Four residential dwellings at Buildings and Land To Rear Of Londis Stores High Street, Chieveley

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing industrial units and a pigsty to build four three-bedroom semi-detached homes with parking, cycle and bin storage.

“West Berkshire Council Western Area Planning Committee 21 st January 2026 1. Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Committee to consider the proposed development against the policies of the development plan and the relevant material considerations, and to make a decision as to whether to approve or refuse the application. This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of industrial units and a pigsty and the construction of 4No.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

Similar proposals were refused twice, and an appeal was dismissed because nutrient neutrality mitigation was not properly secured; other alleged harms were not found.

“The appeal decision (Appendix 1) has therefore been carefully considered by officers and the applicant. The dismissal was based exclusively on the Inspector’s concerns that nutrient neutrality mitigation had not been properly secured due to wording issues in the Unilateral Undertaking.”

“For the reasons set out above, having had regard to all relevant matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.” In coming to the officer’s recommendation of this application officers have given weight to this appeal decision which is a material consideration. The table below outlines the relevant planning history of the application site.”

Officer report

Who spoke to the committee

A parish council representative, an objector and the agent addressed the committee and answered members’ questions.

What members debated

Members discussed appeal risk, materials, solar panels, traffic, parking, biodiversity, garden sizes and how conditions could protect the Conservation Area.

“A condition had been included requiring details of materials for approval. There was a biodiversity net gain of 13 percent, which was not a great deal over the minimum requirement, but was an improvement over the previous application. There was retention of the landscaping features. There were enhancements in terms of the solar panels, which was a new requirement for policies going forward.”

“Councillor Tony Vickers opened the debate by noting that the Planning Committee should aim to avoid an expensive appeal and felt that officers were not confident in upholding an appeal. Members had to consider the new information, which was mostly a nutrient neutrality issue. He felt that there was no viable way to refuse the application, and highlighted the concerns raised by the local community.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Tony Vickers proposed accepting the officers’ recommendation, Councillor Howard Woollaston seconded it, and the motion was carried.

“He stated that he would vote against the application. Councillor Howard Woollaston endorsed the comments made by Councillor Vickers, and stated that he would be happy to second the proposal 16. Councillor Tony Vickers proposed to accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report for the reasons listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Woollaston. 17.”

Minutes

The decision and conditions

The committee authorised permission subject to the listed conditions and legal agreement, adding approval of solar-panel design before installation.

“RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:”

“Conditions 1. Commencement of development The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). Approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:”

Minutes

Key legal agreement requirements

The agreement was to secure off-site nutrient neutrality mitigation, carbon offsetting and the council’s legal costs.

“Heads of Terms for Section 106 Agreement 1. Nutrient Neutrality Provision of off-site mitigation to make the development nutrient nutreal in terms of its impact on the River Lambourn SAC. This provision will consist of the planting of 0.57 ha of woodland in advance of occupation of the dwellings and provisions and fees for the ongoing monitoring of this mitigation.”

“Carbon Off setting The dwellings proposed as part of this application do not meet the required 100% reduction in co2 reduction target of DM4. The total residual emission from regulated and unregulated sources needs to be offset through a contribution calculated through the carbon contribution calculator. The submitted Energy report documents have calculated the contribution to offset the remaining carbon emissions to be £3,339.00.”

Officer report