Bolney Lane: Application for 60 houses

The planning application to build 60 houses adjacent to Bolney Lane has been lodged with SODC and can be seen here: https://southoxfordshire.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display?applicationNumber=P26%2FS1042%2FO

Posted by: David Bartholomew | 09/05/2026 1:58 pm

Final call to make your voice heard on this application.
Comments required by 28th May.

Shiplake PC has strongly objected to the application.  You can view ShiplakePC's comments under the Documents tab and scroll down to the Consultees section.

Many residents have already added their comments. Please leave your comments on the application too. 

LINK to SODC Planning to comment on this application

Posted by: Chris Penrose | 27/05/2026 8:26 pm

Hello Everybody, I am about to go out for the rest of the day hence posting here my suggested draft letterof objection in this matter. Feel free to amend tweak or extract paragraphs. Its been done in a heck of a rush so I am not guaranteeing it will cover absolutely everything!

Hope this is of some help.

I will be back in harness tonight Draft Objection to Bolney Lane Planning Application V2.docx

Posted by: Peter Boros | 15/05/2026 7:48 am

A working group has been meeting to discuss the Pony Field planning application since the leaflet drop last autumn, submitting a coordinated objection letter with 100 named residents, speaking at the Parish Council meeting in November, securing Tree Protection Orders for the Chestnut Avenue and additional trees along Bolney Lane. At the time an official planning application had not yet been submitted.

Now that the planning application has gone in we are asking Shiplake residents to submit coordinated objections to this major planning application.

Key concerns include:

• Speculative development in open countryside, contrary to the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan
• Significant harm to village character and residential amenity
• Threats to 51 protected trees along Bolney Lane
• Highway safety concerns
• Existing sewer capacity pressures
• Risks linked to the chalk aquifer and drinking water supply serving 50,000 people
• Similar groundwater concerns to those seen at Thames Farm

The working group is preparing a practical objection guide which we are hoping to share shortly. Ideally via the WhatsApp group that was created (Pony Field Objection Group) for this purpose and which residents can join. If you like to join the group please drop an email with contact details and we'll add to the WhatsApp group so people can stay up to date. Please Email ponyfieldobjectiongroup1@outlook.com

We would also love to connect with the New Road objection group, as given the size of this development we will need all parts of Shiplake to come together. 

Should you wish to object straight away please find the details below: 

Online (fastest): southoxon.gov.uk/planning → search P26/S1042/O → 'Make a comment'

Email: planning.admin@southandvale.gov.uk — subject line: P26/S1042/O

Post: Planning Dept, SODC, Abbey House, Abbey Close, Abingdon, OX14 3JE

Deadline for objections: 28 May 2026

Toni Ward, Anthony Platt and Norman

Posted by: Anthony Platt | 11/05/2026 11:11 pm

Are Northfield Avenue/Manorwood Gate etc residents forming an action group to respond to this? 

New Road/Crowsley Road residents got together and formed a highly effective group to oppose the application for 25 houses on New Road.

Posted by: David Bartholomew | 11/05/2026 2:33 pm

Hello everyone.

As someone that has been intimately and exhaustively involved in the Taylor Wimpey Development proposals at Thames Farm, may I offer some off the cuff comments, as I have not had time to review this Application at all yet.

The age of the NP would be a key issue in the determination of this Application. 

The 'tilted balance' issue is highly material and has come up on just about every application in and around not just Shiplake but also in the whole of the SODC area. Like it or not, it is relevant if only because SODC has failed to meet its housing targets consistently for many years. Indeed it was this very issue that was responsible for Thames Farm achieving its original outline approval on Appeal in 2017. Ignore it at your peril! This matter was again raised at the recent Pulic Inquiry for Thames Farm as a reason to approve the latest Applications.

There is curently in the Planning world, talk about the exact use/interpretation of Tilted Balance so this is not a static area of Planning Guidance, and getting up to date will be important.

The absence of any positive housing allocations within our NP is not overly helpful in my personal opinion. That said there are now some useful precedents following New Road Appeal and others on Woodlands Rd (some will be in Harpsden) etc

The site is no doubt within the SPZ1 and Aquifer zone, so the Appeal at Thames Farm will no doubt be a significant indicator when the outcome is known (likely mid May). It will also set a high bar for the developer to respond to. I have all of the proofs of evidence available if they would be helpful.

Thames Farm is in Harpsden not the Parish of Shiplake, but its proximity is such that it will be highly relevant. Note that the density currently proposed at Thames Farm is 84 units on 5.6 Ha. That proposal forms part of the 3 Applications awaiting determination, and there are other precedents at former Wyevale, Crossways, and the new retirment village. It is also adjacent to The Beeches development, which is quite high density, which was also awarded at Appeal after a lower desnity scheme was approved.

I am not in Shiplake for much of Monday so unlikely to be back in time for the meeting, but I will try and find some time to review the Application in rather more detail over the next couple of days.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 10/05/2026 6:59 pm

Shiplake Parish Council as a consultee to this application will be discussing it at its meeting at Memorial Hall Monday 11th May,  at 7pm. Come along to share your thoughts with us.  

Posted by: Chris Penrose | 10/05/2026 2:45 pm

Notwithstanding Ashley's comments above, those concerned about the application should register their objection on the SODC website ASAP. Remember, the application to build 25 house on New Road conflicted with the Neighbourhood Plan in a similar fashion, but was recommended for approval by the SODC officer.

Posted by: David Bartholomew | 10/05/2026 9:36 am

I am amazed the applicant has spent any time, money, or energy on this proposal when it is patently untenable. The Planning Statement appears to deliberately omit or deliberately misinterpret key disqualifying policies from the Shiplake Neighbourhood Plan (SNP) that render this site unsuitable. For example (by no means exhaustive):

Breach of Settlement Strategy (Policy SV1): The site is entirely outside the 'built-up area' of the village. The applicant’s reliance on the 'tilted balance' fails to acknowledge that the SNP was specifically designed to protect against such large-scale, poorly located greenfield development.  

Direct Conflict with Rural Approach (Policy SV9): While the applicant discusses 'separation' (Policy SV8), they ignore the more critical requirement of Policy SV9 to conserve the rural approach from Henley. This proposal would urbanise the current agricultural gateway, directly contradicting the mandate to retain the rural character of the PLCA 3: Shiplake Open Dipslopes.  

Alien Housing Density (Policy SV24): Up to 60 houses on this 4.95-hectare site ignores the SNP requirement for development to reflect local density. The proposed density is more than triple the established pattern of the surrounding rural area, which the SNP identifies as being as low as 3-7 dwellings per hectare to maintain its sylvan character.  

Encroachment on Valued Landscapes: The applicant attempts to frame this as an extension of the village, yet the SNP identifies this land as a 'Valued Landscape'. The proposal offers no 'soft transition' but rather an aggressive suburban incursion into a protected open plateau."  

Not to mention the laughably selective quotations included from their community consultation, I have no doubt whatsoever that the 99% of material they did not include was absolutely damning.

I hope the decision makers don't waste too much time in consideration before they reject this application. 

Posted by: Ashley Wright | 09/05/2026 2:57 pm