Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment
Planning consent granted by West Berkshire DC for a new house and cow shed on land at Inkpen, Hungerford was over-t...
Planning consent granted by West Berkshire DC for a new house and cow shed on land at Inkpen, Hungerford was over-turned at London's high court on Friday and the council was left facing a legal bill of over£10,000.

David John Macleod Wilson, who co-owns and lives at Trappshill House, Inkpen, successfully challenged the council's decision last November to grant farmer Simon Bastable planning permission for the scheme on land next door.

The council had given the go-ahead to Mr Bastable, who lives at

Nightingales, Trapps Hill, Inkpen, and owns a yard at nearby Rolf's Farm, to build a new house, suckler cow building and loose boxes on land known as Foxglove Farm, next to Mr Wilson's property.

Mr Wilson complained that the site, which currently has no buildings

standing on it, is in an agricultural arable field, and is located within a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, and that the planning permission should be quashed.

Now deputy judge David Pannick QC has backed that view, quashed planning consent and ordered the council to reconsider the matter. He also awarded Mr Wilson his legal costs of£10,800, which the council will now have to pay on top of its own legal bill, and the expense of having to consider the planning application twice.

The judge ruled that the council had failed to properly consider other alternative locations in the area for Mr Bastable's intended farm development. Although all the potential sites were in the area of outstanding natural beauty, he said that the council had failed to consider whether, by locating the scheme nearer to Mr Bastable's existing house, the plans could go ahead without the addition of a new dwellinghouse to the area.

He said: 'If the council were to give proper consideration to the

alternative options it may mean that another dwelling house will not need to be built in this area of outstanding natural beauty.

'I say only that the council should now consider these alternative options. I say nothing about the planning merits of those options.'


  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.