Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 22 October 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 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.

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 25/01081/FUL in respect of demolition of industrial units and pigsty and construction of 4 no. residential dwellings and parking provision, buildings and land to rear of Londis Stores, High Street, Church Lane, Chieveley, Newbury. 

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 and legal agreement outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application.

·       It was confirmed that no highways issues had been raised in previous applications, and no highway reasons for refusal had been considered by the Planning Inspector. The proposal would generate traffic from the four dwellings, however the previous commercial use would also have generated a level of traffic generation, and officers did not expect a noticeable increase in traffic to and from the site. The proposal was in line with car parking standards, and there was provision for cycle storage and electric vehicle charging points. Refuse vehicles could reach into the site, however, refuse collection was expected to take place as per the existing dwellings adjacent to the site. The local highway authority had no objection to the proposal, as per the previous proposal. 

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Cowan, Parish Council representative, Mr Neil Courtney, objector, Mr David Lee, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

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

Member Questions to the Parish Council

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

·       The Parish Council Representative had noted the conditions for the scheduling of materials in architecture details. However, he highlighted that the previously application had been refused 18 months ago and he felt that more detail should have been included in the proposal regarding materials that would be appropriate on the site. 

·       The use of rendered walls and slate roofing was considered to be out of character with the Conservation Area. and this could have been addressed before reaching the committee.

Objector Representation

7.      Mr Courtney 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 number of parking spaces was considered to be insufficient at two per household. If the owners had adult children, then they would likely need to park on the High Street or find parking elsewhere. 

Applicant/Agent Representation

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

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

10.   Members asked questions of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 25/00083/FULMAJ in respect of construction of additional training facilities to include 40 boxes, horse walker, storage barn, water treadmill barn, collecting ring, tack room/day facilities, racing office and a two-bed staff cottage with ancillary works. Frenchmans View, Upper Lambourn, Hungerford, RG17 8QW.

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.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application.

a.    He noted that it was an existing yard with an existing access on to the B4000. The proposal was likely to generate an additional 10 vehicle movements per day. Officers felt that this should not cause any traffic impact. There would be some improvements to the sight lines to the right as a result of maintenance and clearance of the hedge. Members had raised concerns about mud and other material being transported from the site onto the B4000. Therefore, a condition was included in the update report that extended the hard surfacing further into the site in order to reduce that from happening. Officers had no concerns regarding the site layout as it was away from the public highway. Overall, the local Highway Authority had no objection.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ed Walker and Mr David Spragg, applicant/agent, and Councillor Howard Woollaston, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

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

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·       There was no need for horses to go onto the public highway to access the gallops.

·       In terms of security, it was confirmed that staff would be present on site at all times, and the existing hostel and new accommodation were placed by the entrances. The entrance from Kings Down stables was gated, CCTV would be used in the stables, and there would likely be pop up bollards.

·       It was common for horse owners or agents to visit the site to see the facilities. There was a significant amount of traffic on the yard, especially on Saturdays. The layout and appearance of the site were very important and the applicant aimed to keep standards high.

Ward Member Representation

7.      Councillor ward Woollaston addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

8.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       Officers had no concerns regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)