Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 3 August 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2022 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by Councillor Graham Pask subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

On Pages 6-7 for Item 4(1) ‘St Ives Road’ and ‘Volunteer Close’ should read as ‘St Ives Close’ and ‘Volunteer Road’.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

(Councillor Richard Somner declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that that he was deputy to the Environment Portfolio Holder. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Geoff Mayes declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT), as well as being a consultant for environmental matters. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

Councillor Ross Mackinnon declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact he was a member of the Environment Board. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of BBOWT. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/01330/REG3, in respect of the construction and operation of a solar farm and battery storage system together with cable route and all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure.

Mr Matthew Shepherd (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the item which took into account all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Chris Faulkner, Wokefield Parish Council representative, Mr Neil Callan (on behalf of the Bloomfield Hatch Residents Association), Mr Steven Davies and Mr Craig White, objectors, Mr Miles Roberts, applicant, Mr Ernie Shelton, agent and Councillor Graham Bridgeman, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representations:

Mr Faulkner in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That use of the agricultural land for a solar farm would have exacerbated Britain’s self-sufficiency issues surrounding food production and would leave the national economy vulnerable to global markets.

·         The solar farm would limit biodiversity, as it would restrict 70% of the available farmland and this was in opposition to West Berkshire Council’s Environment Strategy.

·         Solar panels would have been better placed on existing brownfield sites, as this would not have limited the use of viable farmland.

·         The Committee had recently refused a similar application, which was then overturned by Central Government, however Mr Faulkner believed that attitudes had changed within Parliament as prominent MPs, such as Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss had expressed views on protecting British farmland.

·                    Member Questions to the Parish Council:

·                    The Chairman asked how many farms there were within the Parish and Mr Faulkner responded that there were 20 in total, however this farm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/02029/COMIND in respect of the development of an Energy Recovery Centre and adjacent Data Centre, as well as associated infrastructure.

Ms Elise Kinderman (Team Leader (Minerals and Waste)) introduced the item which took into account all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. It was reported verbally that a letter had been received from Matt Rodda MP making representations on the application. This was received post the publication of the update report, but did not raise any new material issues.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Graham Hudson, objector, Mr Mark Westmoreland-Smith, Ms Jennifer Hepworth, Mr Jay Mould, Mr Kevin Parr and Mr James Whatton, applicant/agent, and Councillor Bridgman, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representations:

Mr Hudson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That West Berkshire Council had never mentioned the installation of an incinerator during the 2019 West Berkshire Climate Conference.

·         That Reading Borough Council wanted to be consulted on the application, if approved, over details such as; haulage routes, pollution and traffic generated matters, as well as for it to be considered against national policy and the Local Plan.

·         Thames Water noted that the report did not require their services, however they could come under pressure whilst the site was operational. If Thames Water did need to get involved this could cause serious traffic issues.

·         Emissions from 150,000 tonnes of waste annually could cause a large amount of CO2.

·         Within the report the wrong local MP was listed as the President of United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 26). It was noted as the Reading East MP where it should have been the Reading West MP.

Members Questions to the Objector:

There were no questions for the objector.

Applicant/Agent Representations:

Mr Westmoreland-Smith, Ms Hepworth, Mr Mould, Mr Parr, and Mr Whatton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The proposed site was already a Waste Management facility.

·         This was a unique proposal with an energy recovery system and data centre, which could provide two pieces of necessary infrastructure.

·         This facility would have been able to divert 150,000 tonnes of waste from landfill, with 20,000 tonnes coming from the site itself, which would have saved waste miles.

·         The site would have allowed West Berkshire to be self-sufficient in waste management.

·         The facility would generate a secure and low carbon source of energy. Generating 11MW of electricity, which would have been enough to power 30,000 homes. The facility would provide 33 permanent jobs.

·         The air quality would have been adequately assessed by the strict regulations of an Environmental Permit and would not have posed a significant risk to residents of West Berkshire.

·         There would be considerable bio-diversity net gains, as shown by the removal of the Wildlife Trust objection.

·         There would be no significant effect on transport.

·         The site would provide a saving in greenhouse emissions compared to current methods.

Members Questions to Applicant/Agent:

Councillor Pask enquired into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.(2)

(In accordance with the Council’s Constitution paragraph 7.13.5, the Chairman proposed a no notice motion to continue the meeting beyond 10.00pm on the basis that the business of the meeting be concluded by 10.30pm. This was seconded by Councillor Keith Woodhams and agreed by the Committee.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 22/01541/TELE56 in respect of an application to determine if prior approval was required for a proposed 15m monopole tower to support antenna, associated radio-equipment housing and ancillary development thereto.

Ms Gemma Kirk (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the item which took into account all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor George Nyamie, Purley on Thames Parish Council representative, Ms Cathy Walls and Mr Richard Farrow, objectors, and Councillor Rick Jones, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Councillor Nyamie in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That there was a better location for the site 200 metres down the road.

Members Questions for the Parish Council:

The Chairman asked what Councillor Nyamie believed was wrong with the proposed location and Councillor Nyamie stated that the preferred location was a dead space and remote, which would be favourable to residents.

Councillor Linden pondered whether the site referenced by Councillor Nyamie was near the Knowsley Road area, of which Councillor Nyamie confirmed and noted that it was a considered site.

Objectors Representations:

Ms Walls in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         There was no real justification for the proposed location of the mast and that ease of access and cost were not viable reasons for permitting planning.

·         The applicant (Dalcour Maclaren) described the mast as visually intrusive and this conflicted with planning policy.

·         That the mast could be a potential distraction to drivers.

·         There was already an existing mast at this location.

·         There was no evidence that anyone had visited or given proper consideration to the site location.

·         The tree line did not obscure the visual impact of the mast.

·         Dalcour Maclaren had not consulted with local residents and schools despite their claims.

·         Reading Borough Council had also turned down a similar application by Dalcour Maclaren for visual reasons.

Members Questions for Objectors:

For the benefit of those Members who were unable to attend the site visit, the Chairman clarified the distance between Ms Walls house and the proposed site as being of a similar distance as between the Chairman’s seat and the speakers’ lectern.

Ward Members Representations:

Councillor Jones in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The authority could only provide approval on appearance and location and could not recommend potential alternative locations.

·         Councillor Jones supported the objections of the residents.

·         The application could affect the green corridor.

·         The site could be a road safety hazard by obscuring sight lines.

·         The site was too close to residential houses and the developers seemed to have exaggerated the height of the tree screen.

·         There was another potential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.(3)