To consider the above report

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

Councillor Haseler explained that the unitary authorities in Berkshire had responsibility for planning for the future production of minerals and for the management of waste disposal within the Berkshire area. Minerals and Waste was an area of planning which was strategic in nature and as such was better planned for on a larger geography than an individual unitary authority.

The Borough had been working with Bracknell Forest, Reading and Wokingham Borough Councils to produce a Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire (JCEB) Minerals and Waste Plan which would guide minerals and waste decision-making in the Plan area for the period up to 2036. Hampshire Services had been acting as a consultant to undertake this work.

Together with the individually adopted Local Plans for eachAuthority and any other adopted or made Plans, the Plan would form the development plan for the area. The Plan, comprising 14 objectives and 28 policies, guided the level of minerals and waste development needed within Central and Eastern Berkshire and identified where development should go. Proposals for minerals and waste developments would be considered against the policies contained in the Plan. The determination of non-minerals and waste applications by thoseAuthorities (in terms of other matters such as housing) would also need to take the Plan into consideration.

The Plan had been prepared over several years, commencing in 2017, involving public consultations, and being submitted to the Secretary of State for examination in February 2021. Two Inspectors were appointed to carry out the independent examination on the soundness of the plan. In October 2022 the Inspectors’ final report was received, concluding that with the main modifications the Plan was sound and capable of being adopted. Councillor Haseler highlighted that the Plan could only be adopted with all of the Main Modifications recommended by the Inspectors. Once the Plan was adopted, it would become part of the statutory Development Plan and have full weight in the determination of planning applications.

Adopting the Plan would ensure that the Council had an up-to-date strategic planning framework for guiding minerals and waste development, as required by law. It would also assist in the delivery of the objectives of the new Corporate Plan, supporting economic growth and sustainable waste development to enable resource efficiency and drive waste management up the waste hierarchy. The supply of minerals was also important to enable the delivery of infrastructure, buildings, energy, and goods for quality of life.

Not adopting the Plan would mean that the existing out of date adopted Minerals and Waste Plan policies dating back to 1998 and 2001 would remain.

The Council therefore would not have robust and up to date policies that were compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Policy for Waste. The resources incurred to prepare the Plan would have been largely wasted. A decision not to adopt the Plan could provoke an intervention by the Secretary of State, and legal challenges by site promoters.

Councillor Baldwin raised a Point of Order. He had been told the reference in the report to a Key Decision, at the bottom of paragraph 12, had been included in error. However, the matter did rise to that of a Key Decision as defined in Part 1 12.3b of the constitution as it affected more than two wards. In the interests of openness of and transparency, he requested an explanation for the grounds for ignoring the procedures laid out in Part 3 A1.2 and A2.14 and by extension a justification for denying Members their rights under Part 4 A16. He highlighted that Cabinet had considered a report on the Plan on 22 January 2022 at which time it was marked a Key Decision. A partner authority was taking the opposite approach to adopting the same Plan. Bracknell Forest’s Forward Plan for Cabinet had an item identical to the report before full Council in respect of items 1 and 2, but crucially and additionally dealt with at the appropriate Executive level, the withdrawal of the policies referred to adopted in May 2002 and December 1998. The Executive had not yet taken that resolution or recommended to full Council the final report.

The Monitoring Officer explained that a decision to adopt the Plan, under Section 23 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 combined with the Local Authorities Functions and Responsibilities (England) Regulations 2000, made it a Council decision rather than an Executive decision. This had been tested the previous week in the High Court via the Borough Local Plan challenge and the Court had described that ground as ‘unutterably unarguable’. The reason it was not a Key Decision was that under the Local Authority Executive Arrangements (Meeting and Access to Information) Regulations 2012, Paragraph 8, any decision which was a Council decision (adoption of A Plan being a Council decision) could not be a Key Decision. Key Decisions were only Executive decisions. This meant that a decision that needed to be made by Council could not be a Key Decision. Until the point of adoption, they were Executive decisions which is why they had been to Cabinet in the past. In relation to other authorities, some chose to send reports to Cabinet for noting, which was absolutely fine in practice but was not something that was done at the borough because it was preferable not to clutter the agenda with items Members could not make decisions on.

Councillor Baldwin therefore asked where in the report did it formally revoke the 1998 and 2001 Adopted Plans? The Monitoring Officer explained that the operation of the adoption automatically revoked the earlier Plans and the council had Counsel’s opinion to substantiate that opinion. Counsel’s advice was confidential to the Council.

Councillor Larcombe commented that there had been gravel digging in his ward all his life. It was important to consider the impact of the proposals. In the report, Horton had 75 mentions, Datchet 5 and Wraysbury 12. The remaining five reserves included three in his ward because of the gravel. Extensions to the sites were proposed, which was a sensitive issue. This was not just a physical issue about moving footpaths etc, but also the impact of the gravel extraction for years afterwards. The local roads were being destroyed by the heavy lorries. There was also the issue of ultimate use. When he was a child, he had been able to walk around the whole ward freely. Now this was not possible because of thousands of metres of six-foot fencing as the areas had been bought by recreational facilities. He asked where the accountability was, given the Plan had been produced by so many people.

Councillor Werner commented on the consultation process. No amateur member of the public would wade through such a large document to see if they would be affected. In some case councillors stepped forward to do that on their behalf, such as in relation to the Stubbings site. He had been told that residents of Cox Green had not been told there was a site in that area. A similar situation had occurred with sites in the Borough Local Plan.

Councillor McWilliams responded he and his fellow ward Member in Cox Green had made it abundantly and explicitly clear to residents about sites in the Local Plan including holding three public meetings. They had also worked hard with residents to defeat speculative applications on solid planning grounds.

Councillor Walters commented that in Bray a public consultation had been held in the village hall.

Councillor Werner requested a Personal Explanation, but this was determined as not required by the Mayor.

Councillor Brar commented that residents in her ward were very much against the Stubbings site being included therefore she was disappointed it was still in the Plan.

Councillor Johnson commented that he did not wish to see another badly botched legal challenge to a major planning policy. The Local Plan challenge had been tested by two separate judges who had agreed with the Planning Inspector and Secretary of State that the Plan was sound. The legal challenge had cost the local authority thousands of pounds.

Councillor Baldwin commented that his understanding was that the legal points raised in the challenge to the Local Plan had not been determined; what had been determined was the failure of the Borough to accept the service six days late. The legal points had been commented on but not ruled upon.

Councillor Coppinger commented that the Plan was not the Local Plan but was just as important. It did not define housing or where it would go but stated where key raw materials could come from and when. Sites still needed planning permission and full public scrutiny. The Inspector had suggested 16 main modifications, all of which had been accepted. As Councillor Larcombe had highlighted, there were a number of gravel sites in the borough due to the River Thames.

Councillor Haseler concluded by highlighting that there were 28 policies covering a variety of issues. The Plan has been in development since 2017 and had been through a rigorous planning and examination process. There had been 31 representations but none had been contentious.

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

RESOLVED: That full Council notes the report and resolves to:

i)           Adopt the JCEB Minerals and Waste Plan (as set out in Appendix B), which incorporates the Main Modifications recommended by the Inspector (Appendix D).

ii)          Agree to make the alterations to the adopted Policies Map (as shown in Appendix C) that are necessary to give effect to the policies of the adopted JCEB Minerals and Waste Plan as modified. 

iii)        Delegates authority to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport to make any minor non-material corrections as additional modifications to the adopted JCEB Minerals and Waste Plan as considered necessary ahead of publication and publicity in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended).