4. NO EIA REQUIRED – Council’s decision not to require full Environmental Assessment
In a letter dated 2 August 2005 to the applicant’s agent Christopher Strang Associates marked PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL (enclosure 8), Mr T. Slaney, the Development Control Manager, discusses issues associated with the Abbotswood application and concludes that an EIA is likely to be required.
However, what is curious and requires close scrutiny by the Secretary of State is a letter from Mr Meldrum, the Senior Minerals & Waste Planning Officer, to Christopher Strang the following day, 3 August 2005, (enclosure 9) where he states the exact opposite to the opinion of his manager without reference to the earlier opinion of the Council officer.
It is the opinion of the parish council that the environmental impacts of the proposed site, in terms of traffic, the limited access arrangements, noise, dust, visual intrusion, the proximity to local historic landscape, the proximity to the local technical college and many other reasons set out in objections to the WBC prior to the decision and in letters to yourselves by both Greenham Parish Council and other parish councils adequately justify using the test in the Regulations related to “significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as nature, size and location”.
5. NEED – The justification of “need” not demonstrated
An important consideration is “need”. It is argued by WBC that the site is needed because the lease on the existing Civic Amenity site expires in 2009 (i.e. later than the 2008 end date for the site management contract between WBC and Biffa Waste Services, who operate the site) and the landowner is unwilling to extend. WBC also state that the current site is old, the design unsuitable for recycling and not to modern standards and that the access for vehicles is now unsuitable due to other developments nearby.
The applicant’s agents claim to have searched for alternative sites (see attached letter - enclosure 6). From knowledge of the area and subject (the Parish Council Chair is a Chartered Waste Manager who works extensively in London and the SE on LA waste management planning and operational issues), the search is judged as cursory and unconvincing. It is not material at this stage that the site owner states that they are unwilling to extend the lease given the three years remaining.
Any decision will hinge partly on obtaining planning permission for an alternative use for the existing CA site land. The land in question is land featured in the waste local plan and is safeguarded by it, by RPG 9 and by the South East draft Plan.
Given also the Government’s clear policy that intra regional self sufficiency is a high priority, it cannot be argued that a new site is “needed” because until planning consent is given for an alternative use on the existing Civic amenity site, a new site is not needed and any alternative sites that feature in the Berkshire Waste Local Plan may in any case be needed to enable the implementation of the PFI waste management contract currently being negotiated but delayed, so it is understood, due to uncertainties about which sites may be available to implement the contract.
While it could be argued by the Council (as waste collection and disposal authority) that it has no means to pay for refurbishment of the old site, this is not a material consideration until the present waste use on the existing CA site is extinguished.
Furthermore, regarding “need” it should be noted that there is no history of repeated applications for civic amenity sites on any other appropriate site identified in the waste local plan, and particularly for a nearby site at New Greenham Park, where a site is identified within the planning strategy for the Park and is authorised by an existing outline planning consent. The site at New Greenham Park is ideally suited for a Reuse and Recycling Centre, the actual site within the Park being many hundreds of metres from the public highway and therefore being both screened from it and also providing through the approach route many hundreds of metres of off-road queuing facility.
Following some redesign of the existing CA site, traffic queuing had been eliminated (“…even at busy weekends”) and this was confirmed by the Council’s Recycling Officer Jackie Ward in a memorandum dated 06 June 2006. (attached - enclosure 7). Despite this, the officer’s report to the Planning Committee states the contrary.
6. FINANCIAL PROPRIETY – the handling of public money and decision-making bias
It is clear from Council’s internal documents that an important factor in considering approval for this application is an agreement (informal at this time) that if planning consent is given for the Pinchington Lane housing development, including the extinguishing of planning use for waste management on three sites including the current CA site, the council will have built for it a new Civic Amenity site at Abbotswood, the ownership of which will be transferred to the Council.
However, the mechanism for this happening is open to scrutiny by the Secretary of State and the District Auditor. The attached internal memorandum dated 3 November 2005 from Michael Butler; Head of Planning to Alistair Davis of WBC legal department (enclosure 5) indicates that the S106 monies that WBC calculated were appropriate for inclusion as a planning condition if the housing development were to be granted was £3.136 million.
In an earlier memorandum dated <datew:stonmonth10day25year2005>25th October 2005 from Ashley Heath to Alistair Davis (enclosure 4) the way the new CA site is to be funded is explained (using part or all of the S106 contributions for the housing development). Heads of Agreement were signed for these legal agreements in April 2005.
These documents clearly show that the Council has a conflict of interest. It also appears to be acting unlawfully by effectively handing what is, in effect, public money to the private sector without testing the market. The alternative correct approach would be for the Council to accept the total £3.1 million developer contributions (assuming the housing application is given approval) and then tendering a construction project and purchasing the land through a process of seeking a valuation from the District Auditor.
OTHER Issues
The Parish Council would like to make it clear that it supports the objections made by our neighbouring Greenham Parish Council and by Kingsclere Parish Council.
In conclusion we would like to stress that while some of the points made in our letter are not pure planning policy issues, we feel that these issues, some of which relate to apparent bias, conflict and impropriety, and which may result in local residents applying to the High Court for a judicial review, are material to the consideration by the Secretary of State, because of her wider role for Communities and Local Government generally.
The parish council looks forward to your response.
R Brandwood (Mrs)
Clerk to Newtown Parish Council
Enclosures:
1. Letter to WBC from Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit - dated 21 April 2006
2. Letter to WBC from Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit - dated 3 July 2006
3. Letter to WBC from Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit - dated 1 August 2006
4. Internal WBC memorandum: Ashley Heath to Alistair Davis – dated <datew:stonmonth10day25year2005>25 October 2005
5. Internal WBC memorandum: Michael Butler to Alistair Davis – dated <datew:stonmonth11day3year2005>3 November 2005
6. Letter: Christopher Strang Associates to Matthew Meldrum - dated <datew:stonmonth8day9year2006>9 August 2006
7. Internal WBC memorandum: Jackie Ward to Matthew Meldrum - dated <datew:stonmonth6day6year2006>6 June 2006
8. WBC Letter: Tim Slaney to Christopher Strang Associates - dated <datew:stonmonth8day2year2005>2 August 2005
9. WBC Letter: Matthew Meldrum to Christopher Strang Associates - dated <datew:stonmonth8day3year2005>3 August 2005
