Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/00247/MINMAJ in respect of proposed development of an advanced conversion and recovery facility comprising of two main buildings including processing hall and office, access route, vehicle parking, cycle spaces, storage and landscaping. Fenton House, Deans Copse Road, Theale RG7 4GZ.

2.      Ms Rachael Lancaster 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 acceptable 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.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mike Roberts, Mr Mark Collins, Mr Kevin Parr applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant/Agent Representation

4.      Mr Roberts, Mr Collins, and Mr Parr addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

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

·      The carbon process operated at low pressure and was safe. The core technology operated at 50-60 millibar and had been developed for 26 years.

·      The application was for a small-scale plant, with multiple modules, each with individual control and gas management.

·      The hydrogen part of the process operated at 14 bar, which was a low pressure for the hydrogen industry. The hydrogen industry could store hydrogen at up to 200-300 bar.

·      Hydrogen produced on the site would be converted Into Bionaptha, minimising the volume of hydrogen stored on the site. The storage on site would act as a buffer to regulate the flow to the next stage of the process.

·      Hydrogen was covered by the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) regulations. The site would be covered by the necessary safety regulations.

·      The individual modules would run at full scale at one tonne per hour, and were independent of each other, and would operate 24 hours per day.

·      The plant would require 40 seconds to cease gas production, and was controllable.

·      In terms of contamination, the only identified contamination on the site was a small amount of asbestos. This would be capped on site. Further site investigations prior to commencement were required, and any further contamination would be dealt with accordingly.

·      The Environment Agency required that pathways into the aquifer under the site were prevented. This required the use of certain groundworks and piling designs.

·      A continuous flight auger would be used to ensure a seal. The applicants would discuss and agree this with the Environment Agency as part of the discharge of the condition.

Ward Member Representation

6.     There were no representations made by the Ward Member.

7.    It was noted that the Ward Member, Councillor Nick Carter had called in the application due to concerns regarding impact and access, due to the need for HGVs to access the site through Burghfield Road and Deans Cop Road.

Member Questions to Officers

8.      Officers stated that the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service had been consulted at both stages of the consultation process and had not responded to either consultation. Officers noted that they would focus more on access for appliances. The safety of the site would ultimately be governed by separate legislation, and that they would not have commented on that side of the application.

9.      It was confirmed that the existing planning application for the site was for a similar sized waste management facility. The main difference between the applications was the type of facility.

10.   Officers clarified that the total number of movements for the site were estimated to be 126 movements a day, 54 HGVs, and 72 staff vehicle movements.

11.   The facility would have a catchment area, which would depend on commercial operations. Where possible, waste would be local, but it could be from the wider Southeast England region. Officers stated that they did not have specific details on local waste.

12.   Officers clarified that the 14,000 tonnes of waste received from the adjacent Hadley premises would not be considered as part of the vehicle movements.

13.   It was noted that because there were established existing industrial uses in and around the area, the roads were almost deemed as haul routes and would be able to cope with the anticipated traffic movements.

14.   The impact of flooding and soil on the road had been discussed, however, the Council was having problems identifying a remedy to the flooding. Officers noted that the operations and lorry movements were unlikely to be affected by the flooding. Members suggested that road-sweeping may help to keep drainage gullies from becoming blocked.

15.   The Council had not been given any background information regarding the Secretary of State’s call-in. The call-in had no bearing on the Committee’s consideration of the application. The Planning Inspectorate would have 21 days to review the application following determination.

16.   Officers confirmed that Condition 41 requested the details of any security measures and fencing be submitted in due course.

17.   Officers noted that the Emergency Planning Team were the owners of the off-site emergency plan for AWE. They had considered the impact of the application on the plan and had consulted with all relevant parties and had come to a recommendation that they had no objection. It was noted that it was easier to impose site-specific emergency plans for commercial uses than residential uses.

Debate

18.   Councillor Vicky Poole opened the debate. She was proud that there was a site being considered for development in West Berkshire which could help to remove carbon from the environment. She indicated that she was in favour of the application on merit, and because of the existing planning application in place on the site, and the reasonable number of HGV movements.

19.   Councillor Richard Somner considered that the application would deliver significant benefits, and it was in a reasonable location, despite the issues of flooding at certain points of the year. He indicated that he was minded to support the application.

20.   Councillor Poole proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Somner.

21.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Poole, seconded by Councillor Somner to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report.