EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 30 th AUGUST 2006 AT THE CALCOT CENTRE, CALCOT Committee: Peter Argyle (P), Pamela Bale (P), Keith Chopping (AP), Sheila Ellison (Vice-Chairman) (P), John Farrin (P), Keith Lock (SP), Royce Longton (P), Alan Macro (P), Joe Mooney (P), Irene Neill (Chairman) (P), Graham Pask (P), Terry Port (P), Paul Pritchard (AP), Quentin Webb (SP) Ward Members also in attendance: Tony Linden, Tim Metcalfe Also present: Sara Appleton, Terry Burns, Sarah Clarke, Arthur Cullen, Paul Goddard, Trina McFarlane, Dave Pearson, Linda Pye PART I 44. APOLOGIES. Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received on behalf of Councillors Keith Chopping and Paul Pritchard. Councillor Quentin Webb substituted for Councillor Keith Chopping and Councillor Keith Lock substituted for Councillor Paul Pritchard. 45. MINUTES. The Minutes of the meeting held on 9th August 2006 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman. 46. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. Councillors Pamela Bale, Joe Mooney and Peter Argyle declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), and reported that, as their interest was personal and prejudicial, they would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter. Councillor Pamela Bale declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(6), but reported that, as her interest was personal and not prejudicial, she was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. 47. APPLICATION NO. 05/02928/MINMAJ – WEIRSIDE, GREEN LANE, BURGHFIELD. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 05/02928/MINMAJ in respect of a waste recycling and recovery centre. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. S. James, Parish Council representative, Deborah Edwards, objector, and Mr. A. James, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr. S. James in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mr. James stated that the Parish Council had submitted comments but they had been lost and had therefore not been included in the report; • The Parish Council Planning Committee had voted 6-4 in favour of the development on the site; • The Parish Council did have concerns in respect of the number of vehicle movements which would be generated from the site and felt that they should be restricted; • Mr. James felt that s106 monies received should be used for cycleway implementation as set out in the Village Plan. EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES The Highways Officer clarified that there were existing unauthorised uses being carried out on the site. A Traffic Survey had been undertaken in the area and on the busiest day it was noted that there were 25 skip lorries entering and leaving the site. It was therefore proposed that a condition would be placed on the planning permission restricting the number of vehicle movements to 25 entering the site and 25 leaving the site per day. Deborah Edwards in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Deborah Edwards confirmed that she was speaking on behalf of local residents and Reading Borough Council; • She raised concerns about the increased level of HGV traffic (30%) and the noise and pollution generated by those vehicles in the area; • Burghfield Road was a narrow country road with two bridges and concerns were raised that the fully loaded skip lorries travelling to and from the site would cause further damage to the surrounding roads and bridges; • The Traffic Survey had been undertaken at the wrong time during school holidays; • No mention had been made in respect of the upkeep of the road between the two bridges from the s106 contributions; • The area was largely residential and concerns were raised in respect of the road safety of young children and the elderly from the increased number of HGV movements in the area; • Traffic calming measures should be considered in order to reduce the speed of vehicles; • Concerns were raised as to whether the number of vehicle movements would be controlled or enforced given the history of the applicant and his use of the site; • The proposed facility would not be within a “Preferred Area” and was therefore not the right location for such a use; • Further large developments, such as Kennet Valley Park, were proposed and this application would set a precedent if approved; • Deborah Edwards was pleased to note that the application would be referred up to the Government Office for the South East should it be approved. The Highways Officer confirmed that two Traffic Surveys had been undertaken, one of which was during the school half term holiday and the other in October. The Traffic Survey carried out in October was the one being relied on in respect of this application. Traffic movements per day were as follows: 336 northwards (25 lorries northwards) 338 southwards (25 lorries southwards) Mr. A. James in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mr. James confirmed that the applicant had worked closely with Officers in respect of the proposed application. He stated that there had been issues in the past in respect of the unauthorised use of the site but the proposal sought to properly condition and regulate activity at Weirside; • All emptying of vehicles would take place within the building in order to reduce dust and noise pollution; • A condition would restrict the number of lorry movements to 25 in and 25 out of the site; • The facility would only deal with general building waste material and would not include biodegradable waste; EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES • Mr. James addressed concerns raised by local residents and Reading Borough Council as follows: - (a) Detrimental effect on Kennet and Avon Canal – Mr. James stated that no objections had been received from the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust; - (b) and (c) Environmental impact – these issues had been dealt with; - (d) Adverse effect on transport network – there would only be a 1% increase in traffic on the local highways and a developer contribution had been sought towards highway and footway improvements; - (e) Noise and dust generation – all working would be undertaken within a building and conditions would be put in place to control noise and dust pollution; - (g) Facility not within a “Preferred Area” – The Waste Local Plan identified the need for up to 15 Recycling and Transfer sites throughout Berkshire based on population centres. Reading had some 45% of the Berkshire population which would equate to a need for 7 such facilities to serve that area. None of the Preferred Areas identified in the Berkshire Waste Local Plan were within the search area of 16kms. Members asked for clarification on whether the proposed application would regularise the skip operation which was currently taking place illegally on the site. Mr. James confirmed that the proposal was for a new facility but the applicant did run a skip hire business at present. An Inquiry date had been set to deal with the unauthorised use of the site but it was hoped that this could be resolved through the approval of the planning permission. The Legal Officer advised that questions to the agent should be limited to the current application rather than what the site was being used for at present. Members raised concerns about the number of vehicle movements and the enforcement of that condition. They also asked for clarification in respect of the source of the materials which would be taken to the facility. Mr. James stated that the source of the waste to be processed would be within a 10 mile radius of the site and would come from local residents, building sites etc. but would not contain any biodegradable or hazardous waste material. Skip lorries would enter the site full of waste materials and then leave the site with a full load of waste that had been sorted. Mr. James clarified that although the waste would be processed and sorted there would not be a concrete crusher on site. A condition would also be imposed limiting the amount of waste processed on the site to 20,000 tonnes per annum maximum. Members enquired as to the carrying capacity of each skip. Mr. James responded that that would be dependent on what materials were being carried in the skip but he was unsure about an average figure. The Highways Officer stated that the Traffic Study which had been undertaken identified 25 lorry movements in and out of the site as the worse case scenario on many days the number of lorry movements was less than that figure. The Planning Officer also reiterated that there would be peaks and troughs in demand and that the operator would be required to maintain a log of vehicle movements which the authority could ask to check at any time. The Ward Members felt that this proposal would have an effect on the amenity of the local residents and they were concerned about any increase in the number of HGV movements. They also asked that the financial contribution of £58,000 should be ringfenced for the highway safety improvements listed on page 27 of the report. However, the footway should be continued “southwards” along Burghfield Road and not “northwards” as stated in the report. In considering the above application Members felt that a Structure Plan was in place to ensure that facilities such as that proposed met with certain criteria. The site was not in a Preferred Area and Members asked Officers to justify why they had recommended the application for approval. Officers stated that the Policy considerations had been set out in the report. The Structure Plan did not set out the exceptions which could be made subject to certain criteria being met.