Henley Aldi: County Objects Over 95 Car Parking Spaces

Oxfordshire County Council has objected to Aldi’s plan for a supermarket on Reading Road in Henley. Its response was filed on the South Oxfordshire planning register on 15 September, two working days before the public consultation closed.

Two separate county teams object. The transport development control team objects, and so does the Lead Local Flood Authority, which handles surface water drainage.

The transport objection is not final. The response says: “Objection. However, the Council will reconsider its position subject to addressing the details below.”

That matters, because traffic was Henley Town Council’s first reason for recommending refusal in August. The county is the highway authority, and its view is the one the case officer has to weigh.

What the county wants changed

The transport response lists five key issues:

• all traffic survey data, including vehicle speeds, must be submitted
• the assessment method must be redone under the county’s “Decide and Provide” process
• the access and pelican crossing plans must be amended
• a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and a designer’s response are required
• car and cycle parking provision must both change

The parking numbers are the clearest disagreement

Aldi proposes 95 car parking spaces. The county’s own Parking Standards for New Developments 2022 set a maximum of 62 for a store of this size.

Aldi’s transport assessment, using the TRICS database, put the maximum likely demand at 42 cars on a weekday and 52 on a Saturday. The applicant argued the extra spaces allow for longer stays at busy times, such as Christmas, and for shoppers who park and then walk into town.

The county did not accept that. Its response notes that 62 spaces would still be more than the 52-space peak, and says the provision “is required to be reduced in line with the Council’s standards”.

Cycle parking runs the other way. Aldi proposes 28 spaces, in 14 Sheffield stands. The county’s standards require 37 for staff and 37 for customers, which is 74. The response also says the staff spaces must be secure and undercover, and shown as such on the plans.

The county does not say the traffic impact is severe

On the wider road network the response is more favourable to Aldi than the town council’s objection was.

The county looked at the junctions of Reading Road with Friday Street, Station Road and Harpsden Road. It found the store would add up to 23 vehicles passing through any one of them, which it describes as within expected daily variation and less than two per cent of existing traffic. On that basis it accepts the development “would not result in severe impact in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework at these locations”.

The site entrance itself is different. There the assessment found roughly 115 extra vehicle trips, and the county wants the junction modelled for a 2026 base year and a 2036 future year as well as the 2031 year Aldi submitted.

It also wants the assessment redone to take in a scheme that was not on the table when Aldi did its pre-application work: P25/S0209/FUL at Highlands Lane, 131 dwellings, a community centre and employment floorspace, which has a resolution to grant subject to a section 106 agreement.

One point in Aldi’s favour on safety. The county reviewed the collision record within 400 metres of the site over the five years to 2025 and accepted the applicant’s analysis: seven incidents, all down to driver error, with no pattern indicating a problem with the layout of the road.

The new pedestrian crossing is in the wrong place

Aldi has offered a signal-controlled pelican crossing on Reading Road, just north of the store entrance. The county calls the crossing “necessary and welcomed”.

It then says the location will not do. The proposed spot sits close to the site access, between two bus stops, and immediately next to the entrance serving the Courtrai House Dental Clinic.

The county wants the crossing moved and a technical audit carried out to show the new position meets national standards. It suggests one option: south of the store access, before St Andrews Road.

The speed limit on Reading Road may not match the traffic

Aldi’s plans show visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 25 metres at the entrance. That figure is calculated from the posted 20mph limit.

The county officer writes that “from site observations it appears that vehicle speeds are higher”. Aldi has been told to measure the actual 85th percentile speeds along Reading Road next to the site and submit the data.

What the county would want if permission is granted

Two contributions are sought through a section 106 agreement:

• £29,728 for two real-time passenger information units, one in each of the bus shelters by the site, at an October 2024 price base
• £2,085 for travel plan monitoring, at an April 2026 price base

A section 278 agreement would cover the rebuilt access and the pelican crossing itself.

The county also asks for conditions including a delivery and servicing plan setting routes that avoid Henley town centre and the highway peak hours, and a construction traffic plan banning deliveries of plant and materials between 7.30am and 9.30am and between 4pm and 6pm.

A second objection, on drainage

The Lead Local Flood Authority objected separately on 27 August. Its engineer lists five things missing:

• drainage calculations covering the whole surface water network, including all drainage infrastructure and sustainable drainage features
• a surface water catchment plan showing the impermeable areas and where they drain
• consent from the relevant body to discharge surface water to the watercourse
• a construction details drawing
• confirmation of who will maintain the sustainable drainage features

The county’s archaeology service raised no objection, saying the scheme has no invasive impact on any known archaeological site.

The rest of the file has moved too

Since we last reported on this application on 4 September, three more district council specialists have replied.

• The heritage officer raised no objection on 11 September, saying the design addresses her pre-application comments and does not harm the significance of heritage assets.
• The landscape architect commented on 14 September. She has no objection in principle, but wants tree and shrub planting inside the car park to break up the parked cars, a native hedge along Reading Road kept at a minimum of 1.2 metres, and a landscape management plan covering 20 years rather than the five years submitted.
• The urban design officer replied on 18 September. No document or reply type had been published on the register by the morning of 21 September.

The Environment Agency, the drainage team, and the forestry officer had still not replied when we checked.

Public comments have kept coming. On the morning of 21 September the register showed 141 comments in support, 31 objections and 7 neutral. On 11 September it showed 123, 25 and 4.

What it means for you

The consultation has closed. It ran to 19 September, and the register records the comment window as ended.

The decision is not close to made. The application is still marked “Under Consideration” and “Not Yet Recommended”, which means it has not yet been decided whether an officer or the planning committee will determine it. Henley Town Council has said it will speak if it goes to committee.

15 October is the date on the register. That is the expiry date for determination. It is a guide and can move if Aldi and the council agree an extension of time, which is common where a statutory consultee has objected and amended plans are needed.

An objection is not a refusal. The county has told the district council how to reach a position it could support: submit the survey data, redo the assessment, move the crossing, cut the car spaces, add the cycle spaces. If the district council were minded to approve the scheme against the county’s objection, the response asks to be told why and to be given a chance to make further representations.

Nothing changes on the ground yet. Jewson is still trading at 99 Reading Road, and no permission has been granted. We track new applications on our Henley planning page, and live closures on Henley roadworks and travel. Our earlier report on the town council’s objection is here.

Sources

• Application P26/S2960/FUL, South Oxfordshire District Council planning register, read on the morning of 21 September 2026, for the application status, the consultee list and reply dates, the comment totals and the 15 October expiry date.
• Oxfordshire County Council consultation response, filed on the register on 15 September 2026 and dated 14 September 2026, for the transport objection, the five key issues, the parking and cycle parking figures, the pelican crossing comments, the visibility splay and speed point, the section 106 contributions of £29,728 and £2,085, the requested conditions, the Lead Local Flood Authority objection of 27 August 2026 by LLFA engineer Kabier Salam, and the archaeology response of 21 August 2026. The transport section is signed by Paul Harrison, development control consultant (transport), and dated 28 August 2026.
• South Oxfordshire District Council heritage consultation response, 11 September 2026, by heritage specialist Rebecca Barnett.
• South Oxfordshire District Council landscape consultation response, 14 September 2026, by landscape specialist Hazel Osborne.