Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 23 April 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2025 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.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1), by virtue of the fact that he was the Vice Chairman of the 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 Nigel Foot declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was the West Berkshire Heritage Champion. 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 Foot declared that he had been lobbied via letter on Agenda Item 4(2).  

(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).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 25/00233/HOUSE Inkpen in respect of demolition of existing rear extensions, garage and home office. New two storey rear extension and single storey side extension with new open porch. New garage with store over. New landscaping work. Trapps Hill Cottage, Trapps Hill, Inkpen, Hungerford

1.      Ms Isabel Oettinger 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.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Sian Griffiths, agent, and Mr Tony Vickers, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Agent Representation

3.      Ms Griffiths addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       The applicant wished to retain the character of the cottage, which would be lost if it was demolished.

·       The applicant had agreed to a planning condition, which required an ongoing recording program for approval by Officers.

Ward Member Representation

5.      Councillor Vickers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

6.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Officers were satisfied with the application and the heritage statement and noted that the applicant would retain as much as possible of the original frontage.

·       Officers stated that no objections were received.

·       Officers indicated that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Team would verify if the development would result in a net increase of more than 100 square metres in floor space. A CIL charge would be levied if the floor space increase more than 100 square metres. Any exemption would be dealt with after the Committee decision had been issued.

·       Officers would investigate the CIL statement, and would clarify that in future reports, as other exemptions could apply.

Debate

8.      Councillor Paul Dick opened the debate by stating that he was content with the recommendation of Officers and was in favour of it, and he praised the quality of the report.

9.      Councill Denise Gaines noted that the frontage of the development would not be changed and was disappointed that the catslide roof would be removed but indicated that it was not part of the original design. She was in favour of Officer recommendations.

10.   Councillor Tony Vickers considered that the current cottage was not suitable for modern habitation, and an extension would enable it to be habitable. He noted the balanced nature of the application but was supportive of the application.

11.   Councillor Anthony Amirtharaj agreed with the statements made by Councillor Dick and Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/01999/FUL in respect of change of use of land to gypsy and traveller site – 1 pitch. Mount Pleasant Farm, Enborne.

2.      Mr Michael Butler 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 Tony Vickers, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Ward Member Representation

4.      Councillor Tony Vickers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Officers advised that whilst it was not an ideal site from a sustainability point of view, it was possible given the location of the site to walk and cycle to local facilities with shops less than one mile away.

·       Officers indicated that as the development was outside settlement boundary, a residential development would have been recommended for refusal, however DM1 of the local plan review identified traveller sites as an exception, therefore Officers recommended approval.

·       Officers drew attention to condition  5, which restricted occupation of the site to gypsies and travellers as defined by the planning policy for travellers’ sites December 2024.

·       Officers highlighted conditions 6,9,10 which related to highway conditions, which were the parking, the EV, and the provision of gates.

·       Officers considered that whether a development was isolated was a matter of professional interpretation of the physical characteristics of an area and the policies that applied.

·       Officers noted that there was a presumption in favour of development on previously developed land. In terms of the core strategy, new development could be more readily permitted if it was a brownfield site, however, because it was greenfield that did not apply.

·       Officers highlighted that if permission was granted, it was recommended that a condition be included that removed permitted development rights for fencing. If the applicant wished to erect any fencing, they would be required to submit a planning application.

·       Officers stated that condition 11 for hard landscaping and boundary treatments in the application was still to be discussed with the applicant in terms of details and what was appropriate for that condition discharge.

·       Officers considered that it was not specific  government policy and best practice, but if an application came forward and the applicant did not specifically need a day room, there were no legal or policy requirements which required  one to be built. A day room was not permitted development, and a request for planning permission would be needed and would be considered on its merits at the time.

·       Officers noted that on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)

1.      The Planning Application (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 24/02080/FUL in respect of Part retrospective external alterations to barns, Hungerford Park, was withdrawn from consideration before the meeting.