5. There is clear evidence that West Berks was involved with the applicant from the very inception of the plan, and may well have instigated it. As long ago as August 2005, well before anything was made public, the Council was in correspondence about the requirements for an EIA, and correspondence held refers to previous letters. It is known that in 2004 West Berks actively sought a suitable site and entered into negotiations with the developer as soon as they had identified one; in this respect it may be considered that West Berks initiated the whole process. The Notice of Meeting for 21 February 2007 states that the developer/applicant/operator should apply for the WML. An internal email between West Berks officers dated 24 May 2006 states that 'WBC will be submitting an application for a WML' and goes on to say that 'work is well underway on the submission of the WML'. It also says that 'until the development agreement is signed there is no information in the public domain regarding site detail'. This illustrates West Berks' desire to keep as much information as possible away from the public and proves that it was very clearly involved in the setting up of the site at an early stage.
6. No proper and comprehensive EIA has been conducted. In his letter to the developer's agent (Christopher Strang) dated 3 August 2005 Mr Meldrum justified this decision on the grounds that the site was occupied by farm buildings and a group of mobile homes which would be removed. Subsequently, the site was moved further to the north, leaving the mobile homes in situ. Those nearest to the site lie at distances of 16, 27 and 30 metres from the site. Additionally, the site is now directly opposite a new housing development and is separated from them only by the A339. In these circumstances, Greenham Parish Council can not understand why a full EIA has not been conducted.
7. The only mitigating measure included in the application in respect of pollution that may be suffered by the mobile homes consists of an acoustic fence. West Berks has stated that any other required measures will be implemented by planning conditions but it is not understood how these can be assessed and required without the necessary EIA. Contrary to the Notice of Meeting for the planning hearing on 21 February 2007, no details on dust, odour and litter were submitted by the applicant and only conditions and the waste management licence regime are used to mitigate. In the Parish Council's view this is unacceptable. It should also be noted that the Report states that the developer/applicant/operator should apply for the WML. In fact, West Berks were in the process of submitting an application for a WML as long ago as May 2006.
8. Grundon Waste Management Ltd operates an existing waste facility at Beenham, within West Berkshire. The site currently has a Materials Recovery facility and a Green Waste Composting site. Additionally, it has permitted use for a Green Composting Waste Extension area and Waste Treatment areas. There is ample room within the site for an HWRC. The location has the additional benefits of direct access from the A4 from a roundabout and a long internal haul road to allow ample room for stacking of waiting vehicles. Therefore, any waste deposited could go through primary segregation and either directly to the composting facility, to the MRF or to landfill without the need for additional HGV movements to and from separate waste transfer sites as proposed by <placew:ston>West Berkshire for Sandleford Farm. Grundon recently sought planning permission for an extension to its current operation but was advised by West Berks that the matter had to be decided within a set timetable of 8 weeks. Moreover, a meeting with the Highways Department requested by Grundon could not be arranged in the timeframe and so Grundon was forced to either withdraw the application or accept the costs incurred with submitting an appeal. The Sandleford application was decided 10 months after it was submitted and the rationale for this variance in policy has not been admitted. In its letter dated 9 August 2006 to Mr Meldrum, Christopher Strang reviewed other potential sites suitable for an HWRC. The sites reviewed did not include Grundon's facility at Beenham and one must presume that either Strang did not assess it or chose not to include it in their report. The letter makes the statement: 'there may well be other potential sites within the Newbury/Thatcham area which could accommodate a CA Facility……. However, all these areas are likely to be in multiple ownership'. This statement is clearly nonsense. <personnamew:ston> <snw:ston>Meldrum appears to have taken Strang's assessment at face value without any independent checks, notwithstanding that Strang's is the agent of the developer and therefore acting in his interests.
9. The Strang letter of 9 August precludes some potential sites on the grounds that they are designated in the local plan as being part of an important gap between Greenham and Newbury. It is a matter of record that a Planning Inspector previously refused permission to build on the proposed site on the grounds that it formed an important green gateway to Newbury and should be preserved as such. This selective and unbalanced approach is unacceptable.
10. The capacity of the proposed site is 21,000 tonnes annually rising to 23,000 tonnes. The licensed annual capacity of the existing site is 25,000 tonnes. The JSPU objected to the proposed site on the grounds that it would fail to achieve an increase in capacity and that the authorised waste transfer stations would be extinguished.
11. West Berks has granted planning permission for a site exceeding 2.3 hectares, although the proposed waste site covers only .8 hectare. The applicant has therefore been given the benefit of planning permission for 1.5 hectares, all of it on green belt land, with no apparent justification and with no indication of what future use might be contemplated.
11. After the vote had been taken at the meeting, a formal request was put that the decision be taken to full Council for consideration; this was supported by the requisite quorum of Councillors. The request was refused on the grounds that any delay could disrupt negotiations over a long-term waste contract. It is unclear why the matter was of such urgency that no delay was acceptable or why the location of the HWRC has any material effect on contract negotiations. Moreover, and more importantly, if the application was in truth one submitted by a private developer and independent of West Berks, why should the Council's own contract negotiations with a third party have any relevance?
In summary therefore, Greenham Parish Council considers that the process for selecting and granting planning permission for the proposed site was flawed. It also considers that West Berkshire District Council was very much involved in the proposal from the earliest stages, contrary to its claims that this was purely an application form a commercial developer and that the guidance given to Councillors by its officers was so deficient as to materially affect the decision making process
I have not included the various documents to which I make reference in the belief that these will be made available to you by West Berks. Should it not do so, I should be pleased to furnish copies.
Yours sincerely,
J Boston
Clerk to Greenham Parish Council
