Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 19^th February 2025.

The minutes of the last meeting

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.

 Councillors Adrian Abbs, Paul Dick, Nigel Foot and Clive Hooker reported that they had been lobbied on Agenda Items 4(1) and 4(3) however, would approach both items with an open mind based on the information presented at the Committee.

Councillor Howard Woollaston declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied on the item. He also declared a personal interest in the item by virtue of the fact that he was the Ward Member for the item and was predisposed but not predetermined on the item. He would form his decision based on the information provided at Committee and the debate. 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 Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was the Vice-Chairman of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. 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.

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications).

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/02142/MINMAJ in respect of the installation and operation of an asphalt plant and associated ancillary development.

2.       Mr Alistair Buckley introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. Mr Buckley went through the potential impacts from the development in detail and addressed the areas of concern raised through received objections.

3.       Mr Buckley explained that a number of objections had been received regarding air quality in relation to the impact on racehorses and made reference to an appeal decision from 2015 for an asphalt plant at Whitewall Quary in Yorkshire. It was highlighted that this plant was 50 percent larger than the one proposed. The Appeal Inspector had concluded that emissions from the plant would be so low that they would be unlikely to affect the respiratory health of racehorses. Mr Buckley explained that in addition, when determining a 2017 appeal decision for a horse cremation facility at Wessex Saw Mill, Great Shefford, the Inspector had stated that due to a lack of substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise, they had no reason to disagree with the Council’s Environmental Health Officer’s conclusion that there would be a low impact on air quality. Mr Buckley referred back to the Whitewall Quary case and noted that in upholding the Local Planning Authority’s decision, the appeal decision had taken account of the perceived harm to racehorses in the vicinity of the asphalt plant. The impact of perception on air quality had formed a material consideration within the context of a wider planning balance decision.

4.       In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

5.       Mr Russell Davidson provided an overview of the environmental permitting regulations for asphalt production, stating that the process was classified as low impact and that the plant would be subject to regular inspections. He agreed with the findings of the applicant’s Air Quality Assessment, which demonstrated that the impact on air quality would be insignificant and would not cause exceedance of air quality objectives for human health. No assessment findings on the impact of air quality on horses could be provided as there were no standards or evidence to compare with. Mr Davidson highlighted that motorways were major sources of traffic related air pollutants, which could negatively impact on health particularly of those living within 500 metres. Given that some gallops were located within close proximity to the M4, Mr Davidson was of the view that this would likely have a greater impact on air quality than the proposal. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 March 2025

6.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that due to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 24/02022/FUL in respect of the erection of a single detached three bedroom house (125 Strongrove Hill) and associated works.

2.       Mr Shepherd introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission, for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the Highways Authority was content with the proposal and had no objection on Highways grounds. The access as it joined the A4 was being resurfaced for a minimum of 6 meters from the edge of the carriageway. The site layout was acceptable with regards to parking levels, turning, and cycle storage. The full representation of Mr Goddard’s observations can be found here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr James Cole and Mr Gordon Montgomery, Town Council representatives, Ms Kamini Conning, supporter, Mr Brian Withers, agent and Councillors Dennis Benneyworth and Tony Vickers, Ward Members, addressed the Committee on this application. It was agreed by the Committee that joint Ward Member, Councillor Tony Vickers, would read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Dennis Benneyworth.

Town Council Representation

5.       Mr James Cole and Mr Montgomery addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 March 2025

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.       Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The new application would be a benefit to the community and should be supported. It had always been felt that the ground was a good site for a house. The piece of land was not an example of high-quality woodland. Redevelopment of the site made sense.

Supporter Representation

7.       Ms Kamini Conning addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 March 2025

Member Questions to the Supporter

8.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

9.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution part 3 point 10.8, the Committee supported the Chairman’s motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm and therefore continued with Agenda Item 4(3).

Agent Representation

10.   Mr Brian Withers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 March 2025

Member Questions to the Agent

11.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The application was for a passive house, which conformed with the format set by the Passive House Trust which was an independent industry leading organisation which promoted the adoption of passive houses in the UK. There were only 1000 passive homes in the UK. There were no passive homes in Berkshire  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(3)