* Sub-/Committee
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Minutes submitted to Eastern Area Planning Cttee on 28 January 2009 1 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 NOVEMBER 2008 AT PANGBOURNE VILLAGE HALL Committee: Brian Bedwell (Chairman) (P), Peter Argyle (P), Pamela Bale (P), Richard Crumly (P), Alan Law (P), Keith Lock (P), Royce Longton (P), Alan Macro (P), Tim Metcalfe (P), Irene Neill (Vice-Chairman) (P), Graham Pask (P), Terry Port (AP) Substitutes: Jeff Brooks , Keith Chopping, Manohar Gopal, Owen Jeffery, Tony Linden, Mollie Lock, Quentin Webb, Keith Woodhams (SP) Also present: Lydia Mather (Policy Officer), Jessica Broom (Principal Policy Officer), Paul Goddard (Team Leader Highways Development Control), Paul Jackson (Development Control Manager), Gary Rayner (Team Leader – Development Control), Matthew Meldrum (Principal Planning Officer), Sarah Clarke (Team Leader - Legal Services), Arthur Cullen (Senior Tree Officer), Anna Shiner (Principal Environmental Health Officer), Abi Stinson (Environmental Control Officer). PART I 47. APOLOGIES. An apology for inability to attend the meeting was received on behalf of Councillor Terry Port. Councillor Keith Woodhams substituted for Councillor Terry Port. 48. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. Councillors Tim Metcalfe, Keith Woodhams, Royce Longton and Keith Lock declared an interest in Agenda Items 3(1) and 3(2), but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. 49. APPLICATION NO. 08/01166/MINMAJ – LAND AT PADWORTH RAILWAY SIDINGS, PADWORTH LANE, LOWER PADWORTH, READING. 50. APPLICATION NO. 08/01167/MINMAJ – LAND AT PADWORTH RAILWAY SIDINGS, PADWORTH LANE, LOWER PADWORTH, READING. (Councillors Tim Metcalfe and Royce Longton declared a personal interest in Agenda items 3(1) and 3(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of the Waste Management Task Group, but the Task Group had not considered Padworth Sidings application during its meetings. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). (Councillor Keith Lock declared a personal interest in Agenda items 3(1) and 3(2) by virtue of the fact that as Ward Member he had considered and commented on Padworth Sidings previously but he had not predetermined the application. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). Minutes submitted to Eastern Area Planning Cttee on 28 January 2009 2 EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 24/11/2008 – MINUTES DRAFT (Councillors Keith Woodhams and Royce Longton declared a personal interest in Agenda items 3(1) and 3(2) by virtue of the fact that they had previously considered the matter in principal at full Council, as had other Members of the Committee. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). The Committee considered two reports: (Agenda Item 3(1)) concerning Planning Application 08/01166/MINMAJ in respect of change of use of land and erection of buildings to form new Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) to comprise Waste Transfer Station (WTS), Material Recovery Facility (MRF), Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC), In-Vessel Composting Facility (IVC), municipal depot with workshop, fuelling and washing facilities, administration and visitor centre, and a weighbridge. Formation of associated parking, roadways and vehicular access. Landscape works, including tree removals and additional planting, formation of earth bunding and surface water drainage swales. Erection of new fencing; and (Agenda Item 3(2)) concerning Planning Application 08/01167/MINMAJ in respect of alterations to ground levels, including formation of earth bunds and drainage swales. Erection of boundary fencing. Removal, lopping and topping of trees within an Area Tree Preservation Order. Chairman Councillor Brian Bedwell advised that as the two applications were regarding the same site and the proposals overlapped, the reports would be considered together but the Committee would take a clear and separate vote on each application. Due to the significant public interest, and in order for the interested parties to have an adequate chance to address the Committee, the Chairman proposed the Committee extend the time allowed for each group of speakers from 5 to 10 minutes in total to speak in respect of both applications as set out in paragraph 7.13.4 of the West Berkshire Council Constitution. The Committee voted in favour of the proposal. The Chairman proposed that the representatives of the neighbouring Parishes of Aldermaston and Beenham, who wished to address the Committee, should also be allowed to speak for a total of 10 minutes to speak in respect of both applications. The Committee voted in favour of the proposal. The Chairman advised all present that both a member of the public and West Berkshire Council were recording the meeting. Should anyone be against the recording of the members of the public whilst they addressed the Committee they should advise so at this point so that all recording devices be switched off at the appropriate times. There were no public objections to the recording and the Committee voted in favour of the recording. (See Part 4 Appendix A of the West Berkshire Council Constitution). In accordance with the Council’s Constitution: Mr Keith Gilbert, Parish Council representative, Mr Clive Vare, Parish Council representative of Aldermaston, Mr Dick Russell, Parish Council representative of Beenham, Mr Graham Newman, Mr Kevin Weaver, Mr Brian Holmes, Mr Bob Nicholson, Mr Michael Potter, Mr Deryk Lonorgan, objectors, and Mr Owen Dimond, Mr Keith McGurk, Mr Simon Watts, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr Keith Gilbert in addressing the Committee raised the following points: Minutes submitted to Eastern Area Planning Cttee on 28 January 2009 3 EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 24/11/2008 – MINUTES DRAFT • The traffic simulations in the proposed scheme were flawed and would cause the Padworth Lane and A4 junction to become blocked. The simulations were not correct in his opinion: At peak times the West bound traffic was much heavier than the simulation predicted; heavy lorry traffic from the Oil Pipeline Agency and from the gravel extraction site had not originally been factored into the simulations; the concentration of traffic travelling southbound would mean northbound traffic would be unable to join the A4. • It was difficult to see how the carriageway sensors for the proposed traffic lights would work for traffic turning into Padworth Lane. Weekend traffic would also cause increased problems. • There would be public access problems along the narrow, single carriageways of Rectory Road and Padworth Lane, which would be used by residents from North Hampshire to get to the site, especially at weekends. Two nursery schools were based on these roads and the additional traffic trying to reach the proposed site would exacerbate the situation. It would be better to remove the public amenity facility and widen the railway bridge to allow two-way traffic. • It was questionable how opening the proposed site at 3am could be condoned given the noise of lorries, especially their reversing alarms which would disturb the sleep of local residents. Whilst it was noted the opening time had been changed to 5am, as set out in the update sheet, 7am seemed more reasonable. There had been a recent case where residents were awarded £70,000 due to dust cart vehicle noise. • Local residents were too close to the site, particularly the Lothlorian, Venture Fair, Orchard Bungalow, June Rose Bungalow and Padworth Village Hall properties. The proposals were therefore in direct conflict with Defra guidelines. • The canal swing bridge had its highest use by canal boats at the same time as cars needed to cross it. It would not take long for queues to form to cross the bridge such that it would block the proposed site entrance so that traffic could not enter or leave the site. • Odour and gas emissions had not been given enough consideration in the application; the reliance was on the doors being closed. However, the application also noted that doors needed to be opened for lorry access. No mention was made of including double doors to ensure an air lock within the building. • No S106 payments were proposed for the Padworth Village Hall even though soundproofing would be required to reduce the noise impact of the scheme on the residents and users. • The project needed a rethink. Government and Local Authority policies were changing so that such proposed developments were obsolete before they were built. Five years ago Padworth Sidings was put forward as a preferred site. Since then CO2 emissions had raised fears of global warming so energy conservation had been proposed through composting schemes. The easiest way to achieve energy efficiencies would be to incinerate waste at Colthrop in order to power steam generators for use by the nearby industrial site. Minutes submitted to Eastern Area Planning Cttee on 28 January 2009 4 EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 24/11/2008 – MINUTES DRAFT • Mr Gilbert queried why the Colthrop scheme not been looked at as an alternative? Members asked Mr Keith Gilbert to summarise Stuart Michael Associates consultants’ traffic findings. Mr Keith Gilbert advised increasing the traffic light phasing from 23 seconds to 30 seconds increased the number of passenger cars queuing from 5.8 to 7 on a Sunday. It did not address the lorries leaving the proposed site every three to four minutes. As Mr Keith Gilbert had referred to government guidelines on the proximity of the proposals being too close to residents Members asked what the guidelines stated. Mr Keith Gilbert advised from memory it was 100 metres and these proposals were 75 metres from the nearest residential property. Members asked about the vehicles travelling east on the new slip road.