You are here: Forum - Councils & Planning - Thames Farm Planning Appeals
Thames Farm Planning Appeals
Hello everyone, it's been a while since I've been in touch but it has been very busy at TFAG. Today was a big milestone day as the team submitted the Proofs of Evidence to the Government PINS Department which administers Planning Appeals. The next step is that when all proofs have been submitted, they will be exchanged so we all get to see each others. The Inquiry is on schedule for the 24 March start date and is listed for a 7 day hearing with a few days reserved just after Easter if needed.
TFAG is going to try and assemble a team of attendees to provide a kind of blog on this site so those who cannot attend can be kept appraised. Watch this space for further news as it breaks.
Posted by: Peter Boros | 24/02/2026 4:52 pm
Thames Farm Inquiry – Blog - Days 8 & 9
The last 2 days of the Inquiry (April 8th and 9th) comprised a round table session on day 8 to discuss potential Planning Conditions were the Inspector minded to approve the Appeals and day 9 being Closing Statements.
SODC prepared and submitted 2 tentative schedules of suggested draft conditions, upon which the parties made comments to assist the Inspector if he were minded to find in favour of the Appellants. These documents were then updated by SODC just before the round table session to reflect matters that were presented in evidence during the hearing.
The meeting held online, discussed the pros and cons of these conditions to see how much common ground there was, following which the detail would fall back upon the Inspector to finalise, in the event he intended to approve the Appeals.
The final day of the Inquiry, which also took place online, was for the Barristers to make their closing remarks. Michael Bedford KC spoke for SODC, Richard Banwell for the Rule 6 Parties, and Messrs Parkinson and White KC for the Appellants
Copies of their closing comments may be viewed here:-
In adjourning the Inquiry, the Inspector thanked all parties for the clear and cogent evidence and arguments presented, and confirmed that he expected to make and issue his decision by around the middle of May 2026.
TFAG would like to thank the many parties both professionals, expert witnesses, the funding Councils and the many residents who have helped in a variety of ways to enable the matters to be heard at Inquiry, and we shall let all parties know the decisions of the Inspector just as soon as we hear this.
I would also like to thank the entire team for its work over the last 5 years and confirm that I shall be stepping down as Chair of TFAG to coincide with our move away from Shiplake in the near future.
Many thanks
Peter
Posted by: Peter Boros | 09/04/2026 6:31 pm
Day 7 - 2nd April - of the Appeal Inquiry
Today's inquiry session was the examination and cross examination of Mr Knott - the appellants planning expert witness starting at 0930hrs.
Mr Knott was led through the National Planning Policy Framework steps for determining planning permission for housing development and the weight to be assigned to each point - deficit of housing provision within SODC, affordable housing etc. The focus was solely on housing provision.
SODC barrister dug further into the intricacies of what would happen if planning appeal X was refused and the effect on the other two appeals.
This session lasted for just over 1 hour. The appellant then asked the Inspector if the agreed sessions for next week could be held online. The Inspector readily agreed citing reduced travel time and costs. Relevant details - login etc can be obtained from TFAG and/ or SODC for anyone who wants to view the sessions.
The Inspector announced that he would be undertaking an unaccompanied viewing of the site - I think this pm and arrangements were made for Stantec to open the gate to the site.
Session closed at about 1100hrs.
Posted by: Stephen Seabury | 02/04/2026 2:43 pm
The 6th Day of the appeal inquiry opened with the barrister for the appellant Taylor Wimpey, inviting the inspector to view the Thames Farm site. No date was proposed and no date agreed. The main business of the day was the examination and cross examination of two expert witnesses for the appellant.
The first witness provided detailed evidence of the proposed drainage design for the site and how this had changed since the first proposal to pump discharge surface water runoff from the site to the Lashbrook water course, to the design before the inquiry. The current design - to accommodate the grouting of much of the site, being to collect runoff via drains to attenuation tanks at the east of the site, to pump water to a high point on the western side of the site to a detention facility from where it would infiltrate to ground. This design is required to be agreed to remove a condition imposed by SODC and is the subject of Appeal C.
Cross examination by the barrister for SODC included questioning the permeability test methods and the meeting of relevant standards and guidance. Questions were raised re the impact of draining surface water from the Reading Road into the site’s drainage design and its implications for the adoption of the drainage system. Linked to this was a discussion as to brief exploratory evidence provided by the appellant that the adoption and maintenance would be provided by a New Appointments and Variations (NAVs) company.
Later in the pm the applicants expert witness for flooding presented evidence re Appeal A with regard to climate change considerations and over topping of construction bunds and Appeal C structural breach/ over topping of the detention facility. The expert witness provided modelling evidence that the design of both the construction bunds and detention facility minimises the risk of flooding. Cross examination centred on the assumptions made to make this statement.
Day 7 of the inquiry will commence at 0930 hrs and will be the appellant's planning expert witness evidence and cross examination. This will be the last evidence session.
Posted by: Stephen Seabury | 01/04/2026 8:00 pm
Thames Farm Inquiry - Blog - Day 5
The Inquiry opened at 10.00, and some clarification was discussed in terms of the timetable. It was agreed that the Tuesday after Easter would not be a sitting day, the Wednesday would be the round table session on conditions, and Thursday would be closing statements.
Two further witnesses for the Appellants took the stand today. Both witnesses (and also the previous ones) confirmed that none of them had been involved in a grouting project where the site was host to an Aquifer or within a SPZ1. This is an important admission as it highlights the ‘experimental’ nature of the proposals, and thus the significance of the ‘precautionary principle’ when considering any issues that are either subjective or where there is doubt or a lack of evidence.
The first witness Mr Dunhill of Vertase - who together with Stantec are the main ‘designers’ of both the scheme of investigation for the site and also the scheme of remediation for the ground. He confirmed that the Grouting Contractor would be someone of the stature of Keller and quite possibly them. It was important to have a large 'major' to stand behind their work. There was a discussion about the issue of the warranting of both the design works as well as the execution of the works, albeit warranties are a complex subject and needed careful consideration.
Mr Dunhill explained that there would be 3 teams grouting the site and a daily check of the level of the water table in each bore hole, pre grouting. The grout would be mixed on site, and would be subjected to a ‘slump’ test to verify viscosity. The grout would then be pumped into each bore hole under pressure until resistance was met signifying that the grout had spread to its design parameters. It would start to set immediately and would have an initial setting time of c 2 hours.
He explained that at the western part of the site, the area would be excavated to prepare where the detention basin and bund walls would be constructed. This area would not be grouted, but areas of dissolution would be visually checked and would be dug out to prepare the ground for the basin and bund walls. If necessary however, the bund wall locations could be grouted. He explained that in his opinion there was negligible risk of grout moving and that there was no chance of the bunding collapsing or of the floor of the basin subsiding. Other experts as we know are of a different view.
On cross examination, Mr Dunhill confirmed that he had never grouted a site over an aquifer or in a SPZ1. He also confirmed that he has not been involved in compaction grouting and that his experience related to other forms of grouting eg with coal and other mines where collapses had occurred etc.
Dunhill confirmed that the decision to adopt a 6m grid for investigations, and the 6m grid for grouting was a cost driven decision, so instead of utilising a 3m grid, 6m was specified. That decision had consequences and the risk factor would be in the end design for the grouting scheme.
He was questioned over the 2m ‘stand-off’ distance above the water table, and agreed that the 2m stand-off should be recorded in any Planning Conditions and specifications as it was unclear presently.
Mr Dunhill was asked about the potential for ‘gaps/voids’ to exist below grout bores and confirmed that these could arise and potentially exist, albeit he felt very infrequently. The intention was to spread out from the dissolution zones with the grout bores until no further areas required treatment. This however did not deal with the issue of any solution features that might exist between the 6m grid corners. He also confirmed that working to a 3m grid would have meant a 5 fold increase in costs.
Hannah Frazer took the stand next and gave her evidence in chief. She works in the hydrogeology and drainage arena. She felt that there was no real risk of contamination of the aquifer occurring or of grout spreading.
She was a difficult witness in cross examination as she hardly ever answered the questions she was asked, and sought to deflect questions by referring to the evidence given by others rather than her own evidence.
She did confirm that she had no experience in compaction grouting and that this was a site/ situation where due to the uncertainties it fell squarely into one where the ‘precautionary principle’ was applicable.
It was put to Ms Frazer that she had collected insufficient data in respect of the seasonal change to the depth of the water table and had a large number of ‘failed core samples’ where the reason for failure was unknown. It was clear that some voids were due to solution features extending into and through the water table and the structured chalk beneath. Ms Frazer was not concerned that grout might follow those ‘pathways’.
Counsel also drew attention to the high Ph of cement/grout and the impact this would have on drinking water and also the deficiency in the number of Falling Head Tests where 3 was recommended at each bore but only 1 had been carried out.
Ms Frazer was also referred to the EA’s guidance on grouting and the fact that the proposed works would involve a ‘physical disturbance’ and thus contravene policy N7 and N8 of the EA guidance.
The Inquiry then closed for the day at c 5pm.
Posted by: Peter Boros | 01/04/2026 7:58 am
Thames Farm Inquiry - Blog Day 4
The Inquiry opened with Paul Eccleston from JBA taking the stand, who is TFAG’s final expert witness.
Paul has been involved in Thames Farm since TFAG was founded, and as such has a good knowledge of the history of the site. He gave evidence in Chief regarding the drainage and potential to flood for the site, and his evidence was recorded for the benefit of the Appellants expert witness on Drainage since he was unable to attend on Friday.
Paul was a good highly credible witness and spoke of the problems with the proposed drainage solution for the development; how this was contrived, in order to maximise the developed density proposed, and the risks of the detention basin either partly collapsing or become very silted up with the entire drainage system requiring intensive management over time and the use of specialist maintenance contractors who would have the necessary equipment and expertise to maintain.
He also spoke of the short term drainage issues that might lead to both flooding and contamination due to sewerage issues whilst the groundworks progressed.
In cross examination, his evidence was not hugely challenged but the appellants barrister sought to get confirmation that the design of the schemes would potentially work, did provide adequate capacity, and could be properly maintained in the ideal recommended circumstances.
The recent proposal to bring a silt buster on site during the temporary works was also put forwards.
Paul was critical of the housing scheme design and said that the Appellants had produced a drainage scheme that did not acknowledge the topography and constraints of the site and was hugely contrived to maximise density. This was not how the statutory guidance operated, and the scheme should be designed around topography, not the other way around. He also pointed out that because Highway drainage had been integrated into the on site sw disposal mechanism, the scheme would need to be adopted by either Thames water or a NAV, and that the designs put forwards were not SuDS compliant hence would not be likely to be adoptable. He said that a lower density scheme would not necessarily require a pumped solution where all sw was collected, stripped of silt and pumped up to the highest point on site for disposal by infiltration.
The second witness of the day was Dr Edmonds, the first of the appellants team of 6 experts. He is a civil engineer, and gave evidence on Grouting and its impacts. His evidence in Chief was that grout was very stiff and would not move from where it was pumped to, that on site controls would ensure nothing went wrong, and that a warranty would be provided by the contractor meaning that there was a mechanism to deal with long term problems should they arise.
I had to leave the Inquiry at lunchtime so was not present for the cross examination of the witness.
The Inquiry will reconvene next Tuesday at its new location in Wallingford
Posted by: Peter Boros | 28/03/2026 10:18 am
At the outset of the Inquiry session Thursday 26th March, it was agreed that the Inquiry was running as per the timetable set out by PINS.
The am session covered the SODC Planning expert witness (Mr Jupp) and his cross examination by the Appellant’s barrister. Much of this examination centred on the paragraphs and footnotes of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Attention then turned to SODC’s housing plan deficit and whether this informed the tilted balance for each or all of the appeals.
In his evidence Mr Jupp emphasised the high weight to be given to the approved Shiplake Neighbourhood Plan especially the section referencing watercourses.
Beverley Parrish (the TFAG geology expert witness) presented her evidence in the pm session being lead through her evidence by the TFAG barrister. Cross examination by the Appellant’s barrister was limited to Ms Parrish’s credentials rather than the details of her expert evidence proof. As a result, the pm session concluded mid afternoon with the TFAG drainage expert to present his evidence commencing at 0930hrs Friday 27th March.
Posted by: Stephen Seabury | 26/03/2026 7:52 pm
Thames Farm - Blog Day 2
Posted by: Peter Boros | 25/03/2026 7:38 pm
Thames Farm Inquiry - Blog - Day 1
The Inquiry opened at 10.00, and the Inspector opened by setting out some basic housekeeping rules for the matter going forwards. He recounted the provisional programme and time table that had been circulated by PINS a few days earlier and the barristers for the 3 groups confirmed that in principle the programme was acceptable albeit that in one or two instances, a expert witnesses evidence might be recorded so that absent parties could review the evidence in their own time over the weekend to enable their being briefed/ brought upto speed for the following Monday.
The Inquiry will sit a first week of 4 whole days Tuesday to Friday 24-27 March, then Tuesday to Thursday 31 March - 2 April, and finally Tuesday to Thursday 7 April - 9 and Friday 10 April held for a contingency. To avoid the need for bank holiday travel it is likely that 7 April will be a 2.00pm start. Round table discussion will be 8 April and Closing submissions might be 9 April possibly submitted in writing.
After opening submission by each of the 3 barristers, James Dodd then took the witness stand and gave his evidence in chief. This was well presented and structured, and majored on making the case that there would be considerable uncertainty in how the grouting programme might proceed, and significant risks from any grouting exercise of leakage/seepage via ‘preferential pathways’ where contamination from grout materials and other material might enter the aquifer and contaminate the ground water - all as identified by the source, pathway, receptor model. The evidence was refuted by Sasha White KC for Taylor Wimpey who concentrated on seeking to discredit Mr Dodds evidence by saying that it was only ‘unset’ cement that might be capable of moving, that as a very stiff mix that was highly unlikely and that even if it moved, it would not move far, and certainly not bridging the 2m gap that was to be left between the lowest point of grouting and the highest daily measured position of the water table. Mr Dodd stuck to his guns, but Mr White made 2 further points - that the grout could not travel far unless it was ‘injected’ into water, and that even if it did travel to the potable bore holes, there was nothing to fear from the natural products that make up the grout. Mr Dodd disagreed.
Mr Dodd was re-examined by the SODC barrister Mr Bedford, who sought to minimise the impact of Mr Whites comments.
Day 1 closed at c 5.20pm and would reconvene at 9.30 the following morning.
Posted by: Peter Boros | 24/03/2026 11:01 pm
The below is the current sitting dates program for these Planning Appeals:
Week 1 - Tuesday 24-Friday 27 March - 4 days
Weeks 2 - Tuesday 31 March to Thursday 2 April (3 days as Friday 3 Good Friday) - 3 days
Week 3 - potential additional sitting days Weds 8-Friday 10 April - Only if actually needed.
And here is the site notice providing details of the Appeals and address where the hearings are to be held
Posted by: Peter Boros | 25/02/2026 8:07 am
Thank you Peter (and everybody else involved in all these planning issues and appeals) for all the hard work that you do for the benefit of our village.
Posted by: Elaine Fowler | 24/02/2026 4:59 pm
Login to post a reply
You are here: Forum - Councils & Planning - Thames Farm Planning Appeals