I need 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.

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.

The master-planning exercise

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.