24 July 2025 update

On 23 July, the Western Area Planning Committee met to determine application 25/00827/FULMAJ (see section below). This was the second of three matters considered and you can see the agenda (and a link to a video of the debate, which for this item stated at about one hour 10 minutes) by clicking here.

The main objections, as summarised in the section below, were from WBC’s officers responsible for trees, ecology and highways. Indeed, these were the only objections, all the other thirty-odd comments all being in support. The meeting included an impassioned address by the landowner, Will Puxley, which explained why the scheme was so important.

With the financial and other pressures faced by farmers and landowners, diversification is, he explained, more important now than ever before. He pointed to his familiy’s long-term stewardship of the land, to the tree and hedgerow planting which it’s recently undertaken and to the challenges facing those who wish to maintain and enhace ancient woodlands. This was, he concluded a “light-touch, temporary and reversible” proposal that would be “a step forward towards resiliance and sustainability.”

Ward member Tony Vickers made very similar points in his own address. He also contrasted this kind of “legacy landowning” with the less beneficial “vanity” and “institutional” types. He also stressed that some development in the NWD National Landscape (which hadn’t objected to this) was inevitable and “can be made acceptable”. He argued that this was a good example of this.

“Give this applicant the green light,” he concluded, “but on condition the estate commits to a thorough Woodland Management Plan for just this site. Then in five years our officers can judge, with evidence, whether their assertions now about significant harm stack up.”

This sensible and pragmatic suggestion was not taken up. It was in my view hugely disappointing that the application was refused, by five to two, the officers’ recommendations being followed.  There are a number of grounds on which this should have been passed:

• The real enemies of woodlands are climate change, disease, deer and under-investment. I don’t think that occasional woodland weeddings tests very high. The under-investment will, as a result of the lost income, be more of a problem. The estate can’t invest money it doesn’t have.
• The grounds for refusing it because of the lack of sustainable travel options are specious. There is a bus service that passes the site, the rather infrequent number 4. However, even if there were an express service from Newbury station every five minutes, I doubt people going to a wedding would use it. Indeed, by that logic, the nearby church should be closed for weddings as well as it suffers from identical drawbacks. So should every other rural business. The inference is that anyone living in a village or the countryside is expected to regard themselves as an inhabitant of a museum.
• The suggestion that there would be disruption and parking issues is specious as well. Welford Park has been organising events like the snowdrop walks for years and has nailed all those problems. I use the road a lot and have never been inconvenienced by the traffic.
• There are responsible landowners and less responsible ones. I think that Welford Park has demonstrated itself to be in the first category. I also think they know how to manage woodland and conduct events rather better than WBC’s officers seem to believe.

Whether the applicants decide to appeal is a matter for them but, if they do, I hope they win.

Background

A decision is pending on an application for “Use of land for wedding ceremonies and receptions for 6 months a year (April to September), including the temporary erection of tipis and associated car parking (for a temporary period of 5 years) at Welford Park Welford Newbury RG20 8HU”. You can see the documents by visiting WBC’s planning portal and quoting the reference 25/00827/FULMAJ. This replaces an application which was withdrawn, the main difference here being that the previous one was for permanent use.

The matter has been called in by one of the ward members, Tony Vickers. This means that (if the officers are minded to refuse it) it will be determined by the Western Area Planning Committee, probably on 23 July.

There have been twenty-five public comments to date, every one in support of the application. Three of the consultees from West Berkshire Council, however, feel differently. Their comments tell us some interesting things about a number of matters including planning policies, rural development and attitudes to land management.

The comment from the tree team begins on a note of barely disguised irritation. It notes that felling has taken place in the area: the applicants assert this was due to ash dieback, a claim the report says is “plausible but not proven.” I wonder if proof has been requested.

It goes on to complain that the thinned trees have not yet been restocked. I’m no expert, but does this not normally happen in the autumn? Trees felled earlier this year would not have been replaced yet.

The report continues with a number of concerns about how the area would be depredated by the proposed use. The ecology report has much the same tone and conclusions.

Although it’s expected that the number of weddings there will increase, the estimate of two a week for six months seems on the high side. It’s also worth reflecting that, at present, the site can be used for such events for up to 28 days with no permission needed. This includes all the days on which the structures are standing: allowing a day on either side of the event reduces the effective maximum to about nine.

However, setting up and dismantling them on each occasion would probably cause at least as much damage as wedding guests. Although catering vans and other vehicles would be required each time, these regular back-and-forth journeys of lorries would not. This seems an advantage.

So too, from WBC’s point of view, does the fact that it the application is approved it will have some control over what happens there. Under the 28-days rule that would otherwise prevail, it effectively has none.

The report from the highways team echoes some of their colleagues’ objections and adds others. Its conclusion is that the plan should be refused as it “will increase traffic in a rural location that has no pedestrian or bus routes and is linked by rural roads where at times cycling can be difficult.” (In fact, the number 4 bus serves Welford: though this, I admit, unlikely to be the journey method of choice for most invitees).

The venue has hosted several events including snowdrops walks, the Boxford Masques and the Festival of Lights. These attract large numbers of people with little or no disruption I’m aware of (and I use that road quite a lot). The estate has long experience in handling parking arrangements: just as it has – to return to an earlier point – experience of woodland maintenance, in both cases probably to a higher extent than WBC’s consultees appear to accept.

The response goes on to say that “Policy CS10 seeks to direct rural economic development to sustainable locations, such as the identified Rural Service Centres and Service Villages” such as Lambourn. Does this mean that development in villages is in general going to be refused? These are not museums but places where people work.

On which point, the applicants claim that there would be an employment benefit for local people. Such assertions are often made in applications and are sometimes proved to be groundless. However, I understand that these can be supported by evidence from the similar events that have taken place there.

Welford Park, from which the applicants lease the site, also need to generate revenue from its land. Opinions differ about the societal benefits or otherwise of landed estates. This is not the time to go into them: nor is it a matter which refusing this application is going to solve. However, it seems that Welford has for many generations managed its property responsibly.

Landowners are now under increasing scrutiny to maintain the highest environmental standards. Grants are available but more money is often needed. Felling and dealing with ash trees because of dieback is, I understand, a particularly expensive business.

An example can be seen in Bucklebury. The estate there did not have sufficient money to prevent the Common from sliding into a state of profound bio-diversity ill-heath. Only when external funding was available has it been able to address this.

We expect a lot from large landowners, and rightly so. However, the money to pay for the work doesn’t grow on the trees they manage: rather the reverse. This seems like a good opportunity to allow them to help themselves, rather than rely on grants or allow the woodlands to deteriorate. I think that Welford Park’s claim that the revenue will be put back into the woodland is one that, on past form, should be taken seriously.

Under current planning law, the decision-makers need to demonstrate “wholly exceptional reasons” to allow the development. This looks like a tricky hurdle to clear but that fact that it will be decided by committee, rather than merely officers, makes it perhaps easier to overcome.

Arguments that might be marshalled in favour include that it’s temporary (and so not really a development at all) and time-limited; that no trees will be felled; that it will create local employment; that the proceeds will help support ecological work at no public cost; that the organisers appear to know how to run events; and that a decent number of local people support it.

In many ways the most worrying aspect is the suggestion that development of almost any kind in rural locations is to be discouraged. Such communities need to remain vibrant and viable or else people won’t want to live there. Balancing up various needs, and the demands of the various policies (several of which the WBC consultees quote), is what planning committees need to do each time they meet. This is what Western Area will need to accomplish when the matter comes before it.

Brian Quinn