their initial application which was to dig up Station Road and discharge the surface water into the Lashbrook is because over 150 residents sent in letters of objection and the support residents have given TFAG.

We expect to have the reports back from our advisors next week, at which point we will be in a better position to provide guidance on how we should move forwards.

The Parish Council will also be reviewing matters once the advisors have reported.

We are close to one or possibly two momentous decisions regarding our community.

Your participation counts. Make your voice heard.

Article created / last edited: 16 July 2021

UPDATE AS AT END OF APRIL 2021

Residents will be aware that TFAG had an online meeting in late February with Taylor Wimpey which resulted in our publishing on the website Taylor Wimpey’s latest thinking for a new route for their Thames Farm site drainage. We also published for consultation with residents, a draft report for Taylor Wimpey referred to as a Flood Risk Appraisal prepared by Enzygo which sought to analyse the different drainage options and ultimately come forwards with this new route - not previously seen which took the pumped off-site drainage to the North along Reading Road and then close to Jubilee Park on the outskirts of Henley.

Whilst encouraging news for Shiplake residents, from the perspective that the Lashbrook discharge now appears to have been dropped, and indeed stated to be adding to the flood risk at Lashbrook by Enzygo themselves, understandably, Henley Town Council and Harpsden Parish Council were surprised and alarmed at the prospect of a large amount of surface water being taken towards Jubilee Park which is also prone to flooding. All-weather sports facilities that exist there would be at risk, not to mention houses and land that then might also face additional flood risks. Enzygo’s report suggested that the risk of additional flooding might be minimal and perhaps as little as 1mm, but to an all-weather pitch, 1 mm extra is 1 mm too much, and flooding land ear marked for development was unwelcome! Henley Town Council and Harpsden Parish Council have therefore commissioned their own report on the potential for flooding on the ‘new route’.

Nothing more of substance has been heard from Taylor Wimpey since that meeting despite requests for the provision of data to show how the potable water supply feeding the Harpsden - Thames Water controlled borehole might be impacted by any grouting proposals that Taylor Wimpey might have. Reminder requests have been sent, but so far, we have no further information from Taylor Wimpey beyond that which is already in the public domain. That suggests that grouting may need to occur below the level of the water table at Thames Farm hence the potential threat to the aquifers beneath the site that in turn feed the potable supply to the Harpsden bore hole.

In parallel with this, we also received a response from SODC’s – Adrian Duffield Head of Planning Services as the person whom had undertaken the phase 2 complaint process at SODC. This has also been duly published on the web site here.

Having received what we considered to be a poor response that appeared to defend SODC from our criticisms, we felt that the stage 2 process like the stage 1 process had not properly addressed the issues raised. Accordingly, TFAG took 2 further steps at that point.

1. To raise a Freedom of Information Act request for disclosure of SODC’s files in the matters complained of, and
2. To lodge an application with the Local Government Ombudsman Service.

Both processes are not quick, but we received a bundle of 200 document trails from SODC under the FoI heading last week with 9 documents they are not prepared to release for reasons of potentially causing an ‘in-justice’ being documents they suggest might be exempt from disclosure.  We have also heard that the Ombudsman service has now appointed an investigating officer to review the matter.

Some of the items received via the FoI did not sit well/contradicts what had been previously explained to us by SODC Planning and so we have reverted to SODC’s Adrian Duffield on 22 April, copying in the Ombudsman Service with that correspondence. We have also objected to the failure to release the 9 documents as we were not clear how and why the release of these documents could possibly be prejudicial to ‘Justice’ if they supported SODC’s position and actions in this matter.

As of today, we await a further move by Taylor Wimpey to present their proposals, and have asked them to confirm their intentions.

In the interim, residents may be interested to read some of the remarks we have submitted back to SODC’s Adrian Duffield and also copied to Mark Stone the CEO, Councillor Anne-Marie Simpson the Cabinet Member responsible for Planning and others. Extracts of the letter which is quite long may be found here.

Article created / last edited: 5 May 2021

TAYLOR WIMPEY'S LATEST PROPOSALS

Residents will be aware that TFAG met Taylor Wimpey in an online meeting on 24 February. Whilst we have only received the latest proposals a matter of hours before the meeting we felt it important that the community was able to see first hand these proposals even though we have not yet had a chance to fully digest the latest data nor have JBA undertaken any analysis of it.

Below are a series of documents that we received being:

Plan of new route

More detailed design plan

Flood Risk Appraisal

Tree Impacts

The proposed route for the new surface water drain is wholly different to the previously proposed one and avoids taking the new offsite main through Shiplake Village completely. Instead, it takes a new main to the North along Reading Road towards Henley and then connects into a connection point in Reading Road. Thereafter the waste water heads East behind Sheephouse Farm towards the River Thames.

This is very welcome news indeed on the face of it and should remove what was the threat of increased flooding within the Village as well as the disruption along Station Road and Mill Road that this drain would otherwise have involved.

The foul drainage proposals which include the enlargement of the extant pipework in Station Road all as previously approved is not referred to in the documentation we have seen hence we assume those proposals remain unchanged.

Taylor Wimpey intend to write to residents informing them of today’s discussions with TFAG and thereafter intend to submit the relevant application to SODC in apprx. 3 weeks time

Residents should understand that this information that Taylor Wimpey have provided is provided prior to any application to SODC and as part of an informal consultation. Hence if residents have any queries or questions then these should be raised via TFAG as no formal submission is being made for some weeks to come.

We are analysing the rest of the information particularly that which relates to onsite works and grouting of the site and any impacts on the aquifer and have requested further information from Taylor Wimpey in that regard.

We will issue a further update shortly when we have been able to fully digest this information.

We see this information as a very positive change of direction for the benefit of the Village and its residents.

Article created / last edited: 3 March 2021

THAMES FARM PLANS STILL THREATEN SHIPLAKE

IS ANYONE LOOKING AFTER MY INTERESTS? HOW CONCERNED SHOULD I BE?

This article summarises the current state of affairs and invites you to familiarise yourself with the information now on this website, and to be prepared to assist as we continue to address this threat.

Images published in the Shiplake Flooding & Drainage Issues ‘flyer’circulated in December obviously cause concern. Please take a look at them again, then see what Google Search for Taylor Wimpey + Flooding brings up and become seriously concerned!

The question to ask is, who is looking after our interests? SODC, OCC, Thames Water, the EA?

One would have thought so, but…think again, see the Freedom of Information (FoI) response from SODC, one of several received by a resident referencing emails between SODC, Taylor Wimpey (TW) and their consultant, seeking approval of their plans on the scheduled date of 23rd October 2020, and begin to be even more concerned. It is difficult not to conclude that SODC - the ultimate approving authority - only stopped and decided a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was necessary, together with an outstanding requirement to be agreed regarding potential damage to trees, following the enormous number of residents’ objections and the actions of our District Councillors, local MP, Parish Council and the Thames Farm Action Group (TFAG).

Otherwise, it appears SODC would have approved the application! SODC had already approved the extensive A4155 roadworks for Thames Farm, although the Planning Inspector, who approved the original planning application, specifically stated ALL material matters (‘reserved’) had to be approved/agreed before commencement of any construction work related to the site???

Residents’ views have undoubtedly made a difference at this stage….YOUR VOICE MATTERS! You may have been able to make a difference earlier had such matters been made public??

One begins to understand why there are so many issues with flooding on building sites and, yes, TW features strongly! What of the views of relevant, responsible authorities, the Environment Agency, Thames Water, SODC and OCC Flood Officers …it all seems a bit like ‘pass the parcel’. The Thames Farm site is in a low-risk area of flooding and whatever flooding outcomes and environmental damages occur on site, or any flooding elsewhere in the Shiplake area, are not of sufficient consequence…’not my responsibility’ it seems? Illogical but apparently a reality? One begins to appreciate how tragic incidents occur as a result of profit motives of developers and lack of diligence/responsibility on the part of relevant authorities and companies. In our case it seems final ‘responsibility’ lies between OCC and SODC local authorities??

So, again, who is looking after your interests?

Well, YOU ARE if you are one of the 227 residents who have registered as a supporter of the Thames Farm Action Group (TFAG), many of whom have made significant donations to fund the actions of the group e.g legal and other fees. Add to this the 1100+ local residents who signed the petition AND, yes, all those who wrote to SODC registering their objections to the TW proposals. The Parish Council is also strongly supporting the community, and paying for technical expertise to scrutinise whatever flood risk assessment and new proposals TW submit in the future….we apparently have to wait for another 2-3 months - well beyond the 23rd October date, and the proposed 6 week extension to it. We will then be notified and given only 14 days to respond after SODC ‘make public’ the proposals ……TFAG have formally requested at least 3 weeks to assess the proposal, not least to allow time for our retained consultants to scrutinise TW’s proposals. This has been refused by SODC.

TFAG members have researched the history of the planning application, with the benefit of legal advice and technical consultants (JBA) with regard to TW’s drainage proposals. JBA's site assessment has raised serious questions, not least with respect to the potential environmental damage that could result. The outcome of this and correspondence with SODC is that a formal complaint, regarding procedural planning matters, has been submitted to the Chief Executive of SODC, to which a response is awaited. It has also engaged with TW senior/executive management to seek an outcome that will not have potentially disastrous consequences for Shiplake and its residents. A virtual meeting took place on 18th December 2020, at which TW referred to evaluating other possible options for drainage of the site over the next 2- 3 months, which they would discuss with TFAG (on behalf of the community) 2-3 weeks prior to formal submission to SODC. A further meeting was scheduled for 16th February 2021….now 24^th February 2021.

We await TW’s proposals. TFAG will keep residents updated on progress of discussions with SODC and TW via this website and important notifications to Shiplake residents. You can access the links referenced in this update plus other important information via new/updated website pages accessed via the LOCAL AREA icon: Thames Farm Notifications and Thames Farm Evidence & Information. Find out more about what the TFAG team is doing on behalf of residents to ensure the regulatory authorities and TW discharge their responsibilities in a manner that delivers the best outcome for Shiplake.

Add your weight to efforts to ensure this happens

…become a TFAG supporter at a click, sign the petition at a click and hold our public services and TW to account…no wriggle room…no ‘we do not have a choice’…no more, we cannot change these things no matter what the impact is OR, it is not our responsibility!

We need your help …read the information on the website pages….your chance to ensure Shiplake evolves constructively and safely!

 YOUR VOICE MATTERS….A LOT!!

 YOUR DONATIONS HELP AS WELL!!

Article created / last edited: 14 February 2021