Facebook Twitter

You are here:    Forum - Neighbourhood Plan - Why is the majority of NP build in Shiplake Cross?

Why is the majority of NP build in Shiplake Cross?

Can someone explain why the majority of proposed housing in the revised NP now falls on the smaller part of the village? 3 sites in Shiplake Cross and just 1 in Lower Shiplake (p9). If Shiplake needs to have 33 new homes and 19 are already planned/built (p3) and the Plough lane development adds 18 (p10) and when 18+19=37, then why do we need to earmark more development in the NP? And why are the College's proposed builds included at all in the Village's NP when ownership will be restricted?

Posted by: Chris Penrose | 30/05/2018 10:55 pm

There is no such thing as a 'free pass' in planning matters. All proposals for building houses will be subject to the planning process but, yes, we are proposing sites which the council would have no objection to in principle to and supports, subject to meeting necessary planning requirements. Trust that helps.

Posted by: David Pheasant | 01/06/2018 2:07 pm

Hi David, thanks for your reply. I have no problem with College building houses for its staff on the school's ground. Those grounds are clearly designated on your map. The buildings proposed are in residential Shiplake Cross infilling behind homes on Reading Rd owned by the school and will be un-neighbourly near Orchard Close residents. Giving this business a free pass in the planning process: How can the PC object to a building plan the College proposes now?

Posted by: Chris Penrose | 01/06/2018 1:55 pm

Apologies David, i hadn't seen your reply. My frustration is obviously with CG and SODC and the nature of NP's in general not with you and the work you do. I will end it here now as this is probably not the best forum to debate! All the best.

Posted by: Rupert Thurgood | 01/06/2018 1:39 pm

Its exasperating,what is this world where you get a job and expect to have a house thats not only in a lovely village, but affordable and hey, only two minutes from where you work! I have to drive an hour a day to my job and a lot further in my early career.This obsession with forcing affordable houses into villages that can't accommodate them will simply drive out those that moved here in the first place to get away from traffic and noise. Ruining small villages is not the way to help the young

Posted by: Rupert Thurgood | 01/06/2018 1:10 pm

The NP SG and PC share many of your frustrations I am sure e.g. SODC's past land supply mgt. and the vagaries of Inspectors' decisions in context of Thames Farm. More housing is inevitable and desirable if the right type, no. and in appropriate locations. Shortly the NP daft proposals for such development will be available with a 6 week consultation period. Please read and we look forward to comments at the time. We do not accept that all speculative developments are inevitable.

Posted by: David Pheasant | 01/06/2018 1:07 pm

The schools require teachers and other staff, who may be just starting their careers or have young families. The type of housing they need is in very short supply and expensive in and around Shiplake. The College's proposed additional houses address that need and the occupiers become Shiplake residents like anyone else. 33 houses is a minimum requirement of SODC. An NP must demonstrate it provides for required housing needs beyond that. The NP proposals explain why & how. Hope that helps

Posted by: David Pheasant | 01/06/2018 12:48 pm

David can you please let me know the answers to 2 questions:
1. How the college houses help address the need for smaller more affordable houses required by younger families and those downsizing, as highlighted by the resident survey responses and the demographics of the parish? I don't get it.
2. Why should the village build more than its quota? I did not understand a reference to sustainable development as the reason for over supply in the proposed NP beyond the required minimum.
Thank you.

Posted by: Chris Penrose | 31/05/2018 3:15 pm

And this is where I remain bemused. Since when was it logical to try and make a village like Lower Shiplake a place for downsizing and affordable housing?.. for what reason?.. there is little enough in the way of local amenities for young children as it is, let alone schooling! What is this obsession with packing villages like Lower Shiplake with houses, changing what they are and why people moved here in the first place.Its nonsensical. The figure is 33?.Thames Farm alone ends it there surely?

Posted by: Rupert Thurgood | 31/05/2018 12:53 pm

Our SODC target is 33 MIN but NP's are about more than just quotas..they should address housing needs in the context of sustainable development (a point not sufficiently appreciated by the Thames farm Inspector!) That said, the 19 houses referenced by Chris do not address the need for smaller more affordable houses required by younger families and those 'downsizing, as highlighted by the resident survey responses and the demographics of the parish. The college houses do as do the NP proposals.

Posted by: David Pheasant | 31/05/2018 12:43 pm

Sorry, I'm still confused....why are we still talking about additional housing in Lower Shiplake??.. Is 95 + 4 + 45 all at the end of Northfield avenue not enough?? Perhaps a yes to Mount Ida is the solution, make it a nice round 160 new houses all in Lower Shiplake... well, Northfield Avenue to be precise! That doesn't even touch on all the garden building. At least a ten new builds within a stones throw of the Corner Shop...Lower Shiplake the new Caversham it would seem. Complete madness.

Posted by: Rupert Thurgood | 31/05/2018 12:41 pm

Thank you for the replies highlighting the Thames Farm impact on LS, with the added possibility of Wyvale etc. For clarification please note that of the 19 built or approved houses in the plan period only 2 are in Shiplake X, 17 are in LS. The notification re 'Pop Up' responses was for both LS and Shiplake X with more detailed analysis of comments and location considerations promised. Additional relevant information in following response.

Posted by: David Pheasant | 31/05/2018 12:29 pm

I'm sorry David but I don't see that managements effect. The obvious hard work is not in question, I myself have worked very hard to get into a position to afford to live in a lovely village like Lower Shiplake, only to see it being ruined brick by brick. I see no teeth in either the current NP or any objections from SODC or Local Council, plenty of rhetoric and sabre rattling but it appears to have no effect. SODC made an absolute hash of Thames Farm as no doubt they will for Wyevale.

Posted by: Rupert Thurgood | 31/05/2018 9:39 am

Why is the College's proposed two builds in SC included in the NP at all? The maths shows they aren't needed to hit the required quota. They will have restricted access to own/use. Is their inclusion to allow them an easy way thru planning because 'they are in the NP and approved by the community and PC'? It would also be good to know what the recent NP pop-up meeting feedback from Shiplake Cross residents was. The notification only gave us what LS residents said.

Posted by: Chris Penrose | 31/05/2018 9:36 am


Apart from anything else, Lower Shiplake is taking 99 houses (including the four barns) at Thames Farm, so it is having much more housing than Shiplake Cross.


Everyone is awake. People have put a huge amount of work in trying to manage development in the area. Central government policy does not make this easy.

Posted by: Cllr David Bartholomew | 31/05/2018 9:23 am

Its a good question Chris given that Thames Farm is adding 95 to Lower Shiplake plus the 45 proposed right next door at the Wyevale site!!! That doesn't even take into account the numerous sites bubbling under the surface to soon raise their heads again... Mount Ida for starters. Surely its time to call a halt to development in this small village?? I have seen this before and its happening believe me.. Shiplake will be unrecognisable within the next 5 years unless SODC and Local Council wake up.

Posted by: Rupert Thurgood | 31/05/2018 8:24 am

Login to post a reply

You are here:    Forum - Neighbourhood Plan - Why is the majority of NP build in Shiplake Cross?