Land at Brimpton Lane and Brimpton Footpath 20 and Blacknest Lane Brimpton Common Reading

1. 1.The application is contrary to the advice in policy DM20 of the WBLPR as it lies on a greenfield site outside any defined settlement boundary and does not meet any identified need or assist the local rural economy. In addition, it does not comply with a range of the criteria contained in policy DM20 of the WBLPR. In addition, the Council having due regard to the personal circumstances of the applicant in the light of the advice in the DLUC publication 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' (PPTS) (updated 19 December 2023), is not satisfied that the need is so exceptional to override Development Plan Policies. Finally having regard to the advice in para 25 of the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites where it is noted that sites in the open countryside should be strictly controlled, given the location is not sustainable in relation to local facilities and access to those facilities is poor. The intentional unauthorised development undertaken is also contrary to national policy set out in the DCLG Chief Planning Officer letter dated 31st August 2015, and the associated Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 17th December 2015.
2. 2.The application site is located within the AWE Aldermaston Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ). Policy SP4 of the WBLPR of 2023 to 2041 seeks to protect public safety regarding the AWE nuclear installations site by ensuring development can be accommodated in an off-site emergency plan. The application has failed to demonstrate that public safety could be secured if there was an incident at AWE Aldermaston and that it would not adversely affect the AWE Off-Site Emergency Response Plan. The proposal therefore conflicts with the NPPF and Policy SP4 identified above, and paragraph 101 of the NPPF.
3. 3.Brimpton Common at present, whilst not a nationally designated landscape, has an attractive open nature and character, which contributes to the area's quality. The proposed introduction of the 2 new gypsy caravan pitches along with the retention of the pitch on plot 2 along with the day room and the new access roads with associated domestic paraphernalia will serve to harm and diminish this inherent natural quality which is contrary to the advice in policy SP8 of the WBLPR of 2023 to 2041, as adopted. In addition the introduction of the 2 additional pitches over and above plot 2, will incur the loss of green infastructure, which has not been mitigated off site, so is contrary to the advice in policy SP10 in the WBLPR. It is thus unacceptable. The applicant has also failed to submit an Landscape Visual Impact Assessment in support of the proposal, so being contrary to policy DM4 in the WBLPR.
4. 4.Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to assess the ecological impact of the proposed development works to the site. Therefore the proposed works are contrary to the requirements of Policy DM20 of the WBLPR crivertion (x) which requires, inter alia, that proposals will provide an Ecological Impact Assessment , together with further detailed surveys arising from that as necessary and for appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures to be implemented to ensure that any protected species are not adversely affected, as well as any appropriate mitigation and compensation measures. Additionally, in failing to provide adequate information to demonstrate the impacts on local biodiversity the proposed works are contrary to the requirements of policy SP11 in the WBLPR which seeks to ensure [on plots 1 and 3 only] to achieve net gains in biodiversity. Furthermore the proposed works would be contrary to the requirements that planning decisions should minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. It is thus unacceptable .
5. 5.Plot 2 relates to a site which has already been refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal. The occupancy of the pitch should have now ceased if the requirements of that appeal decision APP/W0340/24/334687 (of March 2025) had been adhered to , so the continued presence on site of plot 2 is unauthorised, and is the subject of extant enforcement action. It would be unacceptable, and inconsistent , in principle for the LPA to now permit this pitch, given there has been no fundamental change in either policy or circumstances surrounding the site of plot 2, and the appeal decision is a material consideration in this.

From the council's decision notice.

Date validated

5 May 2026