Objections on behalf of the Joint Action Group (JAG) to West Berkshire planning applications 06/00736/OUTMAJ - proposed new Housing at Pinchington Lane and 06/00960/FULMAJ - proposed Waste Facility - land West of Sandleford Farm, Newbury.
I am writing to express our concerns about the recent decision by West Berkshire District Council to determine in favour of the application by Rivar Limited to develop a new housing waste recycling centre to replace the existing one at Pinchington Lane, Greenham.
The North Hampshire and West Berkshire Joint Action Group is an association of parish councils and other community groups from both sides of the county boundary and therefore represents many residents in the area.
This letter attempts to summaries their deep concerns that West Berkshire District Council (WBDC) is using the planning system for its purposes contrary to the local plan, the Berkshire structure plan, SERA and national policies. WBDC clearly realizes this and has therefore filed departure notices for both of the applications described below.
It became clear that West Berkshire had no intention of letting application 06/00960 fail as it was an essential part of their strategy for waste and therefore not just developer led. They confirmed that they had no alternative plan.
The public has therefore been denied the full consultation in the emerging waste strategy.
Councillor Findlay, the portfolio member for waste, stated early in 2006 that there would be a major consultation on waste management 'Your waste, your choice' later in the year. It has not yet happened.
Again the public have been denied promised consultation.
West Berks has known for at least 18 years that the lease on the Civic Amenity Site (or Household Waste Recycling Centre) in Greenham would run out but has failed to make any arrangements to deal with its expiry. West Berkshire has stated that the lease would expire in 2008 but the true date is 2009. This gives them much more time to consider alternatives including a CPO of the old site, which they are failing to do.
A Developer owns the land on which the existing Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) is located. The existing lease on the site expires in 2009 and the Developer wishes to develop this site, plus surrounding land totaling some 3.25 hectares, all of which has been designated for Waste, for the building of 64 houses.
The Developer is now "offering" land it owns or on which it has an option, to replace the old site. However, for the following reasons, the new site is unacceptable from numerous planning perspectives and will have significant local, cross-border and regional implications.
The apparently overarching reason WBDC is pushing so hard to shoehorn these applications through for approval seems to be to cover up the lack of any provision for the expiration of the existing site lease. Some £3.0 million of public money has been diverted without out clear justification.
We are aware GOSE will be considering the outcome of these applications. We would therefore ask you to look at the extensive list of points raised below, along with the fact that both applications are inextricably linked and are significant departures from the structure plan with wide reaching impact, and ask serious question about the use of process.
Details:
Application 06/00736 is for housing on 3.25 Hectare site.
· This site is outside the settlement boundary.
· In strategic planning terms the complete site is (preferred area 2) as identified in policy WLP11 of the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire (WLPB) and is included in the South East Regional Assembly plans for the provision of the waste management capacity in the South East Plan» Submission draft March 2006.
· The site has both got and had planning permission for waste related uses. Having one time been used for mineral extraction the site is also one of the prime types identified by government policy as ideal for waste.
· At present the total site capacity is 175,000 tonnes with150,000 tonnes for waste transfer and a licensed capacity of 25,000 tonnes on approximately 0.8 hectares, which are currently used for the Civic Amenity Site.
· Having been restructured recently the amenity site is reported by the public and West Berkshire officers as working well with no queuing of vehicles onto the highway.
· Given the shortage of waste related sites the government is keen to protect any site identified for this purpose even if not currently fully used. To allow this application would fly in the face of strategic policies and create a regional shortfall in waste allocated sites.
· WBDC sought no consultation with the Joint Strategic Planning Unit (JSPU) for Berkshire Unitary Authorities to extinguish this site.
· The JSPU however has formally and strongly objected to this application, listing some 14 points of objection (see attached letter) and additional pressures that may be generated by the proposal on the existing and adjacent Cleansing Service Group site.
· The current Civic Amenity Site and CSG facility, which is a regionally important facility, is specifically named for safeguarding by policy WLP21 of Waste Local Plan for Berkshire.
· No affordable housing is being proposed.
· £3.0m of 106 funding including the provision of offsite affordable homes is being sought but is to be paid back to the developer for the provision of a new amenity site.
· No balance sheet has been seen to satisfy auditors that this makes best value to West Berkshire and how the impact of the housing is to be funded due to the 106 money being diverted.
· No requirement to assess any environmental issue has so far been found on file.
Application 06/00960 is for a new Civic Amenity Site
· Is located in the same Parish, which is also outside the Settlement Boundary.
· The planning committee interpreted the large public turnout at the meeting as NIMBYism when in fact most were in favour of retaining the status quo within the Parish. From remarks made it was obvious that councillors had not understood or ignored the objections with one member even saying “we had to have a site in our Parish now it's your turn”.
· Despite the obvious need for public consultation dialogue has been carried out behind closed doors between the Developer and WBDC regarding a new Amenity Site for some two years with surveying being carried out as early as 2004.
· Again West Berkshire has not attempted any dialogue with the JSPU to include this site and discuss interaction of this use with related operations such as Waste Transfer Stations.
· The JSPU has also formally objected to this application and its impact on a complete waste strategy.
· The committee report at 10.8.6 says that considering alternative sites is not normally a consideration, which is totally untrue in waste planning terms see 10.2 of WLPB.
· The first approach for the scheme, approved by the WBDC executive in conjunction with the developer, was for the new site to replace some mobile homes and old farm buildings.
· Despite the previous use of part of this site, waste use would deviate from many local policies.
· A CLEUD was sought and given in early 2006 to turn the farm buildings into B8 use in opposition to local policy and despite doubt cast over the veracity of some of the evidence.
· On 27th July 2005 the developer asked WBDC for the decision on an EIA for his subsequent discussion with the Environment Agency.
