Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 8 April 2026.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 14 May 2026.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 April 2026 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the inclusion of the following amendment:

·       Councillor Clive Taylor was not present at the meeting.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2026 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.

(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).

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 26/00662/MINMAJ in respect of 26/00662/MINMAJ | Section73: Variation of condition 7 'Hours of operation (HWRC)' of previously approved application 14/01111/MINMAJ: Section 73A: Variation of Condition 16 - Travel Plan, of planning permission reference 13/01546/MINMAJ// Section 73: Variation of condition 4-Hours of operation, of approved application 17/01683/MINMAJ | Veolia Environmental Services Padworth IWMF Padworth Lane Lower Padworth Reading RG7 4JF.

2.    Mr Alistair Buckley (Senior Minerals and Waste 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.    The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard (Team Leader – Highways Development Control) if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard indicated that the proposal would result in a maximum of two additional vehicles in and out during the extended hours. From a highway’s perspective, this was considered very little additional vehicle movement, and therefore no objection was raised.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       The limit was for two vehicles per day in and out.

·       The proposal would increase the current operating hours by four, as the site currently opened at 06:00 and closed at 20:00.

·       The extended hours would only be for operational vehicles requiring repair.

Debate

5.    Councillor Richard Somner opened the debate by stating that the application felt very straightforward. He noted the importance of the site to the district and believed the extension of hours was a suitable measure to ensure the facility could maintain its own vehicles on-site, which he fully supported. He considered the number of vehicles involved to be modest and believed that it would be appropriate for vehicles to travel to this site from Basingstoke for maintenance purposes.

6.    Councillor Jeremy Cottam viewed the application as simple and one that would improve the service to the public by ensuring vehicles could be repaired promptly.

7.    Councillor Cottam proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Somner.

8.    The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Jeremy Cottam, seconded by Councillor Richard Somner to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report.

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 26/00711/OUT in respect of outline application for the erection of 2 self build detached dwellings with associated access. Matters to be agreed - access and layout. Land to the east of Hippo Pools, Upper Basildon.

2.    Mr 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 conditional planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.    The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard (Team Leader – Highways Development Control) if he had any observations relating to the application. He made the following observations:

·       The proposal for two large dwellings would be expected to generate approximately 12 additional vehicle movements per day (six in and six out).

·       The access was via a private drive approximately 60m long, which had opportunities for vehicles to pass.

·       The access onto the public highway was wide and the sight lines met national standards.

·       The two additional houses and traffic generation would not have a noticeable impact on the general highway network.

·       Highways Officers had no objection to the application.

4.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Trish Kilgour, Parish Council representative, Mr Robin Fountain, objector, Ms Kerry Pfleger, agent, and Councillor Laura Coyle, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.    Ms Kilgour addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

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

·       Regarding the consultation process for the 2022 settlement boundary change, the Parish Council at the time had not commented. Ms Kilgour acknowledged that was an unfortunate oversight.

Objector Representation

7.    Mr Fountain addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

8.    Members had no questions of clarification.

Agent Representation

9.    Ms Pfleger addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Agent

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

·       The gap in the boundary trees was visible from the footpath.

·       Since her involvement, the proposal had always been for two dwellings, and she could not comment on any prior discussions.

Ward Member Representation

11. Councillor Coyle addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Eastern Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

12. Members had no questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Officers confirmed that all statutory publicity requirements had been met, including a site notice and letters to 20 occupants. An additional 18 invitations to the committee meeting had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.