Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 21 January 2026.

The minutes of the previous meeting will be to follow.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2026 were deferred until the next meeting on 18 March 2026.

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.

Councillor Nigel Foot declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).

Councillors Howard Woollaston, Tony Vickers, Adrian Abbs, Martin Colston, and Denise Gaines declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

Councillors Tony Vickers declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3)

Councillor Nigel Foot declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) as he was a member of Newbury Town Council's Planning and Highways Committee where the application had been discussed. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(2) as he was a member of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee where the application had been discussed. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Phil Barnett declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) and 4(2) as a member of Newbury Town Council's Planning and Highways Committee and Greenham Parish Council where these items had been discussed. He confirmed he had abstained from voting on these applications at the town/parish council level. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

The Chairman stated that all three applications due to be discussed had been subject to site visits, although the visits had been “fragmented” because access on site depended on who the landowner allowed onto their land. The Chairman apologised to any individuals who had been unable to access the sites but emphasised that it was the landowners prerogative to decide who could go onto their land.  

(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 25/01669/FUL &  25/01670/LBC in respect of conversion of buildings to form 3 residential dwellings, extension to garage and associated works. (Reconsideration of application reference 24/02422/FUL following the High Court Consent Order dated 9th July 2025).

2.      Ms Harriet Allen (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 and listed building consent, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard (Principal Development Control Engineer) if he had any observations relating to the application.

·       The application followed a previous one that was quashed, but there were no highway issues with either application.

·       The access onto the B3421 and the sight lines were existing. While the sight lines to the south were not up to standard due to the bridge structure, the proposal would result in a substantial reduction in vehicle movements compared to the lawful office use.

·       This significant reduction in traffic would reduce the potential for harm and personal injury accidents, making it difficult to refuse the application on traffic and access grounds.

·       The construction management plan was sufficient for the scale of the proposed conversion works.

·       The site layout, car parking standards, cycle storage, and electric vehicle charging points were all compliant and satisfactory.

·       Highway Officers raised no objection to the application.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andy Moore, Town Council representative, Mr John Cole, objector, Mr Simon Pike and Ms Sharon Bovingdon, supporter, and Mr Fred Quartermain, solicitor for the Applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.      Mr Moore addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

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

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       The visibility splay to the south was 62m, which was below the recommended standard, whereas the northern exit was safer.

·       Mr Cole had not consulted directly with the Council’s Conservation Officer.

·       Regarding a question on how the objector would prevent future residents from using his business’s exit during opening hours. Mr Cole stated that if the application were approved, he would likely not police it in order to maintain good neighbourly relations.

·       He confirmed that there was water in the barn near the boiler

Supporter Representation

9.      Mr Pike and Ms Bovingdon addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Supporter

10.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Agent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 25/01630/FUL in respect of change of use of 2 Pound Court from commercial (Use Class E) to a Place of Worship (Use Class F1), Pound Court, Pound Street, Newbury, RG14 6AA.

1.      Ms Sian Cutts (Senior 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.

2.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard (Principal Development Control Engineer) if he had any observations relating to the application.

a.    The site was observed during Friday lunchtime prayers. There was a steady arrival of worshippers, with on-street parking on Pound Street becoming full. Some vehicles circled to find parking and some drop-offs occurred on the carriageway. The number of worshippers observed was around 50, which aligned with the applicant's data.

b.    The existing traffic and parking issues would continue even if the application was refused, as the current mosque had been in the street for 25 years.

c.     The introduction of Use Class E meant that the building could be used for other intensive purposes like a convenience store, restaurant, or nursery without needing planning permission. This made it very difficult to object to the proposed use on traffic generation grounds.

d.    To mitigate concerns, he had worked with the applicant on a Parking and Allocation Management Plan. This would utilise the on-site car park for staff (two spaces) and for the drop-off and collection of worshippers, which should be sufficient based on his observations. The plan would be enforced by on-site stewards, with CCTV and clear instructions provided to worshippers to use public car parks.

e.    On balance, the Local Highway Authority raised no objection, subject to conditions to finalise the car park layout.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andy Moore, Town Council representative, Ms Clare Struthers-Semple, objector, Mr Mohammed Hussain, supporter, Mr Alban Henderson, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

4.      Mr Moore addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Town Council

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

6.      Ms Struthers-Semple addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       Observations had been conducted on two separate occasions, counting 258 and 273 attendees respectively.

·       The pre-application advice had asked the applicant to demonstrate that vehicles could enter and exit in forward gear and provide tracking plots, which had not been carried out.

·       The objector estimated that the two mosques would have a capacity of 700, based on the current mosque’s stated capacity of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 25/01921/HOUSE in respect of elevation adjustments, minor alterations to Western Lodge and rebuilding of the garage annex, to provide a cohesive architectural design to the whole building, now part of the broader Lake House Estate, Western Lodge, West Woodhay, RG20 0BH.

2.      Ms Cheyanne Kirby (Senior 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.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Robert MacDonald Parish Council representative, Mr Simon Hayes, objector, and Mr Ian Blake, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

4.      Mr MacDonald addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Parish Council

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

6.      Mr Hayes addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

7.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Agent Representation

8.      Mr Blake addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Agent

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

·       The Agent did not know when the Pond had been filled. Officers clarified that planning permission was not required to fill in a pond that was not protected.

·       In response to a question about the annex works being described as a "modest change", Mr Blake clarified that as the garage doors were being relocated, the building had to be demolished and rebuilt on the same footprint, since it could not be physically turned.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       The track to West Woodhay Road was outside the red line and subject to separate enforcement matters. Other lines on the plan were landscaping/mown tracks not requiring permission. An informative proposed on the update sheet clarified that nothing outside the red line was approved by this application. Unlike a previous case, the red line for this application was contiguous with the residential curtilage and would not validate the track’s existence at a later stage.

·       A construction management plan had not been requested as it was assumed the lawful access would be used, and any use of the unauthorised track would be subject to enforcement action.

·       As the pond was not part of the proposal, and as it had already been removed, a condition to reinstate it would not meet the legal tests.

Debate

11.   Councillor Clive Hooker opened the debate. He stated he had no objection to the alterations to the house, which he considered a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.