Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 19 March 2025.

The minutes of the previous meeting 19 March 2025 were approved as a true and accurate record and were 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.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Items 4(1), 4(2), 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was the Vice Chair of North Wessex Downs National Landscape. 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 Adrian Abbs declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3) by the Ward Member.

Councillor Denise Gaines declared that she had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2) by Boxford Parish Councillors.

Councillor Clive Hooker declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3), by virtue of the fact that he knew the applicant in a professional capacity as she was the clerk to East Ilsley Parish Council when he was district councillor. 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.

(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 24/00657/FUL in respect of Erection of single dwelling, double garage and associated works, Land at Tudor Avenue Chieveley Newbury RG20 8RW.

2.      Mr Matthew Shepherd 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 Michael Parker and Mr Alan Alewood, objectors, Mr Andy Callow and Mr Robert James, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

4.      Mr Parker and Mr Alewood addressed the Committee. The following points were raised:

·       Local residents had been provided with very little notice of the of the recommendation to approve the application.

·       They felt as though officers’ recommendation was undemocratic and contravened the Council’s own policies.

·       They had presented photos demonstrating the area’s propensity to flood.

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       The site had previously been designated as agricultural land and was denoted as such in the Land Registry.

·       The flooding near the site was mainly surface water, but was also through water that came up through Thames Water’s sewer network when it could not cope with the rainfall.

·       The development site sat on higher ground and could contribute to increased flooding on lower ground, which already flooded. The pumping station would need to be improved to prevent flooding when there  was excess rainwater.

·       The development would add to the burden on the pumping station, which was unable to cope with the current demand.

Applicant/Agent Representation

6.      Mr Callow and Mr James addressed the Committee. The representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

7.      The main items highlighted by the applicant were as follows:

·       The development was under Callow Construction, but was owned by the applicant and his wife, with a view to building a family home.

·       The applicant had contacted all neighbours in the near vicinity to allay any concerns prior to and during the application.

·       The application and the Council’s consultants had answered all objections raised by neighbours.

·       The applicant was sympathetic to the concerns raised by the objectors, but concerns raised were not felt to be relevant to the application as shown by the surface and foul water strategies commissioned by the applicant.

·       A lack of maintenance may have contributed to the flooding issues.

·       As owners of the Tudor Avenue access road, which would not be adopted by West Berkshire Council, the applicant would investigate the issues moving forward and would look into a communal laydown area for bin collection.

·       Regarding nutrient neutrality concerns, the applicant had agreed with Officers the amount and the location of the offsite mitigation which would be secured with a Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

22. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/02784/PIP in respect of Application for Permission in Principle for residential development for a new detached dwelling, Laburnum Cottages, Westbrook, Newbury RG20 8DN.

23.   Ms Lauren Hill 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 report.

24.   In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mark Hayes Newington, Parish/Town Council representative, Mr Michael Webb, objector, and Mr Gareth Johns, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

25.   Mr Hayes Newington addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

26.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

27.   Mr Webb addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       The land stopped being used as allotments in the 1960s and had since been used as agricultural land for chickens and other animals.

Agent Representation

29.   Mr Johns addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       The development was put before the committee as an in principal planning application due to costs for the landowner.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       It was explained that traffic concerns were not in scope for an in principal planning application but would be asked for at the technical detail stage application.

·       An in principal planning application was the first step of a two-stage planning permission.

·       Refusal of the principal planning application would not prevent the applicant from submitting another application.

·       Approval of the application would mean the applicant would have three years to have the technical details stage agreed. This could be brought by members to the committee.

·       In principal planning applications could be taken to appeal, and approval would mean that the land would be classified as suitable for development. The approval would only be for one dwelling, and any additions would require another application.

·       An in principal application was similar to an outline application, with all matters reserved. But the validation requirements were a lot less. Applicants only had to submit limited information in terms of a location plan. If the decision was granted, the use of the land would not change until the application was complete.

·       The application was put forward by the applicant to be included within the settlement boundary, and the Parish Council had been consulted on that basis as rounding off the existing settlement,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

45. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 25/00128/HOUSE in respect of proposed single storey rear extension, new first floor rear dormer windows and replacement paving to front steps with new handrails, Swimbrels, Newbury Hill, Hampstead Norreys, Thatcham, RG18 0TR.

46.   Ms Lauren Hill 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.

Member Questions to Officers

47.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Debate

48.   Members did not consider that the application required any debate.

49.   Councillor Howard Woollaston 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 Denise Gaines

50.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Howard Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Denise Gaines 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 listed in the main report and update report: