Two self-build homes at Land East Of Hippo Pools, Upper Basildon, Reading

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for two self-build detached dwellings, with access and layout considered at this stage.

“Outline application for the erection of 2 self build detached dwellings with associated access. Matters to be agreed -access and layout. Land to the east of Hippo Pools, Upper Basildon. Hathor Property Limited. Extension of time agreed with applicant until 3 rd July 2026.”

“To clarify at this outline stage, it is ONLY layout and access which is being considered by the LPA so matters of eg. design are not taken into account at this stage. Planning History 2.1 The table below outlines the relevant planning history of the application site. Application Proposal Decision / Date 136978 Erection of 5 houses Refused pre 2000 144226 Erection of 2 dwellings Approved 1994.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while highways, public health, archaeology, drainage and trees raised no objection subject to conditions or mitigation.

“The full responses may be viewed with the application documents on the Council’s website, using the link at the start of this report. Basildon Parish Council: Objections :loss of garden land [green infrastructure]and the access is poor, visual impact in the NDL, overdevelopment of the site. Impact on amenity, and on public rights of way users.”

“West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 1 st July 2026 Tree officer No objections per se but the tree officer remains concerned that a number of trees have already been felled on the site to provide capacity for the houses should the application be approved by the LPA. Conditions at the reserved matters stage will need to be applied to provide replacement trees in mitigation, and a comprehensive landscaping scheme to be applied via condition in addition.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

All 18 public contributors objected, citing settlement boundaries, drainage, landscape, trees, ecology, overdevelopment, highway safety, construction disturbance and overlooking.

“Public representations 4.2 Representations have been received from 18 contributors, all of which object to the proposal. The full responses may be viewed with the application documents on the Council’s website, using the link at the start of this report. In summary, the following issues/points have been raised: • Concerns that the site has been reinserted into the identified settlement boundary of the village -why? • Drainage and flooding-impact on infrastructure.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council representative, an objector, the agent and the ward member addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members debated tree loss, landscape impact, the settlement boundary, highway effects, conditions and whether the proposal complied with planning policy.

“Officers explained that while “infill” had no formal definition that applies within settlement boundaries, policy required consideration of the pattern of development, and that density was a key element of an area’s character. • Officers advised that the addition of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was a separate process to planning conditions, but the Parish Council could make representations to the Tree Officer.”

“He wanted to listen to the views held by Members. Councillor Ross Mackinnon stated that he sympathised with residents but could see little in the objections that would justify a refusal. He felt the application was within policy and supported appropriate development in villages. Councillor Justin Pemberton stated that while the principle of development was accepted, he remained concerned about the loss of trees.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted to grant planning permission after a proposal to accept the officer recommendation was seconded.

“He was concerned about the tree felling, the lack of a response from Thames Water, and the general impact on the National Landscape. He felt a single house may have been acceptable and, on balance, believed the application should be refused due to loss of amenity and landscape impact. Councillor Somner was supportive of approving the application if there was strengthening of the language of Condition One.”

“The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Richard Somner, seconded by Councillor Paul Kander to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.”

Minutes