Agenda item

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 validation list, this was not a legislative requirement. Citing Article 7(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure Order (DMPO) 2015, officers advised that the plan was sufficient to identify the location and validate the application. Regarding the red line, officers cited case law (Wyatt v Fareham 2021) to confirm that access does not need to be included where no operational development is occurring on it. Officers concluded there were no material technical errors.

·       The cabling works would be considered 'de minimis' and would not require planning permission, so did not need to be included in the red line.

·       Planning Officers and the Legal Team were satisfied that the location plan complied with legislative requirements.

·       'Reg 3' was an internal suffix used to identify an application submitted by the Council.

·       Blue lines were not determinative, and their omission of some adjoining land owned by the applicant was not a reason to invalidate an application.

Debate

15.   Councillor Adrian Abbs opened the debate by supporting the improvement of the football ground. He noted the floodlights, and the power cables were a modern replacement for what was there previously. He could not find a reason to object to the proposal on planning grounds and was minded to approve the application.

16.   Councillor Paul Dick expressed his support for the application, noting the importance of the clarified community use. He stated he was happy to propose the officer's recommendation.

17.   Councillor Tony Vickers noted the issues with drainage on the site and supported the application as a step of progress in the long saga of the football ground. He expressed regret that the 3G pitch was not included but understood the difficulties. He stated he was happy to second a motion to approve.

18.   Councillor Howard Woollaston expressed disappointment that a more comprehensive masterplan approach had not been taken but acknowledged that based on the application before the Committee, he could see no reason for rejection.

19.   Councillor Abbs queried whether the letter mentioned by the objector could be added to the portal. Officers clarified that the letter was a standard notification of an amendment and that the applicant's formal request to amend the scheme was already publicly available on the website.

20.   Councillor Paul Dick 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 Tony Vickers.

21.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Dick, seconded by Councillor Vickers 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 outlined in the main report and update report.</AI4>