Reading FC chief gains planning consent

Nigel Howe, pictured, applied for planning permission to construct a 6.9-metre high bungalow and garage in the garden of Green Gates in The Street, Mortimer Common.
Similar plans for the site were submitted by Mr Howe last year, but were rejected by West Berkshire Council planners, who thought that the plans would constitute over-development of the site.
The most recent application was called in to the district council’s eastern area planning committee by the Liberal Democrat ward member for Mortimer, Geoff Mayes.
At the committee’s May meeting at the Calcot Centre, Mr Mayes said: “Mortimer is a rural village. We want it to stay rural rather than become urban.
“Both St John’s School and St Mary’s School are full so any additional housing will cause a problem.”
The district council received five letters of objection to the application. One was from next door neighbour Anna Harris, who argued that the development would have a significant impact on the rural environment.
“If this building is given the go ahead we will have direct site into that dwellings. It will also dominate the second part of the garden,” she added.
Another objector, Mr C.S Whitaker said that the development would be dominating blot on the landscape.
He also attacked Mortimer Parish Council for not objecting the application, saying: “This will be another nail in the coffin of rural Mortimer.”
However, agent Chris Strang of Chris Strang Associates said that the development would be similar to other buildings in the area.
Councillors Alan Law (Basildon, Con) and Irene Neill (Aldermaston, Con) criticised the council’s planning department at the meeting, claiming they had insufficient information about the previous application to make a decision on the new plans.
In response, planning officer for the application David Pearson said: “I regret we didn’t bring the old file. I apologise for that. Having said that I think we’ve provided adequate information on this application and we’ve had a site visit.”
Mr Pearson told the committee that it could defer a decision on the application, but councillors decided to go ahead with a vote, with seven voting in favour of the application and two against.