To consider the above report

Members considered approval of the Proposed Submission Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan.

Councillor Coppinger explained that it had been some years since work had commenced on the plan, but it was now ready for the final stage. It did not form part of the Borough Local Plan but it was critical to the council’s ability to meet future demand for building.

Councillor Coppinger commented that the council was on track with the responses to the Inspector on the Borough Local Plan and he was confident that in the Autumn the final stage of examination in public would take place, possibly in a virtual capacity, with adoption by next spring or summer.

The council was required to produce a Minerals and Waste Plan. The council had been working with neighbouring authorities to produce a joint plan supported by Hampshire Council. The plans had been through four rounds of public consultation. A further round of consultation was now required on the proposed final submission, for six weeks from 3 September 2020. The plan would run until 2036. It did not override the normal planning process which could still override or change a future application.

Within the borough a number of sites were promoted for sand and gravel and two had been assessed for allocation. These were Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry. Several others had been rejected including Ham Island and Bray Village; Water Oakley had already received planning approval. It was unfortunate that two areas, Bray and Horton/Wraysbury, because of geological factors would always be the ‘go to’ places for sand and gravel. This did not meet the expected requirement so the plan proposed a broader process called an ‘area of search’ across the whole area of the plan so that other suitable sites could be brought forward over time.

Councillor Coppinger explained that waste was equally as important, and three sites had been identified:

·         Berkyn Manor for recovery of dry recyclables

·         Horton Brook for aggregate recycling

·         Stubbings compound for green waste transfer

Star Works in Knowl Hill, albeit in Wokingham, was put forward but had not been allocated although of course it could be put forward in future via a planning application.  There were other possible options going forward such as industrial estates. It was also recommended that the sites are reserved for waste so that they could not be used for anything else.  The last proposal was to take an operator’s previous performance into account when future applications were made. All four authorities would be running the process in parallel and it was expected that the final plan would be submitted to the Secretary of State towards the end of the year, followed by an examination in public and adoption in Spring 2021.

Councillor Werner highlighted that the Hindhay quarry in Pinkneys Green was on the safeguarding list for waste processing and concrete crushing. The noise and dust created was very antisocial. The number of lorries travelling to the site also affected local residents. Complaints were made to Summerleaze on a periodic basis after which things improved for a while, but it always returned back. He asked whether further planning permission would be needed as a result of the site’s inclusion in the report and if so, would that allow the council to be stricter on issues of noise, dust and lorry movements or were they covered for concrete crushing until 2036.

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa commented that there were lots of good things in the plan but he had a number of concerns in his role as Co-Deputy Chairman of the Climate Change Working Group. On page 10 of the report, there was no mention or inclusion of RBWM’s aim to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050. Carbon emissions and methane emissions from the permafrost in the arctic continued to increase and would accelerate climate change. None of these things were reflected in the plan. He therefore suggested the review date be amended, to include the possibility of an annual review in relation to some of the severe factors.

The section on Strategic Plan Objectives talked about striking a balance, which he felt was right. However as with the NPPF, Members needed guidance on what was the preferential balance and the default position. He agreed with the creation of high quality, resilient habitats and ecological networks. When looking how to help mitigate the causes of and adapt to climate change, it was great to see recognition of the need to build in resilience to climate change but it was missing the key objective of demonstrating net zero emissions by a target date, whether that was 2030 or 2050. There needed to be an agreement on metrics to enable assessment of all assets and from a financial, carbon emissions and biodiversity perspective.

Mineral extraction would require transportation by road. Nationally, transport caused 40% of Carbon emissions but, there was no discussion of decarbonising the vehicles transporting minerals. Nationally land use comprised 10% of Carbon emissions therefore there was a need to demand Carbon offset. There was a need to move away from landfill because Methane from landfill was 80 times more powerful than Carbon Dioxide on a 20 year timescale. Councillor Da Costa asked whether it was a legal requirement to focus on sand, gravel, chalk and clay. He believed the government would produce a green plan at some stage therefore there was a need to move to plant based resources. He asked if the plan should be flexed to include water as a resource, or land or plant based resources as the country moved to a green economy.

Councillor Larcombe commented that he felt his ward of Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury was being victimised. Datchet already had one quarry due for landfill and Horton had two working quarries. Wraysbury had gravel pits that had been taken over by leisure facilities. Where one gravel pit was filled with waste it was a disaster zone for years. There was also a waste handling site in Wraysbury that brought in hundreds of lorries each day. Now more quarrying and waste handling operations were being proposed. He was not happy and nor would his residents be; he felt that six weeks was not long enough for the consultation, particularly for parish councils.

Councillor Brar commented that she had received emails from residents of Bray ward about the noise and traffic issues from the gravel plant in that ward.

Councillor Bateson commented that if sufficient dwellings were to be built to meet the needs of the growing population, both the land and materials were needed. The report was critical to ensure sufficient sand and gravel was available with waste processing facilities for a growing population.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that there was no conflict of interest for Members of the Development Management Panel in taking part in the vote as it related to the consultation document, not any application that would come to the Panel.

Councillor Cannon commented that he was another ward councillor for Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury, along with the Deputy Mayor. Ward Councillors were engaging with the parish councils who were very well sighted and in a good position to put their representations forward within the six week period.

Councillor Baldwin commented that Councillor Cannon had been referring to the ability of residents in his ward to make a contribution. He pointed out that Councillor Cannon had been a principal factor in denying Councillor Larcombe the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan a few weeks previously.

Councillor Carole Da Costa suggested that the country and the borough should be looking at different types of building materials that were more ecologically sound.

Councillor Coppinger commented that he was happy to take up the planning issue raised by Councillor Werner outside the meeting. He explained that the plan was due to be reviewed every five years. As the climate change strategy developed, the plan could be changed.  The plan included the fact that transport methods other than lorries were being looked into. The plan also included a robust monitoring framework. The council wished to move away from landfill. In response to Councillor Larcombe’s comments, he highlighted that he had stated at the start that his ward, alongside Bray, got a poor deal. However there was a need to build houses for the children of the future and unfortunately those areas contained large mineral reserves. He was aware of the concerns in Bray ward referred to by Councillor Brar. The planning permissions were already granted and as they replaced another site there was no increase in vehicle movements. Innovative material use was developing over time, for example there was a cork house in Eton. The plan would be reviewed every five years; up until then every tonne of sand and gravel would be needed to build houses.

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor Bateson, and:

RESOLVED: That Councilnotes the report and:

i)     Approves the Proposed Submission Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan at Appendix A (along with the supporting documents and revisions to the Policies Map) for publication for a statutory six-week representations period to commence on 3 September and close on 15 October 2020;

ii)    Approves the formal submission of the Proposed Submission Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan and all supporting documents to the Secretary of State for independent examination; and 

iii)  Delegates authority to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning and Maidenhead, to make any minor amendments necessary to the Proposed Submission Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan and supporting documents prior to the commencement of the representations period.

Councillor Rayner declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the item and took no part in the debate or vote.