Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 February 2026.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 10 September 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2026 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 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.

Prior to the meeting, Councillor Nigel Foot declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was involved in developing the application as Executive Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Sport. As his interest was prejudicial, he determined to send apologies for the meeting and would take no part in the debate or vote on the matter. He indicated that he would attend the meeting only to address the Committee in his capacity as Ward Member and to answer questions.

Councillor Billy Drummond and Denise Gaines declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee, which had considered this application, although, he had not been present when the item was considered. As his interest was personal and not a 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 25/02139/REG3 in respect of erection of floodlighting, Faraday Road Football Ground, Faraday Road, Newbury, RG14 2AD.

2.      Mr Matthew Shepherd (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 Vaughan Miller, Town Council representative, Mr Alan Pearce and Ms Paula Saunderson objectors, Mr Danny Langford and Mr Lee McDougall, supporters, Mr Jon Winstanley, applicant, and Councillor Nigel Foot, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

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

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

6.      Mr Pearce and Ms Saunderson 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:

·       Ms Saunderson confirmed her view that the application should not be determined as it had not been properly validated according to national and local checklists.

·       Ms Saunderson’s objection was based on the process and document inaccuracies, not the principle of the floodlights.

·       Mr Pearce confirmed the letter of 6 March 2026 stated that the application had been amended to be solely for the erection of floodlights, removing the elements that had been subject to objection.

Supporter Representation

8.      Mr Langford and Mr McDougall addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Supporter

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

·       To the best of his knowledge, Mr McDougal confirmed that the proposed positions of the floodlights and power connections were the same as those that were previously removed.

·       With careful management, the pitch could be used for training two of three evenings a week in addition to weekend matches.

Applicant/Agent Representation

10.   Mr Winstanley addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant

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

·       'FL-11' was the floodlight model name and was not related to the height, which was 15 metres.

Ward Member Representation

12.   Councillor Foot addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Ward Member

13.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

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

·       While the submitted plan's scale did not match the guidance in the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 25/00572/FUL in respect of Installation of extract fan system to rear elevation, 1 Bartholomew Street, Newbury, RG14 5LL.

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, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Giorgio Marcello, objector, Mr Mehmet Erturk, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

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

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

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

·       When asked if Mr. Marcello currently experienced noise or smells from the premises and if he had ever recorded them with the Council, Mr. Marcello confirmed he sometimes did, but he had not officially reported them.

Applicant/Agent Representation

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

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant

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

·       Mr. Erturk confirmed he would have the system maintained regularly, as it was essential for his business. He stated that the system would be serviced every three to six months and he could provide invoices to prove this. He believed it would be an overall improvement for his staff and customers.

·       The café was currently open from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and closed on Wednesdays. The hours may extend to 8:00 pm in the summer but there were no plans for late-night opening.

·       The purpose of the new system was to move the smoke and smells from inside the café to the outside, as the internal system was not working effectively.

Member Questions to Officers

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

9.      Regarding a question on whether the flue was high enough to prevent odours from wafting back down and effecting neighbours. Officers confirmed that the impact at the proposed height had been assessed by the Environmental Health Officer and deemed acceptable with the proposed high-grade filtration system. Officers noted there were no specific height regulations for such flues as there were for wood burners

10.   Officers explained that while a long-term monitoring condition would be unreasonable, if a resident experienced unacceptable levels of noise or odour, they could report it to the Environmental Health team. If the equipment was found to be faulty or in breach of a condition, it would become an enforcement matter.

11.   Regarding a question on if the Council had received many complaints about noise or smells from residents living above other town-centre establishments. Officers stated that without the Environmental Health Officer present,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(2)