This post was created in June 2025 and has been kept up to date to reflect the changing situation. For an overview of the background to this, see the foot of this post (green heading).

More information about Thatcham and the surrounding villages can be found in Penny Post’s Thatcham Area Weekly News column, updated every Thursday evening and at other times as necessary. This includes news stories (including this issue), events, information on voluntary and community groups and updates from the town and parish councils.

7 August 2025 update: two further questions

We wrote about this last week (see below). Following the meeting on 24 July, I understand that Bucklebury PC will be responding to WBC quite soon (so, well in advance of the 5 September deadline) and that Thatcham TC, Midgham PC and Cold Ash PC are intending to.

Aside from agreeing details like who will be on the working group/s, how often they meet, who the consultants will be and what role they’ll play, there seem to be two issues that need to be resolved.

The first is everyone having a clear understanding of what is in and what is out of the project’s scope. I’m told that WBC’s presentation was fairly clear on this point but some grey areas might remain. As I understand it, in-scope matters include anything on the site or directly impacted by the development: out-of-scope matters would include ones further away such as, perhaps, some of the highways concerns in Cold Ash.

There are also matters ranging from sewage works to the permitted hours of operation which will be dealt with later, either when organisations with statutory responsibilities like Thames Water get involved or when what promises to be the very long list of planning conditions are agreed. Some of these will therefore be several years away.

The parishes, however, have been looking at all these issues for a long time, often acting on feedback from their residents. If the parishes are going to stop mentioning them now, they’ll need cast-iron reassurances that they will be dealt with at some point. The alternative is that the sessions get bogged down in points which can’t be developed and fed into the supplementary planning document which this exercise will produce. Some deft chairmanship is called for.

The second matter is that the developers are producing some outline proposals, which will be more fleshed-out versions of what were considered in the Main Modifications of the local plan. Only on sight of these can the participants understand what it is that they need to react to and, as necessary, influence. As mentioned before, this is the communities’ last chance to do this.

Throughout the process, the parishes will need to temper proactivity with realism. It isn’t goin

31 July 2025 update: the masterplanning takes off

As mentioned last week, a meeting finally took place recently to get the masterplanning exercise for NE Thatcham started. This was chaired by the Portfolio Holder, Denise Gaines, and included officers from WBC and representatives from all the affected parishes. The first step is (along with the last) often the hardest and it was one that WBC for some time seemed reluctant to take. Anyway, it’s happened now.

For those unfamiliar with this issue, this represents the last opportunity for the local community to have any say in the nature of a development which will effectively create a town the size of Hungerford between Thatcham and Bucklebury. All the wrangles and discord of the last four years must now be set aside. This development will happen. The question is what the parishes and other stakeholders can do to influence its final form.

So: what have we learned from this initial session?

The first is that although the Planning Inspector mandated this process, its result (a supplementary planning document or SPD) and it’s timescale (a year), he will have no part in its creation or approval. This is for WBC to manage.

The second is that the 365-day deadline (10 June 2026) remains an aspiration but is not set in stone. No guillotine will descend. However, it’s hard to see that the developers (who’re paying for this and who will want to get on with the work), the exhausted officers and the punch-drunk local councils will want to prolong this beyond then if they can avoid it.

It must, however, be done properly. This really is the last chance. There’s still a lot to be agreed and not an infinity of time in which to agree it. We’ll look at some of these at the end.

Other points that seem to have been addressed, in whole or in part, at the meeting included:

• At least two community engagement events, probably in September or October.
• Confirmation that the the aspects relating to healthcare will we developed in conjunction with the local integrated care board.
• An infrastructure delivery plan will be created to define the sequencing of the development.
• An email address will be set up for comments and questions.
• A full-time planning officer, also paid for by the consortium of developers, may be appointed.

Other questions remain. These include the exact geographic scope of the work, what opinions will be sought from others, how the meetings will be structured and whether minutes will be produced, how progress will be measured, how much influence parishes will have on matters beyond their boundaries and who the consultants will be who’ll be conducting the engagement and the formal consultation.

The suggestion was also made that the Scrutiny Committee be asked to consider the results. Given the absence of the Inspector (which in some ways simplifies things), this would seem to be a useful check. The Committee has proved itself to be an effective instrument to challenge and question the Council and – when it has been able to have its reports published – has made some valuable comments. This might add a month to schedule but would seem to be time well spent – another matter in the “TBD” box.

Summer holidays or not, the next couple of months seem crucial. The pace needs to be kept up and these points agreed so that everyone knows what’s expected of them. This is the last-chance saloon. No one wants a chaotic brawl when closing time comes round next summer. WBC has started – now it needs to crack on and take all these participants with it.

7 July 2025 update

The main thing is that this there is no update: and that’s kind of the point.

As described below (see “The master-planning exercise”), the Planning Inspector mandated in April 2025 that such a task be embarked upon with a vew to creating a supplementary planning document (SPD). This must be accomplished within twelve months.

Officially, this twelve-month period started on 10 June 2025 when West Berkshire Council voted to adopt the local plan. Unofficially, however, much could have been done in the period between the publication of the Inspector’s report on 8 April and this meeting in expectation of, and preparation for, Council approval. If it was then, as mentioned below, none of the participants were apprised of this.

We’re now four weeks on from this vote and it seems that still very little has changed. What we surely should have by now is the people involved in the process (“site promotors, relevant town and parish councils, the community and other stakeholders”, whoever exactly the last two comprise) being clear clear as to what was involved and the timetable; and a public announcement saying “we’ve started” to let local residents know. Neither of these things appear to have happened.

I understand that there’s to be a meeting on 24 July on the subject. This, however, seems merely be to get the ball rolling. By then, however, over ten percent of the time allowed will have been used up. The summer holidays will also be about to descend, so making early September the likely start date for any real work. That will then be a quarter of the way through period. Even by the standards of planning departments and councils generally, this seems like exceedingly leisurely progress.

It must be assumed that the deadline of 10 June 2026 is a serious one. If the project hasn’t been done by then, the developers – who can’t lodge even outline applications until this has happened – will have a case that the SPD should not be waited for. This case would be strengthened by any evidence of perceived heel-dragging by WBC. If this is indeed the outcome, any work that’s been done on it will have been collossal waste of time.

If it is completed but, because of this slow start, rushed and less good than it might have been, the local communities will feel they’ve been let down. They may be starting to feel this way already.

This is the last remaining chance to influence what these area-changing developments will look like. The Inspector has provided a clear timetable and outcome, and ordered the developers to stand back until it was accomplished. If this exercise falters then, come next June, it will be the developers who’re calling the shots, not WBC or the local communities. It will, in short, be development by appeal – exactly the unwelcome outcome that the whole drawn-out process of doing a local plan at all was intended to avoid.

Starting the clock

On 12 June I decided somewhat to retract a point I made below.

In it, I criticised WBC for not seeming to be expediting work the masterplanning exercise for NE Thatcham, which the Planning Inspector had mandated. It’s since been pointed out that it would have been improper for anything formal to have started before the local plan was officially adopted lest this be seen to pre-judge WBC’s decision. The clock therefore started ticking towards it’s 365-day deadline on 11 June.

I spoke to the portfolio holder, Denise Gaines, about this on 12 June. She assured me that this was a process which she is taking very seriously and that contact was being made with all the groups and stakeholders who need to be involved and that a timetable of work was being drawn up. We look forward to reporting on the progress of this and, in particular, highlighting any aspect which requires public participation or engagement.

Ivor McArdle the Chair of Cold Ash Parish Council, one of the ones directly affected by the NE Thatcham plans, told me the same day he expected that CAPC would be fully involved in the exercise and that he looked forward to hearing from WBC.

He also expressed the hope that “due consideration” would be given to the consequences of the two sites at Henwick which had been bolted on to the local plan at the last minute by the Inspector. This would seem sensible: although not part of the NE Thatcham site, the consequences of any development here surely will have an effect on Thatcham’s future infrastructure needs.

Where are we?

However, as of 26 June, I’m still not completely convinced that the “meaningful engagement with the community and other stakeholders”, as mandated by the Planning Inspector (see below) is really under way.

A letter from Barry Dickens, the Chair of Bucklebury PC (BPC), which we received this week said that BPC was “ready to engage fully and constructively with the masterplanning process for the site to mitigate the worst aspects and support aspects of benefit to residents.”

He went on to say that “Our understanding of the ‘community engagement’ on masterplanning is a process whereby we and other stakeholders are involved in the definition of the process from its inception right through to its conclusion in the production of a Supplementary Planning Document. It is not just being asked to comment, under the pretext of consultation, on agreements between WBC and the site’s developers.”

The syntax suggests a process that has yet to start, rather than one that’s already well under way. A spokesperson from Cold Ash PC told me on 26 June that WBC has so far made the right noises about engagement but that the actual work needs to start, and quickly.

I admit we’re only about three weeks into the exercise but there is a deadline and only 49 weeks left. Work on this needs to crack on and be done in an effective and inclusive way. It won’t be an opportunity that’ll come again before the area is changed for ever. This is the community’s last change to influence what happens.

The master-planning exercise: the background

In April 2025, the Planning Inspector produced his report on the main modifications to WBC’s draft local plan. This included consideration of whether “policy SP17, relating to a strategic allocation at North East Thatcham, [was] justified and consistent with national policy, and would be effective in achieving sustainable development on the site” He considers these point in paragraphs 107 to 156.

His conclusion was that this would be consistent, providing the the housing numbers were raised from 1,500 to 2,500. This reverts matters back to where they were when the plan was first conceived several years ago to plug the gap caused by the collapse of the Grazeley scheme.

I think most of the combatants in this exhauting struggle have now realised that that’s that. A recent legal opinion obtained by some local residents has suggested that there are not good grounds for challenging the Inspector’s decision on this point, or on the allocation of the CA12 and CA17 sites at Henwick and Regency Park, and that “the prospects of success would be low.” Attention now turns to engagement with the masterplanning process for the SP17 site, which provides local communities with some influence over what form the development takes.

With regard to this, it’s worth quoting the Inspector’s paragraph 117 in full:

“To facilitate meaningful engagement with the community and other stakeholders, and ensure that the masterplan effectively guides the development of the site, policy SP17 needs to be clear that the Council will lead and coordinate the process, in collaboration with the site promoters, relevant town and parish councils, the community and other stakeholders.

“Furthermore, due to the significance of the work to be carried out to inform the masterplan, and to ensure effective community engagement, the masterplan should be prepared and adopted as a supplementary planning document prior to the submission of a planning application.

“The reasoned justification should be modified to refer to the Council’s intention to adopt the supplementary planning document within 12 months of the adoption of the Plan as this will help to prevent undue delay to the commencement of development on the site.” 

These comments – which can be interpreted as direct instructions – seems to tell us several things:

• The local community, including parish councils, must be involved;
• The results need to be enshirined in an SPD before any application is lodged;
• The whole process must be completed within twelve months.

These twelve-month period is set to start on 11 June: for the day before, WBC’s Full Council is set to meet and will – unless the members take collective leave of their senses – adopt the local plan with the Inspector’s main modifications. There’s a lot of work to be done on the masterplanning, which will include defining who “the community and other stakeholders” includes, agreeing what matters will and won’t be considered and specifying how the process will work and the progress be measured. All the participants need to be involved in this from the outset.

What surprises me is that this process doesn’t appear to have started: or if it has, it’s being done purely internally at WBC as several of the parishes seem to have any clear idea of what’s happening. Given the importance of the project and the deadline of 11 June 2026, this seems odd. Aside from the matter of getting the work done, there are also bridges that need to be re-built between WBC and the parishes affected by SP17 after several divisive years of wrangling.

If the 11 June 2026 deadline isn’t hit, WBC will incur the wrath of Planning Inspector: there’s only going to be one winner in that battle. If the work is done but in a way that the local community feels has not taken their views fully into account, this will incur not only the Inspector’s wrath but also those of the parishes. If the work fails to hit the deadline, so delaying the submission of any plans, this will incur the wrath of the developers.

All of these seem like scenarios best avoided. Getting everybody onside and starting work immediately would seem to be simplest way of ensuring they don’t come to pass.

Brian Quinn

More information about Thatcham and the surrounding villages can be found in Penny Post’s Thatcham Area Weekly News column, updated every Thursday evening and at other times as necessary. This includes news stories, events, information on voluntary and community groups and updates from the town and parish councils.