Dear Ms Eakins
06/00960/FULMAJ - PROPOSED WASTE FACILITY – LAND WEST OF SANDLEFORD FARM, NEWBURY
and
06/00736/OUTMAJ - PROPOSED NEW
HOUSING AT PINCHINGTON LANE–
Following the decision by West Berkshire District Council to grant planning permission for a new HWRC at Sandleford Farm (also referred to as Abbotswood), Greenham Parish Council wishes object to the decision, to place the following concerns on record and to request that the matter be called in on the grounds of departure from the local plan, the loss of designated waste resources and the manner in which the application was constructed and heard.
Throughout the whole history of 06/00960, West Berkshire District Council's position has been one of obfuscation, mis-information, misleading statements and a desire to keep as much as possible out of the public domain. It has also failed to safeguard existing nominated waste facilities and resources and has sought to achieve a solution that is contrary to regional, sub-regional, local and waste plans. Although primarily concerned with 06/00960, some reference is also necessary to 06/00736. This application seeks permission to build houses on the site of the existing HWRC and the associated authorised waste transfer stations.
1. There are compelling reasons to refuse permission for 06/00736 and West Berks has admitted that taken in isolation, planning consent would be unlikely to be granted. The site lies outside the settlement boundary. The site has a licensed capacity for 25,000 tonnes annually whereas the proposed new site is planned for a capacity of 21,000 tonnes rising to 23,000 tonnes, thereby occasioning a net annual loss of between 2,000 and 4,000 tonnes. The existing site has planning permission for 2 waste transfer stations but none is included in the plans for the new site. The site includes an area previously used for gravel extraction which has been identified as an ideal location for waste usage. West Berks chose to not to hear the applications in numerical order, but to determine the case for Sandleford in isolation without reference to the suitability of the existing site. It is presumed that by so doing, it sought to ease the passage of 06/00736 as when that application was heard it could be argued that a suitable alternative had new been approved. In the event, the hearing of application 06/00736 had to be deferred because of lack of time.
2. The planning meeting was seriously flawed. The Chairman showed clear bias in favour of the application. Despite the Chairman's opening statement that this was an application from a commercial developer and that the matter would be decided on planning grounds alone, the Committee chose to disregard the approved waste strategy and were pre-disposed to approve an application that was in breach of the approved structure plan and the Chairman allowed voting on this basis. He did nothing to direct the meeting to planning policy and departures from the various plans listed above. While objectors were severely limited to 5 minutes each by the Chairman, one of only 2 speakers on behalf of the applicant was allowed unrestricted time until unrest amongst the 300 or so members of the public present forced the Chairman to call a halt. The various points made by a wide variety of objectors were disregarded and one objector who spoke on behalf of Hilton Hotels and dealt almost entirely with departures from policy was personally denigrated by the Chairman. The opening briefing to Councillors by Mr Meldrum, West Berks' Senior Minerals and Waste Planning Officer was biased, incomplete and misleading. His report was accompanied by photographs of the A339 which showed just one vehicle, a state of affairs which is unknown to the extent that it raised laughter. The Chairman rightly said that 'we all know the true traffic position' but there is concern that these photos will form part of the public record and mislead those unfamiliar with the location. Meldrum used the phrase 'previously disturbed land' to justify the use of green field land, this description also appearing in the Notice of meeting. It is understood that 'disturbed' refers to land that has previously been subject top quarrying etc which is not the case at Sandleford. In referring to capacity at the current and proposed sites Mr Meldrum said that Pinchington Lane
currently handles 20,000 tonnes pa and the new site would be licensed for 21,000 rising to 23,000 tonnes. The clear implication was that Sandleford Farm would have a greater capacity than Pinchington Lane. In fact, Pinchington Lanehas a licensed capacity of 25,000 tonnes pa so far from being smaller is actually larger than that proposed. During voting, at least one Councillor who voted in favour of the application made reference to Pinchington Lane's 20,000 tonnes. He was clearly materially misled and may well have been influenced to the extent of affecting his vote. Meldrum also misled Councillors about current recycling rates. He stated that West Berkshire is only achieving 27%. In fact, this is West Berks' overall performance and is due to its abysmal kerbside collection service; it has nothing to do with the HWRC. The current site at Pinchington Laneis actually achieving 39% - an under-statement of 12%. Meldrum made the statement that the lease on the current site expires in 2008, a statement reflected in the closing remarks of several Councillors. In fact, the lease runs until 2009 and again Councillors were clearly misled and their positions may well have been influenced. The written brief to Councillors (Notice of Meeting) is also misleading and incomplete in several areas, for example it claims (para 6.6.6 page 93) that 'the existing HWRC does cause queuing on many occasions during the year'. This is at variance with West Berks' own public statements that the existing site is now working well with no appreciable effect on traffic. This is proven by a report by Cllr <personnamew:ston>Geoff Findlay, the Executive Member for Waste, in a report to his Parish Council dated <datew:stonmonth4day19year2006>19 April 2006 in which he states 'a new entrance road has got rid of queuing on Bury's Bank Road'. In any case, any comparison of traffic levels at the 2 sites should be treated with the utmost caution as West Berks has not considered the position if Pinchington Lane were to be extended over the whole of the current site (the location of the authorised waste transfer stations is used by the applicant for a retail aggregate business). West Berks is not comparing like with like. In the same report Cllr Findlay, referring to the Sandleford site says 'we have just finished designing' (the new site). Given the time necessary to complete such a design and that the planning application had only just been submitted this is further proof that West Berks was actively involved in the application before it was submitted.
3. At the beginning of the meeting the Chairman announced that one Councillor had been delayed and would not therefore be able to vote. However, the Councillor in question, when she arrived, sat with voting Councillors and made closing remarks along with them – despite the fact that she had missed several of the objectors and was unable therefore to form a balanced view. She prefaced her remarks by saying that she had taken advice and was allowed to speak; there was no indication of from whom, when or how she had obtained this advice.
4. During the planning meeting, an individual objector (B Sharp) made the allegation that he believed that there were secret files dealing with the application which were held by West Berks but which were not available to the public and not reflected in the public file. This allegation was met with scorn by the Chairman and led to the charge that objectors were being emotive and lacking in reasoned argument. A note has now appeared on the planning file acknowledging that there is, in fact, a parallel confidential file. This must have been known by officers and presumably Councillors at the meeting but there was no attempt at honesty and no attempt to put the true position before the meeting.
