To report any issues with the information below please email

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services Team  This meeting will be streamed live here:

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 282 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 8 and 9 May 2024.

Additional documents:


The Minutes of the meetings held on 8 May 2024 and 9 May 2024 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the Chairman.




Declarations of Interest

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.


There were no declarations of interest received.


Schedule of Planning Applications

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications).


23/02254/FUL, Land at the Rancher, Tidmarsh and Sulham pdf icon PDF 700 KB


Demolition of existing dwelling, erection of 2 no 4 bed dwellings with associated access and curtilage.


Land at the Rancher, Tidmarsh


Richard McArthy


To delegate to the Development Manager to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the schedule of conditions.


Additional documents:


1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/02254/FUL in respect of the demolition of existing dwelling, and erection of 2 no 4 bed dwellings with associated access and curtilage.

2.      Michael Butler (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      Gareth Dowding Principal Engineer (Traffic & Road Safety) confirmed that he had no further comments in relation to highwaysmatters.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Christopher Keen, agent addressed the Committee on this application.

Agent Representation

5.      Mr Christopher Keen addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 5th June 2024 (

MemberQuestions tothe Agent

6.      Members asked questionsof clarificationand weregiven thefollowing response:

·       The duration of the build would be six to eight months.

Member Questions to Officers

7.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·     The Tree Officer was content with the protection of the trees on site. Concern had been expressed about potential development to the south of the site which could have impacted the tree roots, but this was outside of the site’s red zone.

·     The hatched area was outside of the defined settlement boundary, any built form had to be within the settlement boundary.

·     If permission were to be granted, a change of use for the land would not be required.

·     There were no restrictions to any garden structure proposed under the existing conditions.

·     Officers were content that the Construction Method Statement would address concerns around larger vehicles accessing the site.

·     There was an existing level of overlooking to the site.

·     The application was called in by the ward member. However, there was a question surrounding the validity of the planning reasons for the call in. Due to the public expectation that this item was to be discussed at Committee, the Development Manager decided to do so.

·     Officers would not recommend changes to the working hours on the site as this was usually only used under exceptional circumstances which were not present in this case. They advised that such a restriction would be difficult to enforce and could be considered unreasonable.

·     The red line had to cover an appropriate route to an existing adopted highway. The red line on this application linked to the A340 and contained additional access to Manor Farm Lane.

·     It was believed that ownership of the access rights belonged to the applicant but this would need to be confirmed.

·     The Waste Service would service properties on adopted roads if there was already an established refuse collection, which was the case with this application.


8.      Councillor Jeremy Cottam opened the debate and highlighted the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.(1)