Answers came there none.

29th May 2025

It has been a while since I posted an update on the green4grow blog but essentially there has not been a great deal happening with regard to the proposed housing at Hall Farm. The Wokingham Local Plan page has not been updated since 12th May and there are as yet no answers to the Inspectors questions. However, there have been a number of articles written about the wider housing and development issues worth a mention, particularly this one posted recently on the BBC website. In it Robert Van de Noort, Vice Chancellor of the University of Reading (UoR), justifies selling off farmland to housing developers as fully compatible with the Universities ambition to embed sustainability practices across the University’s operations to become a leader in global environmental sustainability.

In the article he says "All universities find the current situation really challenging but... the money we generate from the sale of Hall Farm can only be reinvested in research in agriculture and food sciences." Hmmm. No figures given but Prof Van de Noort said the sale of Hall Farm would raise "multiple more" than that sum and I have heard £500 Million as the figure UoR will get. Contrast this with the £16 Million they paid for Tanners Farm and that leaves £484 Million for "research in agriculture and food sciences". Nice money if you can get it, but not everyone is in a position to buy land at agricultural prices to then flog it to developers a few years later at massive return on investment. Is this REALLY sustainable?

Also in other news is an article regarding inadequate sewage treatment at a proposed new development in Buckinghamshire. It has been given the go ahead by the Local Planning Authority, over the objections that the current sewage treatment provision is grossly inadequate. Sound familiar? We all know the Arborfield Water Treatment works pumps raw sewage into nearby Barkham Brook whenever there is heavy rain fall. We also all know Thames water are very much up the creek without a paddle regarding money, yet we are expected to swallow the story that the sewage treatment works will be improved in good time for the extra 3,930 houses proposed at Hall Farm? Really?

Speaking of believing promises made by developers, there is a story here of angry residents in Gloucestershire being sold a dream that turned out to be an ongoing nightmare. Crest Nicholson, yes they of Arborfield Green infamy, are once again letting residents down on a site they are developing.

“Matthew Thomas, chairman of Hunts Grove Parish Council, spoke at the development control committee on May 20 said residents have been waiting for four years for the promised playing fields and community centre. And the community are “rightfully” angry and blasted the district council for not holding the developers accountable”.

Waiting only four years? Arborfield is still waiting on a promise to deliver a new Community Centre for ten years and counting. This situation is so dire and so prevalent across housing delivery everywhere, but particularly in Arborfield Green and Shinfield, that several Parish and Town Councils bordering Hall Farm are actively considering appointing an “Independent inspector” to monitor the LPU delivery, should it ever come to pass. Frankly, nobody believes the Planning Authorities will hold the Developers to account.

But what really sticks in my throat and prompted me to dust off the lap top and write another blog post is this Planning Application notice. In it we have WBC rejecting a development in Arborfield for 111 houses on the jaw dropping contention that “The location of this unplanned development on a greenfield site in the countryside is unacceptable in principle due to the countryside location outside of settlement boundaries”.

The location in question is very close to the Hall Farm site, yet WBC planners rejected it because “The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the landscape and character & appearance of the area by reason of the loss of fields, paddocks and green infrastructure in the countryside and the erection of a large housing development that is out of keeping with the locality, contrary to policies CP1, CP3, CP9 and CP11 of the Core Strategy CC02, CC03 and TB21 of the MDD Local Plan, IR2, AD1 and AD3 of the Arborfield and Barkham Neighbourhood Plan, the Borough Design Guide SPD, the Wokingham District Landscape Character Assessment and sections 12 and 15 of the NPPF”.

Also “The application site is within an unsustainable location that would not encourage a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport, by reason of the countryside location outside of settlement limits, distances to facilities and services and poor quality of the local walking environment”.

And “Part of the site is grade 3a Agricultural Land and therefore the development results in the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land”.

But also “Part of a main river runs along the southern boundary and insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact on flood risk or the watercourse”.

So, 111 houses will turn a village into a small town and should be rejected as wholly inappropriate but 3,930 houses (coincidentally proposed by a strategic development partner to WBC) just across the road is not a problem? I look forward to asking them about this decision in front of the Inspectors.

Paul Stevens