You are here: Forum - Councils & Planning - Planning Application for 25 houses in New Road
Planning Application for 25 houses in New Road
This application is now on the SODC website and can be seen here: https://data.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P25/S0195/O
Posted by: David Bartholomew | 13/02/2025 8:36 am
Just checked the planning application and there are 2 new pdfs submitted by the applicant on 29th Aug 25
Folder Title - Amended Plans
Posted by: Tanya Warnford-Davis | 02/09/2025 4:45 pm
Oxfordshire County Council Transport has now removed most of its objections to the proposal. Details on SODC website:
Posted by: David Bartholomew | 27/08/2025 9:13 am
All - the response from the landscape architect:
The full report is well worth a read - here is the conclusion:
"There remains insufficient information to demonstrate that the number of units proposed could be accommodated without significant adverse impacts on the landscape character and views, to accord with polices ENV1, DES1 and DES2 of the Local Plan and policies SV8, SV9 and SV11 of the Shiplake Neighbourhood Plan. A number of previous comments have not been addressed and building heights have been increased, increasing landscape and visual impacts."
Posted by: Rhiannon Davies | 17/07/2025 10:51 am
Dear Neighbours,
I’ve been in contact with our local councillor, Leigh Rawlins, and wanted to share an update, including some key information from him and a helpful point raised by former councillor David Bartholomew. I’ve summarised the main points below, as they may be useful for anyone still considering their objection to the New Road planning application (P25/S0195/O) for 25 new houses.
New Road Planning Application – Key Update
Cllr Leigh has shared an important point about the legal status of New Road, which is a private, unadopted road. The applicants claim they have “shared rights” to use it due to historic agricultural access, which may be valid. However, the proposed development would significantly intensify use of the road, which raises legal concerns.
- This is not just a planning issue — it’s also a matter of property law.
Property law can often override planning permission. If the developers don’t have the legal right to increase use of the road in this way, it could pose a significant challenge to the development. - Leigh suggests it may be worth residents jointly seeking legal advice to explore this further
- There’s also a possibility the developers might try to negotiate with residents by offering road upgrades (e.g. tarmacking, drainage) in exchange for agreement to increased use.
- In addition, the Shiplake Neighbourhood Plan (NP), which was made less than five years ago, offers the village important protection against speculative development. Because of this, Shiplake is exempt from the “tilted balance”, which usually gives developers an advantage in areas without a 5-year Housing Land Supply. This strengthens the community’s ability to resist inappropriate proposals.
Separately, the County Council (OCC) handles highways input for the application. OCC officers have raised concerns about pedestrian safety, especially as New Road is widely used by walkers and dog walkers. While some improvements (like passing points) may be viable, pedestrian access and safety remains a key issue.
Additional highways concern:
Former Councillor David Bartholomew has pointed out that the applicant’s claim that OCC supports a new pedestrian crossing at the A4155 is misleading. He stated that this contradicts all previous OCC guidance, and that the Parish Council holds records of several past attempts to install a crossing at this location — all of which were rejected due to road width and poor sight lines.
As he notes, “Nothing has changed to alter this.”
Cllr Leigh has called in the application for consideration at the district level (SODC).
Final Reminder:
The deadline to object to the amended plans is today, and every voice still matters. If you haven’t yet submitted an objection to the new documents — particularly the revised transport plans — I would urge you to do so as soon as possible!
Posted by: Rhiannon Davies | 14/07/2025 6:17 pm
Thank you, Rhiannon!
The reason the transport addendum is easily overlooked is that it has the unhelpful title ITB19614-004B TN TA Addendum.pdf
I would highlight the following points:
In Table 1.1, the applicant states OCC has agreed that there will be no increased traffic flows along New Road because the unmade section makes it unattractive. In section 2.1.4 the applicant goes on to say that the new traffic from the site wishing to access the village centre will use Mill Lane. Mill Lane is single track and already struggles to cope with existing traffic levels, as evidenced by the fact that unofficial lay-bys have been created opposite owners driveways.
So, if New Road is completely made up, New Road suffers, if it isn’t made up, Mill Lane suffers. Either way, the village loses.
The accident record data at 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 is completely misleading. Of course there have been no accidents along the relevant section of New Road because it is not currently widely used by vehicles!
At 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, the applicant states that OCC welcomed a new crossing at the A4155. This contradicts everything OCC has previously advised. The parish council will have records of numerous previous attempts to create a crossing at this point which have always been rejected by OCC on the basis of road width and sight lines. Nothing has changed to alter this.
Posted by: David Bartholomew | 11/07/2025 9:15 am
The transport addendum shows that OCC have agreed to certain measures:
https://data.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/dynamic_serve.jsp?ID=2736223371&CODE=96812994E6C2573CC2A7B07706CFC12B
and I quote: "Further information on the extent of additional surfacing along New Road was presented, highlighting that the proposal only extends to surfacing of an additional 11% (+65m) with 200m retained unsurfaced. OCC were comfortable that this would not result in significant diverted trips being drawn west on New Road, with a third of the route to remain unsurfaced and unattractive."
I'll be getting my measuring tape out because I am pretty sure it is closer to 100m than 200m and even if it was 200m - is that really going to deter anyone from using it as a rat run?
Basically, there is a table on page 2 that summarises what they have agreed and what remains to be resolved, but I think it is really important that people read this document very carefully because I question the evidence used to formulate some of these decisions and matters which have been agreed or partially agreed. It reads like OCC met Woolfe Bond (applicants 'team'), had a chat and WB reassured them, and OCC agreed - going against a number of its own original points from the lead traffic officer, dated 18th March.
Also Page 19 of this document refers to highways:
https://data.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/dynamic_serve.jsp?ID=2736223369&CODE=96812994E6C2573CAECFBAC7C45E2797
All comments have to be in by July 14th so is a 7pm meeting too late?
Posted by: Rhiannon Davies | 10/07/2025 7:47 pm
The application is on the agenda for the parish council to discuss on monday 14th July 7pm at the memorial hall. Please come and share your views.
Posted by: Joanne Stone | 10/07/2025 2:37 pm
Hi David
Yes, sadly we can already feel the difference and we have lost out locally due to peoples fall out with the Westminster parties.
I have just emailed leigh.rawlins@oxfordshire.gov.uk as he was informed by the Parish council regarding this planning appn and the Forum (there is an earlier reply on one of these links to confirm this). However, I havent seen any evidence that our new councillor is on here or actively defending Shiplake residents concerns
https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=13019
Posted by: Tanya Warnford-Davis | 10/07/2025 1:25 pm
Sadly, since losing my County Councillor seat in May, I am no longer able to fully engage with this matter.
Has anyone heard from Lib Dem Leigh Rawlins who won my seat?
Rhiannon, you say: "it beggars belief that OCC believes there is good reason to extend the tarmac road down to the 2nd access point for the development on the grounds that there will be a 'few' passing places."
Where did you get this information? I couldn't see it on the SODC website.
Posted by: David Bartholomew | 10/07/2025 12:59 pm
Totally agree - this new glossy brochure is an attempt to push this through under the radar - the new deadline for further comments was not made clear to residents and I also smell a rat here. I also would like to know what our new lib dem councillor is doing about this - is he even on this Forum ? The glossy brochure implies that the size of this development is in keeping with the area. The intended volume of new houses and size of their plots do not compare to the plots in the private road section of Crowsley Road and New Road. I will look to count the houses but my estimation is that they are doubling the volume, so this is not in keeping with the current surrounding area. The huge estates on the reading road cannot also be used for comparison. The increased development is already impacting infrastructure, traffic on Station Road and the Station car park. I cannot understand how planning have not already thrown this out - the private roads are not set up for the volume of traffic that would use this as cut through. The argument that the roads have limited traffic and can therefore deal with the increase is ridiculous - the volume is due to the roads being a single car width and private road. Shiplake is completely being over developed and there is no need for any further housing. Putting up bollards could just divert all traffic to Crowsley Road and that is also not an appropriate road for traffic. This application is extremely dangerous to all road users and should be thrown out.
Posted by: Tanya Warnford-Davis | 10/07/2025 11:26 am
I hadn't seen any indication of amended plans & I have signed up for alerts ... suspicious! Anyway - I have just had a look and there are a number of amended plans, schemes and documents. For those of us short on time and planning understanding, can the parish council help summarise the main points with which we could go back to object by the 14th July?
We had a helpful note from our neighbours on New Road, which detailed the issue for transport / road use, but is there anything else significant that we could include in our objections?
As an aside, it beggars belief that OCC believes there is good reason to extend the tarmac road down to the 2nd access point for the development on the grounds that there will be a 'few' passing places. That leaves approximately 100 metres of 'unattractive' road, which they seem to think will be enough to put drivers off using the rest of New Road. Of course New Road is going to become a main thoroughfare to the village for anyone approaching the village from Reading if it is tarmaced. Essentially, OCC have just turned the house we bought on a quiet private road, to a house on a main road.... with not even room for a pavement for anyone who currently lives on that section of New Road who would like to continue to safely walk down to the village. There are also NO passing places - unless you count our driveways and where do we stand with that?
They have made no account of safe travel for pedestrians, the applicants' assessments are based on a travel survey which was carried out outside of term time for Shiplake College so does not give a good representation of traffic/pedestrian use and they seem to think that it's going to only be a few extra vehicles using it. Absolute joke.
So seeing as the road is unadopted and the applicants seem to think this gives them carte blanche to do what they like - does that mean we can put up a gate or bollards with pedestrian and bike access, a no through road sign at either end of New Road and protect ourselves and our families that way? Is OCC suggesting that we all just do what suits us best?
Posted by: Rhiannon Davies | 10/07/2025 9:57 am
Does anyone know if all the sewage from this proposed site's 25 houses will end up in the sewage pipe under the lower end of New Road? If so I am extremely concerned because the sewage overflow pipe's outlet manhole cover is in my back garden and in the past I have had my garden absolutely full of sewage twice due to the small bore of this pipe combined with the tree roots which grow into the pipe and block the flow of it's contents. It's approximately 20 years since SODC last sent a telescopic camera and root removal cutters into this pipe to keep it flowing and it is no doubt full of tree roots again by now. Is the infrastructure capable of dealing with all this extra waste? Unfortunately I had not thought of this when I made my previous objections.
Posted by: Elaine Fowler | 09/07/2025 7:37 am
Hopefully those who are interested or objected have seen the amended application currently out for consultation- comments on the amended outline application need to be submitted by the 14th July 2025.
Posted by: Joanne Stone | 08/07/2025 11:49 pm
I was looking to see if any decision has been made and spotted that the Senior Urban Design Officer had submitted a comment on 2nd May: https://data.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/dynamic_serve.jsp?ID=2681400705&CODE=2FF640C9D2CAF90D4BF2324085CA5AC4
Posted by: Rhiannon Davies | 07/05/2025 12:26 pm
Didnt we have the same issue with the retirement complex where digging started early to circumvent planning ?
Posted by: Tanya Warnford-Davis | 02/04/2025 6:24 pm
The application is still being considered, so work could not have legally started. It could be exploratory work e.g. archaeological investigation.
Posted by: David Bartholomew | 02/04/2025 9:08 am
It looks like some work is already starting, diggers are working on the field.
Posted by: PHILIP BIGGS | 02/04/2025 8:59 am
David and Tanya, thanks, that's great. I am very pleased it was allowed despite being late.
Posted by: Elaine Fowler | 22/03/2025 7:59 am
Elaine, your objection is now showing on the SODC website.
Posted by: David Bartholomew | 22/03/2025 7:49 am
Hi Elaine. The Planning portal does take a while to update so you may find your online form appears against your address folder in a couple of days
Posted by: Tanya Warnford-Davis | 21/03/2025 4:50 pm
Unfortunately I was very busy and then very ill so I submitted my objections yesterday, past the deadline, too late. It seems they have included my name and address but not my comments.
Posted by: Elaine Fowler | 21/03/2025 2:53 pm
Oxfordshire County Council is objecting on several grounds, especially transport. Details on the South Oxfordshire District Council website. Click link in original post above for details.
Posted by: David Bartholomew | 20/03/2025 8:03 am
Some very well thought out responses have been submitted by residents in response to this application. For those who wish to respond, but haven't done so yet, I would urge you to read my guidance notes on the thread below.
Posted by: David Bartholomew | 04/03/2025 11:47 am
SODC do not currently have a 5 year land supply. The new government re-installed this instrument of decision making and the tilted balance which favours developers when a planning authority do not have sufficient land supply. However, Shiplake's made Neighbourhood Plan should offer protection for 5 years, independent of this.
Posted by: Chris Penrose | 17/02/2025 9:34 am
JBA are currently reviewing the Thames Farm proposals, for TFAG and the 3 Councils, which refers to an upgrade of the foul sewer with a proposed new 525mm pipe down Station Road. In all likelihood the work would be done by Thames Water. JBA’s report is due tomorrow at which point we will know a lot more about the proposals submitted with the latest revisions to the Planning Application, timing issues etc.
Posted by: Peter Boros | 17/02/2025 12:44 am
If this application is approved how will the Shiplake sewage system cope with the extra demand along with all the extra housing along the Reading Road? Has this been considered at all or not? A few years back when it flooded Shiplake Motors had raw sewage going into the garage from a manhole outside in the road.
Posted by: Ernie Povey | 16/02/2025 11:50 am
It would be nice to know if SODC has met its housing targets (and this can be robustly demonstrated) in recent years, as this has been one of the key reasons why developers have been able to persuade Planning Inspectors to lawfully ignore Local Plans and thus circumvent residents wishes, often recorded in both Local and Neighbourhood plans?
Posted by: Peter Boros | 14/02/2025 8:32 pm
Shiplake's made Neighbourhood Plan should be of great help. This proposal would appear to contravene the made Neighbourhood Plan's Vision, 3 of the Core Objectives and at least 7 specific Policies. We will make the case to the statutory planning authority SODC alongisde our ward councillors. Shiplake residents can make your voice heard by responding directly on the SODC website using the link provided. ChrisPenrose (Chair, Shiplake PC)
Posted by: Chris Penrose | 14/02/2025 1:26 pm
Will the neighbourhood plan for Shiplake have any impact on proposed developments like this?
Posted by: Barry Dyer | 13/02/2025 8:54 am
Login to post a reply
You are here: Forum - Councils & Planning - Planning Application for 25 houses in New Road