Interactive webcast player

Strategic Sites Committee
Thursday, 30th July 2026 at 10:00am

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  4. Teresa Coppock - Planning Lawyer
  5. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  6. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  7. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  8. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  9. Cllr Mark Roberts
  10. Cllr David Moore
  11. Cllr Llew Monger
  12. Cllr Mark Turner
  13. Cllr Gregory Smith
  14. Cllr Andy Huxley
  15. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  16. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  17. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  18. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mark Roberts
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Cllr Mark Turner
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr Andy Huxley
  6. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Public Speakers
  6. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  7. Cllr David Moore
  8. Public Speakers
  9. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  10. Public Speakers
  11. Cllr Gregory Smith
  12. Public Speakers
  13. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  14. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  15. Public Speakers
  16. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  17. Public Speakers
  18. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  19. Cllr Gregory Smith
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Gregory Smith
  22. Public Speakers
  23. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  24. Cllr Mark Roberts
  25. Public Speakers
  26. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  27. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  28. Public Speakers
  29. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  30. Public Speakers
  31. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  32. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  33. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  34. Public Speakers
  35. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  36. Cllr Gregory Smith
  37. Public Speakers
  38. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  39. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  40. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  41. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  42. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  43. Public Speakers
  44. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  45. Cllr Mark Roberts
  46. Public Speakers
  47. Cllr Mark Roberts
  48. Public Speakers
  49. Cllr Mark Roberts
  50. Public Speakers
  51. Cllr Mark Roberts
  52. Public Speakers
  53. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  54. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  55. Public Speakers
  56. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  57. Public Speakers
  58. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  59. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  60. Public Speakers
  61. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  62. Public Speakers
  63. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  64. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  65. Public Speakers
  66. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  67. Cllr David Moore
  68. Public Speakers
  69. Cllr David Moore
  70. Public Speakers
  71. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  72. Cllr Gregory Smith
  73. Public Speakers
  74. Cllr Gregory Smith
  75. Public Speakers
  76. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  77. Public Speakers
  78. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Public Speakers
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Public Speakers
  6. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  7. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  8. Public Speakers
  9. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  10. Public Speakers
  11. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  12. Public Speakers
  13. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  14. Public Speakers
  15. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  16. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  17. Public Speakers
  18. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  19. Cllr Gregory Smith
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Llew Monger
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  4. Cllr Llew Monger
  5. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  6. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  7. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  8. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  9. Cllr Gregory Smith
  10. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  11. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  12. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  13. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  14. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  15. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  16. Cllr Mark Roberts
  17. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  18. Cllr Mark Roberts
  19. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  20. Cllr Mark Roberts
  21. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  22. Cllr Mark Roberts
  23. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  24. Cllr Mark Roberts
  25. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  26. Cllr Mark Roberts
  27. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  28. Cllr Mark Roberts
  29. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  30. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  31. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  32. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  33. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  34. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  35. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  36. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  37. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  38. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  39. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  40. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  41. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  42. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  43. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  44. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  45. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  46. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  47. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  48. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  49. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  50. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  51. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  52. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  53. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  54. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  55. Cllr Mark Roberts
  56. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  57. Cllr Mark Roberts
  58. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  59. Cllr David Moore
  60. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  61. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  62. Cllr David Moore
  63. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  64. Cllr David Moore
  65. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  66. Cllr David Moore
  67. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  68. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  69. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  70. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  71. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  72. Cllr David Moore
  73. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  74. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  75. Cllr David Moore
  76. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  77. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  78. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  79. Cllr Mark Roberts
  80. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  81. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  82. Cllr Mark Roberts
  83. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  84. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  85. Cllr Mark Roberts
  86. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mark Turner
  2. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  3. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  6. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  7. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  8. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  9. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  10. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  11. Cllr David Moore
  12. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  13. Cllr David Moore
  14. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  15. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  16. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  17. Cllr David Moore
  18. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  19. Cllr David Moore
  20. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  21. Cllr David Moore
  22. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  23. Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer
  24. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  25. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  26. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  27. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  28. Cllr Andy Huxley
  29. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  30. Cllr Andy Huxley
  31. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  32. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  33. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  34. Cllr Llew Monger
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Cllr Mark Roberts
  3. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  4. Cllr Mark Turner
  5. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  6. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  7. Cllr Mark Turner
  8. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  9. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  10. Cllr Gregory Smith
  11. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  12. Cllr Gregory Smith
  13. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  14. Cllr David Moore
  15. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  16. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  17. Cllr David Moore
  18. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  2. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  3. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr David Moore
  6. David Periam - Planning Lead Officer
  7. Cllr David Moore
  8. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  9. Cllr David Moore
  10. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  11. Cllr Mark Turner
  12. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  13. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Public Speakers
  6. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  7. Cllr Mark Roberts
  8. Public Speakers
  9. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  10. Public Speakers
  11. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  12. Cllr David Moore
  13. Public Speakers
  14. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  15. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  16. Public Speakers
  17. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  18. Cllr Gregory Smith
  19. Public Speakers
  20. Cllr Andy Huxley
  21. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  22. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  23. Public Speakers
  24. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  25. Public Speakers
  26. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  27. Cllr Gregory Smith
  28. Public Speakers
  29. Cllr Gregory Smith
  30. Public Speakers
  31. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  32. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  33. Public Speakers
  34. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  35. Cllr Mark Turner
  36. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  37. Public Speakers
  38. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  39. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  40. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  41. Public Speakers
  42. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  43. Cllr David Moore
  44. Public Speakers
  45. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  46. Cllr Mark Roberts
  47. Public Speakers
  48. Cllr Mark Roberts
  49. Public Speakers
  50. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  51. Cllr Gregory Smith
  52. Public Speakers
  53. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  54. Public Speakers
  55. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  56. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  57. Public Speakers
  58. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  59. Public Speakers
  60. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  61. Cllr David Moore
  62. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  63. Cllr Mark Roberts
  64. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  65. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  66. Cllr Mark Roberts
  67. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  68. Cllr Mark Roberts
  69. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  70. Cllr Mark Roberts
  71. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  72. Cllr Mark Roberts
  73. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  74. Cllr Mark Roberts
  75. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  76. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  77. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  78. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  79. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  80. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  81. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  82. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  83. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  84. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  85. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  86. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  87. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  88. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  89. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  90. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  91. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  92. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  93. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  94. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  95. Cllr Gregory Smith
  96. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  97. Cllr Mark Turner
  98. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  99. Cllr Mark Turner
  100. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  101. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  102. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  103. Cllr Mark Turner
  104. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  105. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  106. Cllr Andy Huxley
  107. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  108. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  109. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  110. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  111. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  112. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  113. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  114. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  115. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  116. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  117. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  118. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  119. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  120. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  121. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  122. Cllr Mark Roberts
  123. Cllr David Moore
  124. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  125. Cllr Gregory Smith
  126. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  127. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  128. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  129. Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead
  130. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  131. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  132. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  133. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  134. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  135. Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser
  136. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:00
Good morning councillors, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the meeting of the strategic
sites committee.
Please note that the meeting is being webcast and the public and press can see and hear
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:18
the meeting throughout the webcast.
In the unlikely event that there is a technical issue with the webcast, the meeting will be
paused until the issue has been resolved.
There are a couple of housekeeping licence I need to cover.
Members please note that mobile phones are not permitted during the meeting and they
should be switched off like that.
However iPads can be used to access your modern Gov app because as you see from the agenda,
the agenda pack is that but there are then another 700 pages of worth of amendments and
appendices that you've gone through on the iPad.
Okay, so if members wish to speak,
please raise your hands at the appropriate time.
Please remember to turn your microphone on
before speaking and switch it off when you're finished.
In the event of a fire alarm,
please use the nearest fire exit
and assemble at the assembly point,
which is in the overflow car park on the right hand
as you exit the main entrance.
As you go out of there,
it literally is the additional second car park on the right.
If there are members of the press present, please can you make yourselves known.
Before we move on to the first agenda item, I'll ask each of the members and officers to introduce themselves, starting with Catherine.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 0:01:42
Thank you Chairman, I'm Catherine Stubbs, I'm a Senior Planning Solicitor with the Council.
.
Teresa Coppock - Planning Lawyer - 0:01:46
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:01:53
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:01:57
.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:02
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:08
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:02:14
Councillor Mark Roberts. I'm a ward member for Amersham Chesham boys
Cllr David Moore - 0:02:21
Good morning, everyone. My name is Councillor David Moore and I represent the finance estate pages ward
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:26
Good morning, Councillor Lou Monger representing Winslow Ward
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:02:32
Councillor Mark Turner children villages ward
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:02:37
Good morning, I'm Craig Smith. I'm Councillor for had them and stoneward
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:02:42
I'm Andy Huxley representing Alesbury East and Vice Chairman of this committee.
Good morning, Rachel Marlborough. I'm the case officer for the MSA between Junction 16 and 17.
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 0:02:57
Good morning, David Perriam. I'm the case officer for the minerals application associated with the Iver Heath Motorway Service Area.
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 0:03:07
I'm Graham Mattsfield, I'm the principal planning officer dealing with the Carm Valley Services application.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 0:03:12
I'm Susan Kitchen, strategic planning advisor and lead officer for this meeting.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:19
I'm Councillor Alex Collingwood, chairman of the committee but also member for Marlowe and Marlowe Bottom.
Moving on to agenda item one, apologies for absence.

1 Apologies

Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:03:31
Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Gohme and just received apologies from Councillor Hissane.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:36
General item 2, the minutes.

2 Minutes

Now, turn to general item 2.
We do agree the minutes of the committee meeting held on the 2nd of July.
These can be found on page 3 of the agenda pack.
Okay.
Agreed.
Agreed? Okay. Thank you. I'll then sign them now.
Okay moving to item item three which is declaration of interests.
Do any members have any interest to clear?

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Roberts.
Yes thank you.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:04:48
I'd just like to highlight that I received a leaflet from the objectors
to the Colbally site and it was delivered to my home address
which is not listed on the council website.
So I just wanted to highlight that.
I come to this issue new, I'm fresh to it
and obviously will address the issue with an open mind.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:05:19
Interestingly, Councillor, I also received the same leaflets.
but like you I'm new to this application
and again like you I still have an open mind.
Anyone, any other decorations?
No, okay, excellent.
Oh, so Councillor Turner, Councillor Munger, sorry.
Well, just that I think that probably everybody
on the committee has had mailings for this,
Cllr Mark Turner - 0:05:39
I wouldn't imagine.
I think this is slightly different on the basis
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:05:44
that this came to our home personal addresses
that where our address is not listed on the websites
and we personally got it delivered to our homes individually.
And I think that's what we're flagging is that that's been a direct targeting,
if that makes sense.
Our addresses are not on the website and therefore, but having received it,
we still have an open mind, but we're just flagging that it had been received.
We weren't sure if other members had received it, but we're just flagging that.
Both of us discussed this morning and went, oh, okay.
Councillor Huxley.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:06:24
I didn't receive the leaflet Chairman, but I've received other emails either in support
or objecting to the particular applications.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:06:36
I think all of us would have had both, to support and object to emails, that's fairly
standard.
Our email addresses are listed on the website, therefore that's quite acceptable.
It's just the fact that we have been individually targeted.
So it was just flagging that, you know, even though we received this, we still have an
open mind to proceed with this application.
Thank you.
Okay.
We now move to consider the three applications on the agenda today.
The meeting procedure will be slightly different as the first two applications will be heard
in tandem with one another.
You will hear the case officer presentation, then public speaking for the first application
before the application will be adjourned.
Then the presentation and public speaking
of the second application will be heard.
After those two presentations and public speaking sections,
we'll move on to the technical questions
for each application,
and again adjourn between each application.
When we move on to the debate for each application,
with an adjournment between each.
Finally, I shall open up the vote for each application.
Then finally, a third and final application
will be heard straight through.
So to clarify, the order of the meeting will be as follows.
The planning officer, Graham Mansfield to my left,
will introduce the first application,
PL forward slash 20 forward slash 43324 forward slash OA,
land to the north of the A4007 Slough Road
between Junction 15 and 16 of the M25 Iver Heath.
Buckinghamshire referred to today as the Kong Valley,
bracket CV, MSA, with any other relevant updates.
It will then follow with local members, parish council
representatives, members of the publics,
and the agent will then be advised to read out
in the following order.
So local Buckinghamshire ward members,
followed by the parish or town council representatives,
any objectives and any supporters and then finally the agent or applicant.
After each public speaking statement, members will be asked to seek clarification from the speakers on any matters they raise in their statement.
These must be addressed through me as the Chairman and I do stress its clarification of what they have said in their statement.
It should be noted pursuant to the provisions of the constitution related to public speaking at planning committees
I have exercised my discretion that the Chairman allow Harry Thomas the Senior Committee Services Officer to read out a statement on behalf of Joy Morrissey MP and on behalf of Anne Batterby.
Committee members will not be able to ask for any points of clarification because these are formal written statements.
This item CV the the Cong Valley MSA which is PL 20 forward slash 4332 forward slash OA
Landed north of the A4007 Slough Road between Junction 50 and 16 Iver Heath
will then be adjourned to enable the presentation of the next item of the agenda.
The planning officer, David Perriam, he has introduced himself for the second application,
CM 4 .00 .31 .21, land adjacent to the M25 between junction 15 and 16 either heath,
it's also now referred to as the CV minerals.
We'll then introduce the application with any relevant updates,
public speaking and questions from members will follow in the same way as the first application.
And then this item CV minerals CM forward slash 003621.
The land adjacent to the M25 between junction 15 and 16 are over Heath.
Buckinghamshire will then be adjourned.
As you understand why we now call it Colne Valley and make it a lot simpler.
This is a Colne Valley version for both MSAs and minerals.
We then move to technical questions of the offices of each of the applications in turn
with the germinates between each one.
Members then may seek further clarification of officers on any points regarding the application or points raised by the speakers in the main debate.
Officers will respond to issues and questions raised by members.
Following this, the committee will then debate each application in turn with an adjournment between each application.
Committee will then make a decision by vote on each application in turn with an adjournment between each application.
For each application, I will ask members for a proposal and a seconder.
Officers will then be asked if they wish to offer further advice.
The members will then vote on the applications.
I'll make it clear as I possibly can as which application we're considering at which point
as we go along because I think it is slightly convoluted.
Finally, the Planning Officer Rachel Marlborough will introduce the third application which
is the Chalfont St Peter MSA, reference number PL forward slash 22 forward slash 1411 forward
slash OA, which is the land between junction 16 and 17 of the M25 near Chalfont St Peter
Buckinghamshire. We'll then introduce the application with any relevant updates, public
speaking, technical questions from members will follow in the usual way with no interruptions.
Again, the members will then debate and vote on the application.
There we go.
Okay.
So in terms of agenda items 4 and 5,
those speaking today on the first applications,
please respond after I call your names to indicate you are actually here in attendance.
Please ensure that your verbal representations committee
relate to the relevant planning considerations regarding the planning application being considered
and not include any personal comments.
Each public speaker will be asked to speak
and come to sit at the public speaking table,
as you can see, in front of you.
After members have been asked any points of clarification,
they'll then return to their seats.
I'll call their names out of the people speaking
on each application in turn.
So moving to application PL forward slash 20,

4 PL/20/4332/OA - Land to the North of A4007, Slough Road, (Between Junctions 15 and 16 of The M25), Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

forward slash four three three two forward slash oa land to the north of a4007 slough road between
15 16 iver heath bucky micha corn valley msa so firstly i have counsellor julie cook
okay counsellor wendy mathews uh katie barton as the objector okay and i've got tom jeremiah as
Okay, thank you.
Okay, so in terms of applications, CM 4 -0036, 4 -21, land adjacent to the M25 between junction 15 and 16,
Iver Heath, Kong Valley Minerals.
I've got Councillor Julie Cook, and I've got Tom Jeremiah as the applicant.
Thank you.
I'll now ask the Case Officer at Grainsmannsfield to introduce the report on the application PL24 slash 43324 slash 0A.
Land to the north of A4007 Slough Road between Junction 15 and 16th and 25, Iverheath, Buckinghamshire,
Kong Valley, MSA.
Over to you Graham.
Thank you Jim.
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 0:14:30
In terms of updates, members should have the written update report on their desks.
Other than that I do not have any other verbal updates to this item.
Members will note that this application was considered by planning committee back in September 2023 with a resolution to approve.
And this can be found on page 8 of the report, I believe.
This item has now been brought back to committee in line with that resolution.
Due to the passage of time, there have been a number of material planning considerations that have changed, namely the national planning policy.
In addition, you will note that the Secretary of State confirmed in 2024 that they would
not be calling in the application and have referred it back to the Council to determine
accordingly.
So the development proposal is an outline application for a Motorway Service Area between
Junctions 15 and 16 of the M25 at Iverheath with all matters reserved, which will be comprised
of vehicle access from the M25, new over bridge together with the realignment of the A4007
Slough Road, a controlled vehicle access for emergency vehicles only and staff drop off
and associated road works to Slough Road.
In terms of the MSA, there's facility buildings, drive -through, fuel filling stations, electric
charging points and the associated vehicle circulation landscaping.
There's also biodiversity net gain areas, woodland planting,
suds, and a diverted public right -of -way.
So in terms of MSAs, the Department of Transport,
Circular 01 -2022, sets out the guidance
for roadside facilities.
It recommends a maximum distance of no more
than 28 miles between facilities.
and this slide here just shows you the main MSAs
within this area of the world.
So you've got Reading, Fleet, Cobham on the M25,
Beckons Field, South Mims,
Todgerton on the M1, London Gateway.
The MSAs, they serve as a road safety function
on the strategic road network on the motorways
by allowing users to stop and take breaks.
Turning to the application site itself, the site there in Red Edge to the north of the
Slough Road.
To the west is the village of Ivor Heath and to the east you have the built up area, the
edge of the London Borough of Hillingdon and Uxbridge.
Junction 15 is to the south, and you can just see the junction 16 to the M40 to the north there.
That's a closer scale version.
We've got to the east, we've got the complex of farm buildings associated with Mattsfield Farm.
We have the substation and there's a number of residential properties at
Mansfield Lodge and White Cottage.
And here is some aerial shots just to illustrate that as well. So here where my
cursor is that's Mansfield Farm. We've got the Iver Environment Centre nestled
between the farm and the substation.
White Cottage, one of the residential properties,
and the Slough Road.
The River Audubon, which is a priority habitat stream,
also runs through the site and is culverted under the M25.
There is also an area of ancient woodland here, which is outside of the application
site, and an area of woodland buffer to the north, which is within the blue edge.
This represents the green belt, so the areas are washed with green belt, and the application
site is located in Metropolitan Greenbelt. So you've got London Borough of
Rillingdon and then the village of Eileheath. This is an illustrative master
plan. So it's proposed to take access slips of the M25 and incorporate it into
a double span footbridge which involves the realignment of the Snell Road and
And the parcel to the west will contain
all the facilities, buildings, the parking,
the drive -through, HGV parking,
and the main amenity building.
There are a number of footpaths that run through the area.
These will be diverted accordingly,
namely the ride -away that runs up to the A412
to Denham Road, which will go around the site.
We also have a lot of woodland buffer
that will be proposed as part of the screening and mitigation
and that includes the slip roads to the east next
to Mansfield Farm and the Ivo Environment Centre.
We have such areas as well proposed.
This is just a few illustrative plans
of how the accesses will be put in place.
So this is a proposed new access of the Slough Road
for the staff entrance.
Members who came to the site visit will note
that is currently being used
as a temporary construction access
for the new Uxbridge Mall substation.
This is just an illustrative section
of the main immunity building.
So this is a cut through of the site looking north.
So this is the M25 which members would note on site
that it was a lower ground level.
And it's proposed to excavate the land in order to bed
down the building, which is the reason
that the minerals application,
which my colleague David Perrin will go through later.
This plan illustrates the biodiversity net gain area.
So habitat enhancement area is proposed to the northwest
of the site, as well as buffering
to the ancient woodland and around the edges of the site.
And I've just, for those who weren't at the site visit,
I have just put together a few photographs just
to show and orientate.
So this is a view from the north
of the M25 over Ridge at Slough Road.
The arrow on the map shows the direction
it's looking towards on the proposed master plan.
That's towards one of the roundabouts.
Within.
That's looking towards the,
where the southern slip roads would be proposed to go.
Mansfield Farm is behind these trees.
And that's a view across from the proposed western parcel
towards the east and that's looking towards the eastern
parcel where the new slip roads to access the southbound.
Go. That's a view south within the western parcel.
There's a few shots of Slough Road here and this is looking towards Uxbridge of the current
overbridge and this is looking towards Ither Heath.
This is the junction of the Mansfield Farm access track which leads to the Iver environment
This is the northbound centre.
And some views of the northbound carriageway.
This is the western parcel.
These pictures are taken from the applicant's LVIA,
which goes through the landscape impacts of the scheme.
There's some wire frames of the proposed amenity building.
This is looking from Bangers Road North,
to illustrate by this arrow towards the site
and how it would be viewed.
And this is with mitigation and the planting.
This is from one of the southern footpaths that go from east
to west, this is a view, a wire frame
of the proposed immunity building.
And again with mitigation and the planting in this area.
This is a view with the eastern parcels is
from the Mansfield Farm access road looking towards the M25
which is located behind this existing plant in here.
This is the proposed location of the southbound slips.
And then you've got a view north towards Mansfield Farm
and the Iver Environment Centre behind that tree line there.
And again, this is where the southbound slip roads will
be located. It's a view looking south down the Mansfield Farm access again. The slips
would be located behind this hedge. This is a view towards Iver environment centre behind
here and the current substation. This is the Mansfield Farm complex here. The slip roads
would be just out of shot there.
And this is a view towards the River Audubon
within the eastern parcel,
which is denoted by this line of trees.
And the slip road would go over the River Audubon at grade.
This is the entrance to the Ivor Environment Centre
and Mansfield Farm at the top
of Mansfield from access track.
The slip road will be behind the camera to the left.
That's just an illustration
to show the tree removal and retention.
As members would note in the report that there's a removal
of two veteran trees as part of this application.
And I've just illustrated all the biodiversity features in the area.
The light green indicates ancient woodland, and you've got the King Cup Farm, SSSI, and
the sink, and the Parotty habitat, which runs within the site.
So in terms of key planning considerations,
in terms of principle, as intimated earlier,
there's been a change of policy since this application
came before members.
Namely, in terms of greenbelt policy,
it's obviously a judgement that the land comprises
of greybelt land, so it would be appropriate
road development.
In terms of highway access,
this would mainly be on the strategic road network
and would be a matter for national highways
and they have considered this as part of the application
and have raised no objections subject to all the details
coming forward.
Highways, Buckinghamshire Highways will be concerned
with the construction traffic on the local road network
in Eilert Heath.
It is proposed that construction traffic would be limited
for just six months while the site is set up,
after which all traffic would be, construction traffic
and operational traffic would be on the strategic road
network of the motorway and therefore raise no objection.
Noise, vibration, dust and air quality have all been
assessed by council officers and have been deemed
acceptable subject to conditions. Landscape and visual impacts including
that on the Colm Valley Regional Park. Harm has been identified as a set out in
the officer's report and this has been weighed in the balance. Ecology,
biodiversity and protected species including the loss of two veteran trees
have been considered and it's considered that subject to mitigation measures and
compensation in terms of planting and biodiversity net gain
that the application would comply with the development plan.
Diverted pathways and new routes,
as illustrated on the plans earlier,
been deemed acceptable by the council's public rights
of way officers and would lend benefits to the area.
Heritage impacts, a number of the buildings
within Mansford Farm are designated Grade 2 listed
as well as White Cottage, which is grade two listed.
Great Weight has been given for consideration
of these designated heritage assets,
and the council's Heritage Officer has said
that there will be less than substantial harm
as a result of this development
at the lower end of the scale,
and this is being considered in the balance.
In terms of flood risk, the eastern parcel of the site,
as River Audubon runs through it,
is within flood zone one, flood zone two, flood zone three,
as it's susceptible to surface water drainage flooding.
The applicant has, in line with the MPPS and the PPG,
submitted a sequential test and an exception test
which is deemed to be passed.
There will be suitable mitigation for surface water
and would not lead to further risks for other properties.
It's been looked at by the Environment Agency and the council
as the LLFA and they have raised no objection.
In terms of agricultural land,
the land which the MSA has proposed is pasture land
and has not been deemed to be best
and most versatile agricultural land.
As noted in the report, the application for MSN's location would bring forward some economic
considerations of construction and operational stages and that's been waived favourably in
the balance as well.
In terms of the need, this has been set out in the officer's report and in light of the
need and the consideration against the harms is being considered to be acceptable and recommended
as per the officer's report.
Thank you Graham.
That was a very comprehensive summary of the application.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:30:58
We'll now move to the public speaking on application PL4 -20 -4 -332 -4 -0A.
Land to the north of VA4 -007 Slough Road,
seeing junction 15 and 16,
Cliver Heath,
Buckinghamshire,
Cong Valley,
MSA.
Harry Thomas, the Senior Community Service Officer will now read the statement from Jo Mursi MP.
A reminder that members cannot ask for points of clarification following the statement.
Once the timer starts, please begin. You'll have three minutes to begin, Harry. Thank you.
Thank you.
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:31:39
Chair and members of the committee, I regret that I'm unable to attend today's meeting and I ask that this statement be read into the record.
I previously objected to proposals affecting this area
and my position remains unchanged.
The continued loss of greenbelt land in the Ivers
is unacceptable and contrary to both local
and national planning policy.
I therefore strongly object to this proposal
for a motorway service area.
This application raises serious concerns
for the environment, for sound planning,
and for the long -term wellbeing of our communities.
First and foremost, the land proposed for development
serves as a vital green lung,
located between the M25 and M4
within a designated air quality monitoring area,
it plays an important role in helping
to mitigate air pollution.
Given the existing pressures from two major motorways,
preserving this open land is more important than ever.
Replacing it with a motorway service area,
which would inevitably generate additional traffic
and emissions, would only worsen
an already challenging air quality situation.
The site also performs one of the fundamental functions
of the green belt by preventing urban sprawl.
It provides the strategic gap that maintains
the clear separation between Iver and Uxbridge.
Protecting that distinction has long been a cornerstone
of planning policy, and allowing development of this scale
would further erode the important boundary.
I'm also deeply concerned about the impact
of the Iver's environmental centre.
This much valued community facility provides
environmental education and outdoor learning opportunities
for children and young people from across the region.
Sorry, its setting and surrounding natural environment
is central to its purpose.
Any harm to this asset would represent
into significant loss for education, biodiversity,
and the wider community.
This proposal must also be considered
in the wider context of the exceptional development
pressures facing the IVAs.
In recent years, our area has seen an increasing number
of proposals for large -scale infrastructure
and commercial developments,
including the rapid expansion of data centres.
While each application is considered on its own merits,
their cumulative impact cannot be ignored.
Piece by piece, our green belt is being eroded,
and we are approaching a point where the character
and environmental value of the ivas
will be permanently changed.
That cumulative loss makes the protection
of the remaining green belt all the more important.
As development intensifies, so too does the need
to retain open green spaces that improve air quality,
support wildlife habitats,
reduce the impacts of climate change,
and provide essential benefits
for the health and wellbeing of local residents.
This land has significance well beyond the boundaries
of the site itself.
It contributes to regional biodiversity,
provides an important environmental buffer
between major transport corridors,
and neighbouring communities and fulfils the very purposes
for which Greenbelt designation exists.
For all of these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee
to refuse this application and uphold the Greenbelt
protections that have served the Ivors for generations.
Once Greenbelt land is lost to development,
it is rarely recovered.
I ask members to consider not only the immediate impact
of this proposal, but also the precedent it would set
and the cumulative consequences of allowing
yet another incursion into this precious
and irreplaceable landscape.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:34:39
Two minutes 57.
Thank you Harry.
We now move to Councillor Wendy Matthews who will now speak as a local member.
Please come to the table.
And once you're ready the timer will start and you'll have three minutes speaking in time.
Public Speakers - 0:35:01
Over to you Councillor Matthews.
Thank you. Good morning everyone.
The report cites the Greenbelt assessment which states that Iver and Iverheath are villages
without providing the evidence base for this statement.
The 2025 settlement review assessed settlements against detailed criteria and found that Iver
met the tier 3 test and was therefore also classified as a small town.
Iverheath should also have been so classified as it does in fact meet the criteria, but
the data used in the assessment was incorrect.
It should therefore be considered as a tier 3 settlement a small town.
The designation of the MSA area as grey belt therefore needs to be reconsidered as it does make a significant contribution to the purpose B for the green belt in the MPPF,
namely preventing the towns of Ivah Heath and Uxbridge which are in close proximity from merging to each other.
The MPPF also states that one might be a large built up area as is the case for Uxbridge here.
Derrids Cross, Chalfonts and Peter is 7 .3 kilometres to the north west of the MSA site
and therefore this site should not be considered with regards to the impact on the Greenbelt
Gap there with London as stated in the report.
However it certainly does impact the significantly on the gap of 1 .4 kilometres between Iverheath
and Uxbridge.
The service area will operate 24 -7.
The constant noise from the movement of cars, motorbikes and HGVs will be heard across Iverheath
especially at night.
This facility will bring traffic from the M25 closer to the residential area of Iver Heath.
The HDV park is located closest to the residents of Bangers Road and on the highest point of the site
and no assessment seems to have been made of the impact on these residents
given that HDVs will be parked there for some time during their rest breaks
and refrigerated trailers need their tractor units to run continuously to keep them cool.
The site is located within the Iver AQMA.
Advant consideration of the impact of the HDV park on the local air quality has not been undertaken given the large number of HDVs
located closest to residential areas
Which will be predominantly diesel fueled and for the refrigeration units to have to run constantly
Yet the proposed woodland buffer is at its thinnest here
The cumulative impact of the already approved data centres in the area such as Pinewood, Cyrus 1, Woodland Park
Where there will be hundreds of diesel generators operating has not been considered
The location of this site to the west of the M25 will close the green corridor that exists there to the benefit of wildlife and people.
The corridor to the east of the M25 has already been closed by the developments of Woodland Park, Sequence Park, Uxbridge Moor and Dromina Farm.
The benefits of health of open green space are tangible and quantifiable and should be considered in the overall assessment.
The impacts of the proposal on the health and quality of life of our local residents compared to the current tranquil agricultural use is significant and long term.
There is no demonstrable need for this proposal. Is there another alternative site available which can provide all the services that the travelling public need?
I therefore urge you to reject this application as it will cause significant harm to the local area and community. Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:38:08
Thank you Councillor Matthews. Two minutes fifty seven, very good.
Okay so are there any points of clarification that any members would want to have?
So we'll start with Councillor Moore and then Councillor Smith.
Cllr David Moore - 0:38:22
Thank you Chairman. Councillor Matthews you referenced the settlement tiers.
Are you suggesting that Ivor Heath is a town by that justification?
and if so, are you suggesting that the,
as per the new MPPF changes about the against
the infilling of towns, you've suggested Uxbridge,
and you've suggested that Ivor is a town, is that correct?
Yes, if you use the criteria set out
Public Speakers - 0:38:44
in the settlement review, Ivor Heath should be classified
as a town, it has not been so classified
because the data used for that assessment was incorrect,
and I don't know why that is, but it was.
local members weren't consulted.
And so therefore it should be classified
as a small town in tier three.
And therefore it should be considered within the gap,
the strategic gap between towns.
But just to clarify, based on what was being submitted,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:39:14
it's not classified as a town as of now?
The reference to, Iver Heath is not referenced as a town,
Public Speakers - 0:39:19
but either should be because that's within
the Greenbelt assessment should be classified as a town.
But in terms of submissions given it wasn't classified. Okay over to Councillor Gregory Smith followed by Councillor Patrick Fealing
Thank you. Thank you for that
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:39:37
And I really kind of continuing on on the same theme. I guess is
It seemed in your your representation that you were
Really challenging whether this should be considered grey belt
And and I just wonder if you could explain that a little bit further. My understanding is that
Great belt means previously developed or something that should be seen as a buffer between settlements. Could you just
Public Speakers - 0:40:04
Did the gap between towns should be considered within purpose be of the MPPF
So that it meets that criteria so it should be considered as a significant issue
Okay, how does council feeling
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:40:20
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:40:24
Thank you Chairman. Councillor Matthews, I just wanted to qualify. Do you recognise there's a need for this service station?
Because the highways are telling us and it's such. And clearly you don't want it on the way you're talking about.
Where would you suggest they put it?
Public Speakers - 0:40:46
I think we've already got the Beckonsfield service station and when that was approved it was indicated that that would serve this quadrant of the M25.
So I'm not clear that there is an actual need given that it was set out in 2022
and things have changed considerably since then and we've managed all this
year all these years without it I'm not sure that there is a need.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:41:07
So just for the public's understanding the Beckford is actually on the M40 not the M25.
So a different motorway. So just so I can understand the context of where
Beckford services are it's not a huge amount of distance we'd have to make a
massive detour off the M25 to go back to services.
It's jumped into the M40, right?
Just so everyone in public understand that.
Okay, all right, okay, with that, all the questions?
Okay, so thank you for your time.
I will now ask, if you could return to your seat,
now ask for Councillor Julia Cook.
We'll now speak for the parish council.
Again, please can come to the table.
Once the timer starts, please begin.
you have three minutes seeking time. Thank you councillor. Over to you.
Could you turn your microphone on please.
Public Speakers - 0:41:56
Yeah good morning councillors. The planning application as it stands is in
direct conflict with the Made Ivers neighbourhood plan. This is a material
consideration.
The proposal fails to align with several critical areas, three
examples of which, policy one, the gaps between settlements
and the strategic values that applies.
Policy seven, our air quality policy,
which says that a development should
have at least neutral standard.
The own analysis says that this is not neutral.
the developer zone analysis.
Policy 13 relates to the fact that we sit
in the Coln Valley Regional Park and we set
out that conservation and enhancement
of the semi -rural environment and agricultural setting
and green infrastructure network will be destroyed
because of this development.
We're also concerned about the environmental
and public health harms and we ask Councillors
to consider this carefully.
We believe there is a negative weight that
should be applied to these.
Equality, for example, is using the older regulatory standard
rather than the newer and scientifically proven World
Health Organisation standard.
But nonetheless, the Buckinghamshire Director
of Public Health Annual Report 2026
draws attention to the importance of our surroundings
as a foundational building block for the community.
The director notes that poor air quality in the Buckinghamshire area is because of the motorways.
And it contributes to 5 .3 % adult mortality in the Buckinghamshire community.
That's today's standard.
The classification of Greybelt is also disputed.
This is not a degraded, disused or previously developed brownfield land as you have seen
from the pictures.
It is a rented farm where residents are able to tell storeys dating back over 60 years
as use of the farm and visiting or working there.
DEFRA tells us that active pasture land is vital for carbon storage, soil health and
agricultural productivity.
This is the deafness land use policy.
Therefore, this is not Greybelt. And to suggest it is, is a misinterpretation of those definitions.
It is also the frontier of the Greenbelt.
If we are stopping, if we take away this piece of Greenbelt, we are reducing the whole of
the Greenbelt, whether it's to the town of Jerrold's Cross or anywhere else.
We are at the frontier.
London is the other side.
We also say because it is grey belt that it is green belt
and very special circumstances should apply and they do not.
We request Councillors to reject.
That's time.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:45:09
So any questions for clarification based
on the statement?
No? Oh, sorry, Councillor Smith.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:45:22
Sorry, just a one really, and it was just that you mentioned a bit about air quality
and we heard previously as well about HGV's engines running.
Have you got any evidence or has there been any proper assessment about the way that engine
fumes from an area like this can affect the surrounding area?
Thank you, Councillor.
The whole of the parish area is a designated air quality
monitoring zone.
Public Speakers - 0:45:51
It maintains that.
Local resident association has consistently
measured the air quality.
And Buckinghamshire measured the air quality
until about approximately 18 months ago
when they turned off that air quality service
and they're just using national figures.
We are still a designated air quality issue monitoring zone,
So we have poor air quality.
That is a known fact.
And the report, the analysis, the technical analysis states
that the activities in this site is not going to be neutral.
It will have an increase to poor air quality.
And with 5 .3 % of our population dying because of air pollution,
as stated by the Director of Public Health,
that's not a great state.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:46:47
Sorry, just to clarify if I may, Chairman, you mentioned a report about the additional
confusions from the site.
What's the status of that report and who produced it?
I wasn't quite sure about where this information comes from and how qualified it is.
I'm not sure which report.
If you're talking about the Director of Public Policy report that's published, it's a Buckingham
Public Speakers - 0:47:08
and your report, it is on the Buckinghamshire website.
Thank you and we will move on to Councillor Mark Roberts.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:47:20
Yeah, very quick question. You mentioned the neighbourhood plan. Could you clarify when that was made?
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:47:24
So you mentioned the neighbourhood plan, can you clarify when that was made?
Certainly the neighbourhood plan was made in 2022 so it is still current.
Public Speakers - 0:47:37
We are of course revising it as we need to do within the five years, it takes a while,
but it is current, it is freshly made and it was positively voted for at referendum
of course.
Councillor Waters.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:47:52
It was actually the same point I was going to make.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:47:55
The problem with 2022 is you've got an MPPF
which restated Greenbelt and brought Greybelt in
and removed villages from Greenbelt.
So actually all neighbourhood plans,
and it's really important,
neighbourhood plans are taken into account.
The problem with the neighbourhood plan
that was done prior to the MPPF, the MPPF,
in my sense, the key thing is the question was really,
is have you updated since 2022, but obviously you haven't, to reflect the MPPF, because that trumps really the neighbourhood plan.
Public Speakers - 0:48:42
So just to cheque that I've got the question right, my hearing is in paid, is this about how are we updating it at the moment?
Has it been updated since 2022?
because the important MPPF is 2024?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:48:55
Yeah, since it's been made, it has not been,
Public Speakers - 0:48:58
we've been in the process of reviewing.
We have not taken it to referendum.
We are still in that process.
Just to explain to the public,
I can see where you've explained
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:49:10
about the local neighbourhood plan,
but what Council also is trying to explain,
so the people at the public who are watching outside,
It's quite a technical point this,
that the national planning policy has changed.
I think from the top of my head,
I think it was late 2024 has changed
and therefore ultimately national planning policy framework
overrides local plan and also neighbourhood plans.
Therefore the hierarchy or planning rules
and planning considerations,
national policy always outweighs local
and or neighbourhood plans.
And that's what the question relating back to is,
has it been updated because it was post 2024, it would then deem to be in line with national
policy, which everyone has to be in line with national policy. And that's what the question
was about. It's quite a technical one, but we had something very similar last night at
the West Planning Committee where again, we were talking about neighbourhood plans there
even as well. And that was about when it would be made, not made, etc. But just so that the
public understand who are watching this, it's quite a technical piece that ultimately the
The government decides national policy and the NFA have dictated to us, therefore that
takes priority over neighbourhood plans who were made before the changes to the national
planning policy.
Okay, I think that was all the questions I had, clarification for Councillor P
sorry, Councillor Pheeroy, sorry.
Sorry Chairman, just building on what you said, I think it's important to understand
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:50:34
that the national policy has got paragraph 11 activated.
So just as a further element to it,
therefore there's a presumption in favour
of any application that we receive.
So although the MPPF has changed,
that is also an area we're operating in
because we can't demonstrate a five year land supply.
Okay, so thank you very much Councillor Julia Cook.
I'd like to take your seat again.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:51:03
We'll now hear from Katie Barton, who's speaking an objection to the application.
Again, if you'd like to come to the table.
And again, you'll have three minutes to speak once you're ready.
Take your time, it's fine. I'd rather you be prepared.
Take your time.
No, that's okay.
See how many pieces of paper I've got here.
That's fine. That's okay.
No, no, it's okay. It's no problem at all. Honestly, we'd rather you take your time.
And then once you're ready, then we'll then do the three minutes piece.
The members of the public, the technology in this room doesn't always like technology
in this room, hence why we all have sets of papers.
So it's nothing to you personally, genuinely,
iPads phones in this room particularly are not very user
friendly to say the least.
So hopefully it's now connected to you
and you can now be ready to speak.
Thank you.
But just so you probably understand,
it's nothing to you personally.
It's just generally IT in this room is not great.
OK.
So over to you, Katie.
So the PAC affords no consideration to the fact
Public Speakers - 0:53:28
that the proposed development will force the closure due to air and noise pollution
of a well -established charitable project offering a service that cannot be found elsewhere.
Iver Environment has worked with well over a quarter of a million people since opening almost 36 years ago.
We provide access to nature within the Colne Valley Regional Park alongside specialist science education
for schools, families and the community, especially people with additional needs.
We create and care for native habitats supporting a number of species of principal importance.
The impact on our 8 ,000 visitors a year has not been adequately considered in the reports
pack.
We were not considered as a sensitive receptor in the noise impact assessment despite teaching
outdoors next to the red line.
I challenge the statement that impacts on adjoining sites are considered acceptable
in ecology, air quality and visual amenity terms.
Due to an issue with the bridge on our access lanes, coaches and minibusses are having to
park where it meets Slough Road and walk to the centre along the top red line seen on
the plan on page 249 of your pack.
Bucks Council has confirmed that they will not be repairing that bridge and so around
6000 school visitors per year will be walking directly alongside the 15 metre high slip
road.
Yet we were not included as a sensitive receptor for air pollution.
Vehicle exhaust fumes sink.
Children have lower breathing zones close to the ground where these concentrated fumes settle.
Our specific service users are the most vulnerable and our local areas are documented as being high risk.
I've got loads of stats and references.
No school will choose to ignore the device and take children to spend time in air that's detrimental to their health.
we can't morally ask them to.
This will lead to our closure.
And I truly don't understand how thousands of school visitors a year
walking past a 15 -metre high slip road
is acceptable and not significant in visual immunity terms.
In the first 15 years alone, we're talking about 100 ,000 people
walking directly next to the eastern slip road.
Though realistically, it would obviously take less than 15 years
to force closure of the charity.
This means that the ecology impact is also inaccurate.
In 12 .32, it states that the great crested new pond
on our site is to be retained.
It cannot be retained if IEC is going
to close due to the development.
Damage to the pond will be caused as a direct consequence
of the development despite the pond being outside the red line.
Other underreported impacts include the archaeology section
which hasn't been updated following the extensive
findings including human remains
on the neighbouring up -grid moor site.
Welcome Break have had monthly meetings with us
for a year and a half now,
where they acknowledge the impact
and have said they will relocate us.
Yet in all the time they've not progressed meetings
with anyone other than Tom, no offence,
and failed to produce as promised
an informal non -binding letter of intentions.
The Council officers have continually dismissed
the impact on us, why?
I think I better stop now, I've got more time.
That's your time, thank you.
I was just checking for a clarification myself.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:56:41
Okay, any questions or clarification?
That's Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:56:50
If I heard correctly, you said that this development
is likely to mean the closure of your environmental group.
Can you explain why that is and what you would need
from the developers in order to maintain the school,
The project as it is but also you also mentioned about the the the watercourse
As I understand it's a chalk stream
Could you explain what you what you meant by the concerns for that watercourse? Okay, so
Public Speakers - 0:57:24
So I'll take in two parts. So it I mean the main chunk of our visitors are schools
You know about 600 ,000, it's not 600 ,000, it's 6 ,000 a year.
And we need to provide a safe environment for schools.
That's why we're so popular because we're a closed environment
so children with additional needs can come safely.
Don't have to worry about dogs, don't have to worry about them running off
and onto roads and things like that.
If we cannot have them breathe safely, they cannot come.
We also won't be able to teach in our main teaching area,
which is the front of our centre right next to the red line because the noise will be far too loud.
Oh yeah, and then the Chalkstream River, the Alderbourne,
it runs through the fields where it's going to be covered by the slip road.
I'm sure you're aware that, you know, chalk streams are really special.
They clean the water and so they hold lots of biodiversity.
Of all of the chalk stream rivers in the world, 80 % of them are in England and Wales.
And there's only about 800.
And so it's a really special habitat, you know.
And culvertining it, putting it underneath the thing is a, the slip road is a real problem for wildlife.
and we have seen species of significance on that field, water birds.
Can I go over to Councillor Phealy?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:59:03
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:59:05
Thank you Chairman. I really need to understand this.
Could I have a plan up showing that area please?
Just bear with us while we get up on screens.
Where do the coaches come in at the moment?
and where do they park and then alight and then walk to you or how does it operate?
So you see where the letter M is on the Mansfield file lane, further down sorry the next letter
M, there is a bridge there that the council is putting a two and a half tonne weight limit
on it. So the coaches are dropping off off of this map but do you remember the visualisation
of the white building and the small iver sign next to the Mansfield Farm sign where it meets
Slough Road. They're drum children off there and the children are walking. Yes, so they're
dropping children off here just if you go in on the right it's changed quite a bit since
the pitch was taken and then they're walking up along that red line, yeah, where the thing is showing
and then the top corner is where our centre is.
So that's what they do at the moment?
That's what they're going to have to do.
Is there an opportunity to make provision for them to come into your site more?
We had a meeting with Dominic Damon from the council and he said that the council will not be making provision for that.
they will not be repairing the bridge and they have no intention to make any provision for coaches to get up to the site.
Can you just show me the bridge?
Oh, where that?
So it's near the base, it's the base of where the arrow is.
So it's right in the middle, it's over the alder ball.
So the children walk down this lane already?
They have been for the past, since it was sort of autumn 2024, that the issue was first raised with the bridge.
Okay, and they're walking down there because the bridge they can't go over the bridge. Yeah
Okay, thank you. To clarify, so as of today
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:01:39
because the bridge is not can't take the weight because there's a two and a half tonne limit
that's why they're being dropped off beforehand and they're walking over the bridge. So all you're
describing is even if this comes together they would still do exactly the same as they already
yard day so they would have to be dropped in the same location shows a
minute ago and they would walk across that bridge again like we described it.
Yes but they would not have a 15 metre high slip road next to them they'd be
looking at cows and birds and a chalk stream river. Yeah I get that but in terms of the
physicality of what they have to physically do today what you describe is
they already have to walk across this bridge because the weight limit is such
that they can't go over the, they can't be driven over it because the weight
limit of the bridges as it is today. That's correct. Okay just so I can clear my mind as well.
Yeah exactly yeah yeah absolutely yeah just so we've understood because what
happens next one we'll have technical questions to the officers which is more
clarity for myself Patrick Phelan, Councillor Phelan about that exact situation.
Thank you. Okay so right okay I don't think there's any more questions so Katie thank you.
And I won't be able to speak during the technical bit, answer questions?
No, so that's it, you've got three minutes and we ask you your questions
and then we have real technical stuff within ourselves and the officers to go through it.
If you'd like to take a seat again, we'll now move over to Harry Thomas, the Senior Committee Services Officer,
who will now read out a statement on behalf of Anne Batterby in support of the application.
Reminded again that members cannot answer points of clarification following this statement
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 1:03:18
in the same way we had with the MP.
Once the timer starts, you'll have three minutes to speak,
Harry, thank you.
Thank you, Chairman, it's very brief.
I refer to your letter on the 22nd of July
relating to the application,
and I act on behalf of Denham Airport.
I apologise that I'm unable to attend
the Strategic Sites Committee meeting on the 30th of July,
and requested that the Chairman allow this statement
to be read out at the committee meeting.
Denham Airport notes that there is a recognised need for an additional motorway service area on this part of the M25 motorway.
Denham Airport has no objection to this application which would have no adverse impact on aviation safety. Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:04:05
Thank you Harry. We now turn to Tom Jeremiah who will be speaking on behalf of the applicant.
Tom, if you could come to the table.
Again, as with the rest of the speakers, you'll have three minutes to speak.
Obviously, you've got a lady with you as well.
I guess, is she with you in case there are any technical questions or clarifications from the members?
So, if you could just introduce yourself as well so the public knows who's with you.
That'd be fantastic.
Yep, so I'm Hannah Walsh, I'm the planning agent.
There needs to be a new motorway service area provision on the M25 within Buckinghamshire.
No greater need for services exists anywhere else in the UK.
There are two MSA proposals before you today, our Colm Valley services or CVS, an extra
scheme.
We believe you were greatly assisted in your decision today by the recommendation of your
and the fact that our CVS proposal was resolved
to be approved at this same committee just three years ago,
whilst contemporaneously resolving
to refuse extra's NSA proposal.
Subsequent to that decision, following publication
of the revised NPPF in December 2024,
the council has established that the CVS site is grey belt
and that the scheme is not in appropriate development.
This now further strengthens the case
for approval of the CVS application.
The CVS proposal is demonstrably the best MSA scheme before you today
because no other location can better meet the need
and bridge more MSA gaps.
In terms of non -policy compliant gaps, CVS resolves 22
out of the 44 gaps, whilst extra scheme resolves 19.
Public Speakers - 1:05:47
CVS would reduce the remaining non -resolved gaps routing past its site
to a maximum space of 33 .8 miles, whereas extra scheme would reduce them
to a maximum of 36 miles.
It would serve over 200 ,000 vehicles daily, which is 40 ,000 more vehicles than extra sites.
With regards to the nature of strategic routes serviced, CVS is preferable, serving both the
M1 and M40 north to south routes.
Our scheme would deliver over 35 acres of new woodland planting, providing new footpath
links and resulting in 86 % biodiversity net gain for habitats.
You will also hear in due course the benefits of the minerals that would be won.
It would deliver more electric vehicle charging
and more renewable energy with a green roof and solar PV systems.
The scheme is well hidden, dropped down alongside the motorway
and enveloped in a huge belt of new woodland planting.
There'd be no impacts on Denim area drawing and no loss
of best and most fertile agricultural land.
Clearly determination of the extra scheme is entirely a matter for you.
However, in the event that just one MSA proposal is approved,
CBS remains the preferable scheme as it clearly and demonstrably better meet the need
for an MSA to deliver safety and welfare benefits
on the north western quadrant of the M25
and its adjoining motorways,
and would do so whilst causing less overall harm.
Your officers have concluded that any adverse impacts
would be significantly outweighed
by the benefits of the proposal,
and recommend that planning permission be granted.
We fully support the recommendation of your officers.
We respectfully request that you do too,
and support the Colne Valley Services Scheme,
and we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Woops I am going to control that roll now.
Councillor de minute is again to a second?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:07:21
Sorry, no questions?
Okay go on then Councillor Goose.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:07:34
You would like to tell me something building or staffing Bye oh.
Uh welcomesc GET W
Public Speakers - 1:07:49
underneath both, but the officer's report makes recommendations.
But for your consideration.
Okay, I just wanted to understand what your position on that was.
The second question I had was around, obviously this articulates a grey belt test, which we'll consider in this committee.
But previously it was assessed as under very special circumstances.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:08:20
So do you maintain that as a fallback position that that still stands?
The position still stands.
We firmly believe it is great about land as the officers,
Public Speakers - 1:08:28
if members feel otherwise, we feel that the original position remains.
if anything our position is that actually there's there's an improved planning position in terms of
the CVS site. Okay if I may just go to slightly closer to you because I think you're a bit quiet
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:08:54
and usually if you council which you've been very very gentle and quiet today so move it a bit
closer. The true trees, veteran trees, have been lost. I just want to understand
what other options you'd considered that could have retained those and why you
haven't included that within your plan. So it was not possible due to the slip
Public Speakers - 1:09:19
roads that were required to meet the standards from national highways and so
they had to be in those positions there's no way to avoid that loss and
However, our assessments have identified that they are not veteran trees.
We submitted multiple reports.
They are trees of very good quality, category A, but not veteran in our assessment.
Okay.
And the final question I had was about the Iver Environment Centre,
what discussions you've had, we've heard some of the concerns about the impact of the proposal on the centre.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:09:51
What conversations have you had about how those concerns might be mitigated?
Public Speakers - 1:09:58
I think it's important to say that I have visited the Environment Centre and
Katie has very kindly shown me around the centre and I do believe what they
provide is an incredible service. It's not something that we want to see go at
We do believe that it does need to be protected.
We've had monthly conversations most months, over the last 18 months as piloted by Katie.
We would very much like to support the Environment Centre.
We're trying to look at options at the moment.
and essentially when we get to the reserve matters stage at that point we'd
want to work closely with environment centres to look at options for them
either to protect the existing centre or look at alternatives for them but I
just want to reiterate again that I do believe they do provide an important
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:10:57
service. Okay thank you. Thank you Councillor Roberts. I've then got Councillor Gibbon
Then cancel the feely and then cancel them more and they've got cancer
So given unit sir, thank you
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:11:10
I'd just like to ask about
quality
I'm sure you did do some monitoring of the pollution from
HDVs and cars and things did you do a specific one to see how much extra pollution was caused by the parked?
HGVs because they could be parked for sort of 9, 10 hours.
I just wondered if there was a separate assessment for that,
especially if they are in the air quality area.
Yep, so that was all included in the air quality assessment,
which was in the ES.
Public Speakers - 1:11:37
So that assessed vehicle emissions, including the HGVs,
would be on site.
And it assessed the dust impact in construction and operation.
It concluded no significant impact.
We are mitigating that through the KEMP,
which will be conditioned, so that includes a number of different mitigation measures
that we'll have to record to because of these conditions and we will comply with these conditions.
We're also making a contribution to the air quality management area which is secured by
the section 106 and environment health officer, raise no objections.
So yeah, we feel like we have addressed that appropriately.
Just one more thing on the mitigation side of this.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:12:29
I don't really understand this, whether it's technically,
but is it possible to have some sort of electricity there
that could power the refrigeration units of the lorries
so they wouldn't have to use their engines?
Is that a thing that can be done?
I believe it can be done.
Public Speakers - 1:12:44
It's something we're trying to explore.
We're trying to make as high as carbon neutral possible.
we've got our own aims and objectives to make our services carbon neutral and
Yeah on other sites and certainly in the future on this side would be looking at
electric HGVs as well and battery replacement
to try and mitigate
That so to answer your question specifically
I see no reason why we can't do that
and have engines switched off
Thank you.
Thank you Councillor Gibbon.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:13:25
So I had then Councillor Feeley, then Councillor Moore and then over to Councillor Smith.
So Councillor Feeley.
Okay thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:13:34
Just a couple of points I wanted to raise.
First of all we heard about the concerns of HGVs being in that northern part of the site
and possibly noise from refrigeration.
Is that the best location for it?
Could it be possibly down the side of the site
which is closer to the motorway?
Public Speakers - 1:13:59
Well, we are proposing a number of mitigation measures
in terms of noise for the operational phase.
I mean, the layout that we propose, we find,
is the optimal position.
We've tucked HGV parking as much as we can.
We are proposing acoustic fencing adjacent
to the HGV parking area, which will mitigate those impacts
and also to the rear of the southbound slip roads.
The ES has assessed that and concluded not significant.
Again, the EHO, the Environment Health Officer,
raised no objections.
We also were subject to a number of conditions as well,
controlling the noise limits during operation
as well as construction.
Clearly, where it is on the site is a higher part of the site,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:14:40
and therefore noise will carry greater output.
This was all considered within the noise assessment.
So detailed noise modelling was undertaken.
Public Speakers - 1:14:48
All of that can be found in the ES.
With the mitigation measures that we're proposing,
there was no significant impact
on the nearest sensitive receptors.
And that included Mansfield Farm,
Ibram Environmental Centre, White Cottage.
All of that was assessed and yeah, no significant impact.
Second point if I could.
Can I just say, just a quick point.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:15:06
We will come back to that point you just raised in technicals
about that, about locations and stuff like that.
So I've obviously asked, and they said, yeah,
they're going to talk through that at technical as well.
Yep, okay.
Go to your next point, it's great.
We've heard also from the lady earlier
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:15:20
about the concerns with the children walking
on the edge of your site.
I noticed on the plans here,
there's going to be a footbridge across the motorway.
Is that right?
Is that a temporary access?
So that's,
If it's the bridge I'm thinking of now,
Public Speakers - 1:15:46
but I believe it is, it's an existing farming bridge
for the farm that goes over the,
sorry, Councillor, do you mind holding the drawing up again
so I can just cheque on, correct?
That one, yeah, yeah.
It's the bridge, there's a bridge across.
So it's this one here.
I stand corrected, that's not the bridge I was thinking of.
That's, sorry Council, was there a specific question in terms of that?
I just want to find out what it's for and is there any scope, I know I shouldn't say this, any scope later to help out the Mansfield Farm?
I'm not entirely convinced that I can answer that question because it's not an asset that
we own.
I believe any bridge going over the motorway is probably a National Highways asset or possibly
a Bucks Council asset.
I mean ultimately we would be more than happy to work with anyone, whether it's our asset
or not, to find solutions for this.
Katie had made me aware of the issue of the bridge some time ago.
Again, if that's something we can look into as well.
Again, it's not our assets, we'd need permissions to do that.
But it's something we're prepared to look into.
Alright, I'll try and make that.
Just to clarify, we think that that may be a National Highways asset.
Yeah, probably.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:17:17
So therefore, I think, as the African said, it's not in his gift.
because obviously ultimately national highways decide or not decide.
I just want to clarify because it's so close to Mansfield Farm it would make sense for me but who am I?
Councillor Peeley. Right moving on to Councillor Moore followed by Councillor Smith.
Thank you Chairman, my question is twofold.
Cllr David Moore - 1:17:41
Just clarifying the points you made about environmental mitigations.
My first question to you is regarding waste management.
Are you looking to put in a full litter management plan?
Because we know that MSAs are beacons for fly tipping, beacons for littering.
I represent the ward that covers Beaconsfield services and I'm sick and tired of our country
lanes being littered, fly tipped.
I understand that in the condition of that MSA there was a contribution towards litter
pickers and cleaning the environment.
I understand that is obviously access to the main roads.
It's slightly different.
And speaking just on this application, what are you going
to do to mitigate that and especially the issue of littering
which is a huge problem across many service stations?
Again, a very good question.
Public Speakers - 1:18:30
We also do have strategies in place.
I can't comment on littering at Beckhamfield Services.
It's not one of us.
But certainly at Welcome Broke Services, we do take a lot
of pride in how we operate our services.
we generally believe that our customers who are users of the strategic road network motorways
do not want to visit a site that has got fly tipping or litter on it.
We take our responsibilities very seriously.
We do have our own internal litter strategy.
We're very mindful of it.
In terms of waste on sites, we use a private provision
for removal of waste including recycled waste as well.
We take that very seriously.
We certainly provide plenty of litter bins around the sites
but we accept that normal customers are as thoughtful
to use those all the time.
So we do have regular walks around the sites by members
of staff doing active litter picking, that is across our portfolio and not specific just
to this site as well.
Cllr David Moore - 1:19:45
My second question of clarification is regarding the environmental mitigations you're going
to do for the Alderbourne.
It's a very, well, times poorly treated chalk stream, silt build ups, near industrial sites,
it's quite an unheard of chalk stream.
and what are you going to do to ensure that you want to mitigate those issues like the
silk build -ups litter?
As a council, obviously we've done a lot with chalk streams, the local nature recovery strategy
talks about priority 10, conserve and answer and restore chalk streams.
So my question to you is what are you going to do to mitigate the impact of your MSA on
the Alderbourne which is on the site?
I'd say that.
Yeah.
Public Speakers - 1:20:26
The construction environmental management plan which will be secured by condition will include a number of measures to
Minimise and reach and stop completely and pollution during construction and during the operational phase
the surface water drainage system includes philtres that will stop pollution running into the older born and
And that's all been assessed by your offices and technical consultees
Thank you over to councillor Smith
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:20:53
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:20:55
Dig my way through the paperwork because there is quite a lot of it. So yeah, thank you chair and thank you for your presentation.
I was really wanting to come back to get a bit of clarity on what you said about your renewable strategy and I noticed there's likely to be a condition on renewables.
In your, in the report it seems to suggest that you'll have solar PV on some of the main buildings.
Given that you have over a thousand car parking spaces,
parking spaces, do you have any plans to have any solar PV
across any parking spaces?
Or to in any way generate anything like the amount
of energy that your service station's gonna be using
through renewables rather than just a small amount
on the main buildings?
That's the first question.
And second, slightly unrelated, similar theme,
is my understanding is that motorway service stations
use something like 17 million litres of water a year
just flushing toilets.
Do you have any strategy,
and I can't see it on the plans anywhere,
to reuse grey water, to store water on site
so that that can be used as a way to mitigate
that huge amount of drinking water
that you're going to be taking from the local area,
particularly given the reports on the news today
and the weather that we're seeing now
and the crisis that we're facing in the future
of just the shortage of water in local areas.
So it is about how you're planning to mitigate
the use of energy and the water that you're extracting
from the local area.
Thank you for the question.
Public Speakers - 1:22:45
I'll start off with the renewables question.
We are always looking at new ways to deliver renewable energy on our sites and that's a process that is continuously evolving.
And more recently as a business we have been looking at methods to create more renewable energy.
I think in terms of your specific example of car park solar,
this outline application will be followed up
with a reserve matters application.
I think that's something we seriously need to go away
and have a look at and consider
as part of the reserve matters.
We obviously need to make sure within the scope
of the outline consent,
but we would be happy to look into that
and we would be putting solar panels
on part of the roof of the main building.
You are right, it requires power for the wider site.
There's gonna be electric vehicle charging,
hundreds of spaces on the site.
So we are happy to go away and look at a strategy for that
and work with your offices to come up
with suitable strategy for the sites,
which may include solar panels elsewhere
recycling cart parking. In terms of your second question, 17 million litres of water,
I don't have the exact figures to hand I'm afraid so I can't say whether that's
correct or not but your reference to grow water is something that we do use
and utilise on other sites not necessarily in every single building but this will
essentially become our flagship site and we want to be looking at ways of
recycling, not just water, but anything we can
within the site itself.
So I think it's part of the technical design.
Certainly buildings like the petrol kiosk
can recycle water.
The main building is something we would look into
and if we can provide it, we will.
That's really great to hear.
Sorry, if you indulge me slightly, Jer.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:24:51
It's really about the absence of any water storage on site.
So you know, we all know, that we get very heavy rains in the winter,
that's going to get worse, and drought in the summer.
But there's nothing on the outline plan,
and so there won't be anything on the reserve matters or the detailed plan
to actually collect water on site.
And it just seems strange in this day and age
to have a large development like this
that doesn't have any consideration for the future.
Public Speakers - 1:25:27
As I said before we are looking to submit reserve matters on that and if we need to
respond or we need to be supplied or whether it's to our own internal ambitions or no external
requests we will look into it and the actual detail design of the building comes at a later
stage.
It comes probably towards the tail end of the actual reserve matters consideration and
it's at that point we'd identify locations on the site whether it's in the building roof
or whether it's outside of buildings,
it's at that stage that we would consider
locations for water storage.
If it was considered at this outline stage,
there are risks that when you actually develop
the reserve matter stage,
things might have to move around or something might not work
and what we want to avoid is then having to resubmit
new planning applications to respond to those changes.
Okay.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:26:18
Thank you.
I think for me, I think the way I've looked at and seen these motorway service areas on
the continent, absolutely I think with the change in the climate we have at the moment,
I think the solar panels covering the parking spaces to actually provide a bit of shade,
but also then self -help fill the energy piece.
I think that would be something that would be very helpful to look at on the reserve
matters piece.
I mean talking to the officers about informative stroke conditions. So again as the debate goes through
I think we may be formulating some of those sorts of thought prices and I think it is about
Utilities management. It's about those sort of things. So in terms of your thought process Tom
Are you thinking that this is sort of like all?
Conceptual and then come back to reserve matters within talk about all that sort of things in detail that you're exactly all thought process
In terms of how you expect this to then progress through if this is in this this application is successful
Essentially, and your planning officer used the term illustrative earlier when he was
Public Speakers - 1:27:17
doing the introduction to the site, the scheme that's before the committee today has what
can only be described as illustrative at the moment, but it also provides the principles
and establishes the thresholds, whether it's building high exercises, essentially where
things will go.
Historically, we've always followed with the outline,
outline, outline, site layouts, reserve matters.
So there is a follow on this consistency,
but you're correct, it does evolve to then move on
to the more technical information
that we can't always capture at the outline stage.
Thanks for the clarification.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:27:58
Okay, so that will bring us to the end of the public speaking
on application PL 4 -20, 4 -32, 4 -0A,
common value and well -suited service areas.
And then at this point, the application is adjourned.
So if you'd like to take your seats again,
I'll comment on your colleague.
We now go on to the case officer, David Perrin,
who announced this report on application CM4S0036 4S21,
which is still adjacent to the N25 between junction 15 and 16
Arvo Heath, which is also referred to as the Coln Valley
Minerals application.
So over to you, David.
Good morning.
Can you hear me all right?
Because I'm conscious the microphones
have been not too loud.

5 CM/0036/21 - Land Adjacent to M25 Between Junctions 15 & 16, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

Can you hear me?
OK.
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 1:28:58
So this application is for mineral extraction,
and it's really to facilitate the development
that obviously Graham has presented to you.
The reason it's in a separate planning application
is because mineral extraction, as a matter of law,
can't be included in an outline application,
and therefore a separate full planning application
had to be made.
Okay, so this is the red line area
for the mineral application.
It's not as large as the Motorway Service Area Application, the total area for this
one is 16 .7 hectares.
Obviously the geography and the various planning constraints are the same basically as Graeme
has described to you.
So I won't spend too much time going through those again, but it is just with clarity,
it is all in the green belt.
And that's the overhead, which again is very similar to the one that Graeme's shown you.
So the site is in here basically.
The bridleway here will be under this permission will be temporarily diverted but I believe
that if the MSA is permitted then there will be a permanent diversion of that bridleway.
So the temporary diversion would be around the western perimeter of the mineral site.
And this is the same illustrated master plan which Graham showed you because the intention
is developed is solely to facilitate the motorway service area application and therefore the
intention is that this would only be likely to come forward and be developed if planning
permission is granted if similarly the MSA is granted and comes forward.
So this is a little overlay showing various parts of the mineral extraction.
So the main mineral extraction is in a sort of beigey area.
And it's the facility, obviously the base for the main part
of the motorway service area.
There will be site offices, et cetera, over here.
There will be an access, an initial temporary access
from the A407, which James referenced earlier as well,
which will be to for setting the site up.
But the mineral extraction would be from separate slip roads
which would be constructed just for the purposes
of the mineral extraction onto and off the M25.
So all the mineral going off the site
and the roads coming to pick it up would come
in via those slip roads.
So there will be HGVs for the initial setup
which we'll use as access for say five to six months.
But then the mineral will come off this way
and then this will just be used for staff
and light vehicle access.
And the overall time period is going to be
about 10, 11 months or so.
And the actual extraction is about five months.
Obviously these are estimates.
And again, this is just the establishment phase.
As I say, the access will be taken off the 8407 Slough Road.
And the site offices, etc. for the set up would be in here.
These are the, I don't know how clearly you can see these, but this drawing is meant to
show the slip road construction, or where the slip roads will go.
So they would go sort of, if you can follow my arrow like that, onto and like that, off
and then over that bridge that was referenced earlier.
So that's how all the mineral lorries would come and go.
And then this is again very similar to the plan I showed you earlier.
This is where the main mineral work is going on with the extraction in here, site offices
etc in here, some little ponds associated and soil storage mounds.
This orangey area here is called staging area, that's where the mineral extraction would
be placed and the lorries would come and pick it up from there.
These are some cross sections which again probably don't come up too clearly at this
scale but this is just to show again where the mineral extraction would be going on from
from different cross sections across the site.
And this is just more detail of the initial site management compound where there will
be parking for the staff vehicles, et cetera.
There will be some parking for HGVs and these are the very small port cabin type offices
that would be located in there.
This is the Slough Road access which Graeme mentioned and I've just mentioned as well.
So you can see that this is how it would be constructed,
though as we now know, it has effectively been constructed
in association with another development that's going
on anyway.
And in the very unlikely event
that for some reason this development did go ahead
and the MSA was not built,
there was effectively a fallback restoration solution,
effectively restoring the land back
to pretty much the existing situation.
But there would be some biodiversity net gain
associated with that if that was to come to pass and
The 30 -year long -term management plan has been committed to with an associated site monitoring fee for the biodiversity habitats
And then these are some views
View this is a view for bangers Road north looking across towards the site so you can see the blue line is showing
Where in the distance really the middle extraction will be going on
And that's off the footpath just off the footpath that comes off bangers Road north
So somebody looking back across to where the extraction will be going on.
And this is further along the edge of High River Heath on the footpath.
Again, looking across the fields.
So the field in front there would not be being extracted, but the extraction would be going
on further over.
And again, this is White Cottage, which is again mentioned and is the nearest residential
property and is also a listed building.
This is a view from the field just the north as it were so behind effectively
That property looking towards the where the site would be which again would be over here behind the trees
This is a view which it says it's at the junction of footpath of Slough Road
I have actually checked and it's just slightly further to the east
But as you can see there's there's a strong line of vegetation there. So there's really no views in from there
And again, this is from the Mansfield Farm Access,
which has also been discussed in Graham's presentation as well.
So you can see the extractions over here behind these trees.
So that's the end of the photographs.
I have got a little note.
So there were no actual updates to this report,
consequently the report being written.
So if you just bear with me a second.
So as I said, the total area is 16 .7 hectares.
173 ,000 tonnes of sand and gravel would be removed.
This is basically a borrow pit
to facilitate this very specific development.
There would be the construction of the temporary access
as I've already mentioned.
And the HV access would cease once the M25 slip roads were
in place.
But it would be temporarily diverted as I mentioned
and there will be the fallback restoration scheme.
So in summarising the key planning considerations,
we have policies in the county minerals and waste local plan
which seek to safeguard mineral reserves
and ensure they're not sterilised.
So by allowing this development, this would ensure
that this mineral is not sterilised as part
of the motorway service area going ahead.
It would also make a contribution,
albeit a relatively small contribution to the county council sand and gravel land bank.
And again, in the Middles and Waste Local Plan, we are required to maintain a sand bank
of at least, a land bank of at least seven years supply of sand and gravel.
And that is currently below that.
So this would add a bit.
But it would still, you know, it wouldn't make up the difference.
In terms of Greenbelt, because mineral extraction in national planning policy
and in the development plan policy is in principle an exception to the Green Belt policy.
So in principle it is not inappropriate to develop in the Green Belt provided it doesn't
affect openness and the purposes of designation.
And my conclusion in the report is that that is the case with this and therefore this is
acceptable development in the Green Belt.
And so the Grey Belt assessment for this application does not need to be applied.
There will obviously be, as with any mineral working,
there will be impacts on the immunity through noise, dust,
et cetera, visual impacts.
And you'll see in Appendix E to the report, there's a suite
of conditions which deal with plans and management submission
of plans and compliance with plans to ensure
that those impacts, whilst the mineral extraction is going on,
would be mitigated to acceptable levels.
There's also a commitment to provide a contribution towards an air quality action plan,
which would be picked up in a Section 106 agreement, which would also pick
up the biodiversity habitat monitoring fee.
The site is also in the Colton Valley Regional Park, and therefore, in the report,
you'll see we've considered the landscape and visual impacts on that, and concluded in the context
to this facility, MSA, and subject to conditions,
it would be acceptable.
Ecology, biodiversity, protected species, and the loss
of the same two veteran trees, which again have been referenced
in Graham's report, have been considered acceptable.
The loss of the veteran trees, as you'll be familiar with policy,
is that it has to be exceptional circumstances,
and that can include association
with provision of major infrastructure.
So in association with this, what this is to facilitate,
we believe that would be met, and therefore there would be
suitable compensation strategy through the planting of,
there's major planting that will be carried out as part
of the MSA development.
And long -term management over 30 years.
The site, the mineral site is all in flood zone one,
and it's all acceptable in terms of flood risk,
and there will be conditions covering drainage schemes,
heritage impacts on listed buildings, particularly obviously have mentioned White Cottage and
also the ones at Mansfield Farm have been addressed in the report along with archaeology
and again the impacts are concluded to be acceptable subject to conditions and similarly
climate change impacts have been considered and found to be acceptable.
So really in summary this will enable minerals resources not to be sterilised as part of
MSA development and indeed it's necessary for the MSA development to come forward.
Relatively small amount of mineral but it will contribute to the sand and gravel land
bank for the county and obviously there will be some employment associated with the people
on site carrying out the mineral development so there will to that extent be some economic
benefits.
So in summary the conclusion is that this application generally records the development
plan and national policy and there are no material considerations that would indicate
a decision otherwise and therefore the approval is recommended as set out in the report subject
to the planning obligations and conditions including a condition linking the extraction
directly to the delivery of the Colm Valley Motorway service area in the application that
Graham presented to you. Thank you.
Thank you David, I think that was a very comprehensive summary.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:40:52
So we now move on to public speaking on application CM4 -0036 forward slash 21.
Land adjacent to the M25 between Johnson's 15 and 16 out of Heath.
The Cong Valley Minerals application.
So Councillor Julie Cook, if you'd like to speak for the parish council.
Again please come forward to the table.
Again, as previously, once the timer starts you'll have three minutes to speak.
Councillor Cook.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:41:38
Parrish requests that you turn your mind to the conditions.
Many of the conditions that we requested have not been included in the officer's report.
Since we put in those conditions, our world has changed significantly with the number
of data centre applications, Heathrow, and residential applications.
illustratively, that is our current situation of developments proposed or approved.
And proposed, I mean, by lodged, most of them.
Heathrow is the only one we're waiting on.
So we ask that the hours of operation be reduced in line with what Parrish has suggested.
We've asked for a blackout of HG movements past the school because they have to go past
to junior school to exit the site in that six
months of operation.
We ask that ANPR cameras are deployed
so that we can track and enforce if HGV movements breach
the regulations, as we have found that to be the case.
And because of subcontracting, the developers,
while good intention, are unable to enforce.
We also note that we want real time monitoring
of PM10 and PM2 .5 particle emissions,
and that those daily reports be made available to this body
and to parish council, and that we have the alert systems
that our operations are stopped when those limits start
to approach the red zone.
We would like to have a council liaison committee
so that we can talk about the operations of the impacts,
and the community would like to be able to have a hotline
so that they could report any issues.
We'd also like to draw to your attention that there is now an alternate route that has not been considered here,
in that National Grid have put in a private road essentially from the Denham roundabout through their site and come out in the Slough roundabout.
This would mean if we could condition it, encourage it, that there would be no need for HGV movements loaded with rubble
to travel through the residential areas for which this is such an issue for us.
So we ask you look at these conditions and we ask that they are improved
so that the impact on the community is lessened by this extraction.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:44:04
Thank you very much Councillor Cook. Any points of clarification?
To me that was very clear as I think. Thank you Councillor Cook.
Okay, so thank you. We'll now move on to Tom Jeremiah speaking on behalf of the applicant.
If you come to the table again, along with your colleagues.
Again, Tom, as before, you'll have three minutes in which to speak.
Public Speakers - 1:44:45
I'm joined by Leslie Sloan, who is our planning agent for the minerals application.
CVS has the benefits of overlying the small reserves and gravel.
Planning policy requires that minerals should not be sterilised by built development and
The design of the MSA means that the sand and gravel will be removed as part of the
planned construction work.
The winning of this provision of the MSA means that less virgin minerals will need to be
won from elsewhere.
The minerals application is not a standalone minerals scheme.
It is a quirk of the planning system that unlike the MSA, minerals applications cannot
be made and outlined.
Hence the need for two applications for one development.
Please be clear, if our MSA scheme is not consented, the mineral extraction will not
happen irrespective of whether permission for the extraction is granted or not.
The minerals application works for much of the initial phase of the MSA construction
and would deliver the lower ground on which the MSA would sit.
Exactly the works would occur if the material that needed to be moved was simply soil.
The sand and gravel will be loaded onto lorries and exported directly onto the M25 and won't
be taken out on local roads.
will win around 156 ,000 tonnes of sand and gravel from the CVS site in constructing the
MSA.
We also know that extra salt to make capital about the mineral phase of the overall CVS
scheme, giving rise to potential delay in its delivery.
This is a mute point because whilst actually do not have the benefits of winning material,
they do need to export 170 ,000 tonnes of excess soil and minerals from their site during its
construction.
As this is not mineral, it will be classified as waste and require a suitable site for disposal.
In short, Exra needs to move more material and are facing a larger challenge themselves.
There are no negatives to removing the sand and gravel, only positives.
The excavation work would need to be done to build the MSA anyway.
It doesn't change the MSA design.
It doesn't delay or extend the construction period.
It doesn't result in any new environmental effects.
Please note what the independent inspector said about the removal of mineral at our site
before he dismissed the last MSA proposal at Warren Farm in 2021.
He said, given that there is a shortfall of sand and gravel in the southeast and processing
sites and markets are easily accessible from the sites via the motorway network, mineral
extraction would be a benefit whilst a separate application is being made.
It is unlikely that mineral extraction would significantly delay the site coming forward,
more that it be directly linked to the MSA as enabling works.
HGV movements associated with minerals would be direct onto the M25, but not significant
in terms of overall traffic movements.
Even with the passage of time since 2021, this remains the case.
Minerals and short supply in the region and the benefit of extracting the remains.
There is no dis -benefit to granting this stage of the CVS works.
Thank you.
That was two minutes 40.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:47:32
Okay, we've got Councillor Waters.
Points of clarification of what has been said.
Over to you, Councillor Walters.
Thank you.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:47:46
I think one of the things is timing a lot of this because obviously you've got the access point needs to be set up on the
On the motorway, but there's that gap before and the gap
Where you are actually going to be setting that up is gonna be vehicles coming on site
What's the period of time that would run for and how many vehicle movements we expecting?
and
Second question is
In terms of the one we're talking about, the total time of the whole extraction, does that
include the setup and the setting up of these access points onto the motorway?
Did they disappear before we actually do the motorway service station construction, or
are they going to be linked with that in terms of they're there already so they can be used
for some of that element?
The slow road access is used for the first six months of site establishment.
Public Speakers - 1:48:43
So that's the detail that Mr. Perriam showed earlier of getting an access, getting office
areas, that sort of thing, preparing the site.
The mineral extraction phase are then months six to 10.
These obviously are estimates.
This is what we've estimated in doing the work.
So the mineral extraction phase will only commence when the M25 slip roads are available
because the mineral will only be removed by the M25 slip roads that is conditioned.
I think your earlier point was during the first six months on the Slough Road entrance,
that is conditioned also to 22 -way HGV movements per day.
Just a quick, obviously you get these new slip roads there.
Are they going to be used for the motorway service station
or do they get removed?
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:49:40
Is there a removal period?
Public Speakers - 1:49:46
Yeah, they will be installed as part of the works,
the cycling and minerals extraction
that they will also then be utilised
for the access into the MSA.
but we physically cannot start the MSA works until the extraction of the minerals has taken
place as well.
And then those particular details will go through the Section 278 process under the
Highways Act with National Highways in terms of the technical details as to how that will
be delivered.
And the exact timings will be dependent on how quick that process is as well.
So just to get in my head correctly, and I know this is crossing over so I might be in
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:50:30
trouble with the Chairman, so those additional access points for the gravel and they will
be used obviously for the set up of motorway service station works.
Does that mean there would not be use of the road near the housing when we actually do
the motorway service set up or are you going to still be able to need that as well as an
access point during that process?
No, the intention is, so for both the minerals extraction and for the delivery of the MSA,
Public Speakers - 1:50:57
it's intended to use the M25 junction, which hence why we're building a junction first,
it's the very first part of the proposal.
So the pain period is the six months basically.
The setting?
The slow road junction for six months, yes, to get access in the very first instance.
I think the members on site visit actually worked out actually the actual access road
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:51:19
is already there because of the national grid work going on already.
So I guess the six months is the, I assume is the longest period but I guess for yourselves
you're going to try and make it as short as possible I guess is your thought process.
Already being upgraded from the original yes.
Public Speakers - 1:51:37
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:51:39
I assume when you originally put the original piece in that what didn't exist therefore
So yeah, it's a bonus for you I guess in terms of timeframe to reduce that impact time from that six -month step. Okay. Thank you
I'll just absorb it what you've already said
my understanding is that
If any materials is taken off site, it will only go by the motorway. That's correct. That's correct
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:52:01
Will those vehicles be under your control?
Or will it be a another company doing it
like a lot of these things it will be ultimately under our control but it
Public Speakers - 1:52:13
welcome break won't be doing the works themselves it will be another company
that's appointed by us to do those works. Yeah one of the things about that
traffic manual construction traffic management is we want to know we need to
know who's driving the vehicle and where they're going from. No doubt that will be
something that will come up when we come to reserve matters. That's fine thank you.
We can make those points clear as part of the many sort of tender process as well
Okay
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:52:48
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:52:49
Thank you chair just a couple of questions this this time really one of them relates back to the removal of trees
I wonder I couldn't find anything in the in the paperwork to show that you've paid any attention to the
Council's policy that when trees are going to be removed that they should be
assessed to see if they can be transplanted somewhere else rather than
just chop down. And I know you're going to be planting a lot for buyers diversity
net gain but at a motorway service station that tends to be decorative
rather than replacing a mature tree and all the benefits that we get from that.
So I just wondered if there is any consideration there about assessing
trees whether it's viable to move them. That's the first question. The other one
I'm struggling a little bit with this,
in terms of understanding the impact
of the officer's report really.
In terms of the impact on the river Oldbourne,
it doesn't seem as if there's any culverting,
and yet my understanding is that extracting sand and gravel
is likely to have quite a major impact
on the surrounding land surface,
and I was struggling to find anything
that would mitigate that.
and so the impact of that kind of encroachment really into the riverbanks.
What I'll do is if it's okay, I'll answer the first question
Public Speakers - 1:54:15
and then hand over to Lesley to answer the second question.
In terms of the wider landscape in both on and off the site,
I suggest, yes, that there is a visual benefit there to it,
but it does play a wider part in it
in terms of biodiversity net gain,
improving habitats around the areas as well.
And you've correctly pointed out
that there's very significant planting taking place
as part of these proposals.
I don't see why we can't look at those trees
through not just our orogulturists,
but also our construction team to look at those trees
and see where viable, whether they can be relocated.
Obviously, we would have to undertake that
with the council's tree offices and landscape teams as well.
It would make sense to,
if we are going to relocate any trees,
it would make sense to keep them
within the site where possible.
But I'm not a tree expert,
so I'd have to leave it to the professionals
to work that out, but I don't see any reason
we can't look at that and consider that.
On the second point, protection of the river Old Vaughan, we have a standard environment
agency required buffer to the river and that buffer will be subject to planting and fencing
to ensure nothing can encroach upon it.
But also significantly, as with any construction operation, there will be two areas for water
management, surface water management, so effectively we'll create ponds that surface water from
the workings will run into, form a type of settlement to make sure the suspended solids
are reduced.
Those ponds will discharge both into the River Alderbourne and into a, I'm going to use the
phrase unnamed water course, stream to the north, which will be subject to discharge
agreement, discharge consents issued by the Environment Agency which will set limits.
So that's really how protection of the surface of water is maintained through the construction
phase stroke excavation in this case.
Okay, that's all the questions for clarification.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:56:29
Just for me to thank all the public speakers who all work and remain until the decision
on the applications have been made.
We'll now move to technical questions.
So Tom and Lesley, if you'd like to return to your seats.
I was going to do, yeah, I didn't say that right because I'm just conscious, right?
So we'll just probably understand this bit.
So, I was going to give you that outline of what we'll do next and then explain very quickly.
Okay, so we're now moving to questions from each application in turn of the two applications
you've already just heard.
And we'll turn to those in each in turn and we'll then generate between each application.
Members will then can seek further clarification of the officers on points raised regarding
application or points raised by speaker or in the main debate.
Officers will respond to issues and questions raised by the members.
And the way we'll do it is we'll do literally the motorway service area first bit, so first,
then we'll go to the middle of second, then we'll go into the debate, and then we'll go
to physical votes on each application.
I'm conscious that we've now been there for two hours.
I would suggest we had literally a five -minute comfort break, and then we then go into that
piece there.
But in terms of the technicals and the rest of it, I want us to go through relative.
So I think we've gone real mad at detail.
So again, we'll do relatively thematic.
So we just go through relatively straightforwardly on each of the applications in front of us
any real burning technical questions because I think the officers and the speakers have
been really good at giving us lots of technical answers to lots of technical questions already.
Right, so I'm conscious we'll be back at five past 12.

5 CM/0036/21 - Land Adjacent to M25 Between Junctions 15 & 16, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:58:11
Okay, welcome back to Inters the Public and the committee members and the officers and
the residents watching on the webcast.
This is the strategic sites committee dealing with the motorway service application for
Colm Valley and also there's one later on for Chalfont St Peter but also additionally
the minerals site at Colm Valley.
So if you're just tuning in now.
So we've just finished all the public questions and clarification of the public speakers.
And now we're going to move on as I just said before we had a quick comfort break.

4 PL/20/4332/OA - Land to the North of A4007, Slough Road, (Between Junctions 15 and 16 of The M25), Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

The first application is relating to PL20 forward slash 43320A, land in the north of A4007 Slough Road,
between Junction 15 and 16 and the M25,
Iver Heath, which is known for this purposes
as the Colm Valley Motorway Service Area.
So I'm gonna do it in thematic.
As I explained before, I'll do themes.
And themes for this one will be planning policy,
stroke neighbour plan, stroke brilliant belt
is the first sort of theme.
Second theme will be HTVs and highways will be your
second theme.
And then the third theme will be environment centre
and farm neighbours in terms of the immediate neighbours of the application site.
That'll be the three themes, we'll start with that.
And then just to carry any other questions after that.
But those are our sort of three themes.
If members can understand that those are the three themes,
and we'll have questions specifically about those three themes even.
So, okay.
So on that basis, do members have any technical questions for the officers?
If so, raise your hand.
This is based on planning policy,
naval plan, straight green belt.
Okay, so I've got a flurry of hands at this point.
We'll start with Councillor,
go around the room,
Councillor Mungar followed by Councillor Smith.
That's all right, and then this side I had,
Smith and then Councillor Waters,
and then Councillor Roberts.
Okay, so we start with Councillor Mungar, you're first.
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:00:29
Thank you, Chair. Two points for clarification, please. One on policy and the other legal point, if I may.
On the question of five -year housing land supply and its impact on existing policies,
can officers just clarify for members and the public the impact of five -year housing land supply?
is it limited to making only the housing policies out of date
or does it make the whole plan out of date in terms of its impact on the local plan
and thereby neighbourhood plans which of course form part of the development plan as a whole.
So that's my question on the policy side.
On the question, the legal point,
well I think it's partially legal, partially planning,
relates to the Greybelt issue.
We've had the basis of the decision
that part of the land is Greybelt questioned this morning.
but my understanding is that as far as this application is concerned,
the report before us makes it clear that the land is considered grey belt.
I'm right in assuming that we can only consider the information before us
and can't make our own opinion about such a matter relevant to the planning application.
I think those are very, very valid questions to come to the mongrel.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:02:15
I think that actually helps us form the debate but also helps us form on the basis we're
making the decision.
Because as you rightly say, the world has changed since this was first looked at.
So first of all, we've got to turn it to Susan Kitchen and then the rest of the officers
to answer those points for you.
Thank you.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:02:32
In terms of the five -year housing land supply,
it's only applications which involve the provision
of housing where we need to then consider
the aspects in terms of an out -of -date plan
and which policies are actually out -of -date in that respect.
Because this is not a residential development before you,
what we need to consider is the policies in the local plan
and their consistency with the MPPF and the PPG advice.
So in terms of, I think there was the question raised
in terms of the neighbourhood plan
and the Iver neighbourhood plan,
that is part of the development plan.
And what we need to then consider is whether or not
the policies in that neighbourhood plan are consistent
with the MPPF, if they're not consistent with the MPPF,
then we need to consider whether or not there is any need
to reduce the weight.
And we've done that also with the local plan policies,
because in this instance they are of a, you know,
they were adopted quite some time ago.
So in terms of what you're looking at,
the either neighbourhood plan is part of the development plan.
And so it's not considered out of date, it's just whether or
not there's any inconsistencies with the MPPF.
And in this instance, we haven't identified any inconsistencies with the MPPF.
We have looked at very carefully the issues that are raised in the neighbourhood plan
and addressed those in the report and you'll see that we have addressed the issue in terms
of the gaps in the report in section 9, I think it's 9 .42, where we've actually identified
what it says in the plan and in the policy,
which talks about the southernmost part
of the application line within area F
of corridors of significance.
And it is seeking to avoid unacceptable impression
of ribbon development or suburbanization of those.
And you will see that the zigzag line
that actually appears on the plan in figure five,
it is actually centred on the road itself,
the Slough Road itself.
It doesn't actually encompass the whole of that site
in any way, and this isn't ribbon development.
It wouldn't be regarded as ribbon development
because it's not a linear development
along the frontage of a road.
So this is, that's why we've sort of dismissed
that aspect of it.
And we've also looked at the air quality issues and the issues of HGVs within the body of
the report and addressed those.
In terms of the green belt and the concept of grey belt, the MPPF is very clear in that
it has actually defined grey belt.
and I'll just take you to page 8, sorry,
8 .8 of the report where it actually sets out the definition.
So I think it's important that members understand
what it's saying.
And so it says, for the purposes of plan making
and decision making, a grey belt is defined as land
in the green belt comprising previously developed land
and any other land that in either case does not strongly
contribute to any of the purposes A, B or D in paragraph 143.
And Greybelt excludes land where the application of policies relating to areas of assets in
footnote 7 other than Greenbelt would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting
development.
And those footnotes seven are the sort of constraints in terms of impact on protected
species, protected assets, national landscape, no longer called AOMB, but those aspects in
terms of also heritage and flooding.
So there's a whole raft of measures that are looked at there.
and the government in addition to the policies in the MPPF have then provided quite detailed
guidance on assessing grey belt land and what would constitute strong contributions to the
purposes that are specified as part and parcel of that assessment.
And so we've looked at that very, very carefully, both in terms of the parcels,
which are identified in the evidence
behind the emerging local plan on Greenbelt and Graybelt.
but also because that was looking at much larger parcels of land, but also looking at
sites, the site specific and that the site's role in terms of looking at those purposes.
So you look at the site itself and its role rather than the specific development that's
that's before you as part and parcel of testing it against the purposes.
And so that is a new concept that was introduced in the December 24 MPPF,
which wasn't before you when it was considered, this application was previously considered in 2023.
So I'm hoping that that now answers those questions.
Council member, does that...
That's right, okay.
Okay, we'll move on to Council.
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:09:06
Councillor Fueh.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:09:08
Can I?
Sure, can I speak?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:09:19
While we're on this particular subject, what I really want to understand, if there's mineral extraction,
that can be extracted in a green belt. Yes? If the minerals is extracted then it becomes
grey belt. It's not the interpretation that we can use because it's really fundamental
I think to it. If minerals are taken away does that change the status of the land?
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:10:00
No, but there's just very slightly different tests in that in the green belt policies mineral
extraction is not inappropriate development, it's classed as appropriate, it falls within
the exceptions to that.
The sites, even if they are regarded as grey belt, are still within the green belt.
So it doesn't change the fact that a site plasters grey belt.
It doesn't change the fact that it's actually within the green belt.
So you do need to make sure that there isn't necessarily a change
in terms of the extraction of the minerals to the MSA.
It's just that when you're looking
at the minerals application, and sorry, I'm aware that we are
in the MSA technical questions, but because it's part
and parcel of its linked.
When you're looking at that, you don't go to consider whether or not it's grey belt.
Only do that where it's inappropriate development and then you consider whether or
not it's grey belt and therefore becomes appropriate development through those tests.
Thank you.
Thank you for that clarification on that.
Over to Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chair and thank you, Ms. Kijin.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:11:34
and I think that's been a really helpful explanation
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:11:36
of green grey belt.
I think we can all be excused for being confused
about the distinction and getting into a bit of a mess.
I guess the question in my mind really was that
if this was an application for housing,
would this also be considered grey belt?
And if that's the case,
what's to stop the surrounding area?
And the concern of course from the parish council
was about communities being joined together,
also then being developed for housing,
given that we've now designated this as a Greybelt area.
So first of all, we haven't got housing development before us.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:12:20
But in terms of looking at sites
and whether or not they're within,
that would fall within the term
and the definition of Greybelt,
you're looking at the site itself,
you're not looking at the details
of the particular development and proposal before you.
It's an assessment in terms of if that site were developed,
would that site strongly contribute to the three purposes
that are in the test for Great Britain?
Okay, moving on to Council Waters.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:13:05
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:13:07
I think it carries on a little bit, and I know when we were looking at this site before,
it was fully in the green belt, as I was seeing, as grey belt.
and at that time we had to look at were there exceptional circumstances,
which was the only reason why you would develop within the Greenbelt.
Obviously with the change and with the assessment which has gone through
and if we take the officer's report as it is,
that is saying this would be considered Greybelt.
And so the need for the exceptional circumstances,
then I presume is not relevant anymore
and that's not what we're looking at
when we're judging this site.
But there has been continuously some discussions
coming from the officers about need
and the relevance of need, which is the national need,
which, and how much weight that need actually has.
And I know we've got another,
because we've got two to look at.
Previously the issue was, once a decision was made,
one would fall away.
And the thing I'm trying to get through my head,
which I think was asked of the applicant,
was would the need still be there
if we had two applications that went through.
And that's what we're looking at today.
obviously on the first one, the balance of need,
I'm trying to get in my head, of yes, we do know
there's a need, but if you had two applications
with both approvals, you are actually sharing out
that need to some way.
I don't know how you balance that to make a decision.
If you understand what I'm trying to get at.
It's confusing my head and how we do that,
so that's why I'm asking.
Process you described, Councillor,
but I think the first question was because previously
it was there had to be special circumstances on the previous application back in 23.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:15:08
Because we're now, now it's because of the changing government policy it's now says it's
grey belt. Is the level of special circumstances no longer required? I think that's the first
question. I think then there's no following question after that I think.
So you are right in that if, if this is regarded as grey belt there it is then
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:15:34
considered against the tests of paragraph 155 of the MPPF.
And if it passes those tests, it's then deemed to be
appropriate development, so you don't go into the very
special circumstances discussion in realm.
The need is relevant because it's part of the
para -155 tests.
So the 155 tests are to consider the encroachment, the other purposes.
So in other words, purpose C, which is the encroachment into the open countryside,
and E, which is open regeneration.
Secondly, whether or not it meets a demonstrable unmet need.
And thirdly, whether or not it's a sustainable location.
So we've looked at each of those and felt that it passed those tests.
And in terms of the what if one were approved,
how does that affect, if you like, the need on the other one?
What we have looked at very, very carefully is Circular 1 of 22
and what that is asking us to look at.
And that is asking us to look at a maximum of 28 miles between
service stations for the strategic highway network.
So that's a 28 mile maximum.
And it also talks about a 30 minute drive time.
So there are some areas, and I think we're probably in that stretch of the M25
where there will be maybe longer periods of time than the 30 minutes
to get from one MSA to another.
And what we have that the applicants had suggested that there is a need
for both MSAs because they both fulfil gaps
that the other one doesn't fulfil.
So, and what we've done is looked,
as I said very carefully at Circular 1 of 22,
but we've also looked at recent appeal decisions
in terms of, you know, the level of distance
if you like, that's exceeded, plus the number of gaps.
And there's various different appeal decisions whereby one
of those appeal decisions says that even one gap
over that 28 means that there is a demonstrable need for an MSA.
There are others where the gaps are four and nine or more.
And again, it's looking at the fact that actually when you've got those gaps,
they might only be between one and three or maybe eight or
12 miles in excess of that 28.
those are still meeting the need because they're in excess of that 28 mar maximum.
So that's why we're coming to you today saying that actually the MSA's meet a need
And that need is not met by the alternative.
So that has been why we are then looking at the application
so they stand on their own merits
and are considered on their own merits.
So I hope that that answers your question.
That's incredibly helpful actually.
Thank you very much.
I think just for the public's understanding, the MPP,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:19:59
the power 155 tests are actually within our own report
and they're on page 29, page 30.
And it clearly sets out the power 155 test,
which is what Susan just said, taking us through there.
So I think that was really helpful in that respect.
So I've got Councillor Roberts, followed by Councillor Kidman.
Thank you very much.
There's two main lines that I wanted to pursue.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:20:22
One was the, my understanding is that before I was on this committee, but in 2022,
three whenever it was, and it was assessed previously, conclusion was it was grey belt,
but there were very special circumstances.
We're now looking at grey belt assessment.
if this committee were not minded to accept that grey belt assessment,
would that judgement that applied previously,
that it was very special circumstances applied,
would that still hold as a fallback position now?
I've got another question after this.
I think that's a very important point because the judgement that we arrived at in 2023 was
based on the policy context at that time.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:21:21
So it was the NPPF PPG advice.
Obviously our own local plan policies have remained the same as has the neighbourhood
plan policies.
And I think that there are some significant changes in terms of the advice that has an
impact in terms of the overall assessment.
There's also some changes that have been made to the alternative and I am very much aware
which debates we're in at the moment.
In terms of what that is coming forward to,
that if you were to not accept the council's assessment
and conclusions in terms of grey belt and need,
then I think it would be very difficult for you
to make a decision today without having a comparative exercise
carried out between the two proposals.
That is not before you today because we are saying
that these are standalone applications
and must be judged on their own merits.
We're not comparing the two.
We're not making a judgement between the two MSAs.
So I think that that's a very important point.
So if I if I can take that a stage further then if
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:23:02
If we were not to mind it to accept the grey belt recommendation
then
Be necessary really for us to defer that for that exercise to explore the
Very special circumstances argument again with it. Is that fair to say?
I think you would potentially have to defer but I think the officers laid out
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:23:30
very clearly that power 155 now applies and that's what we have to decide on
each application as a merit therefore the national policy guidance has changed
December 24 now in January 25 therefore if you're going to go against
National Policy Council, I think we were at risk.
The Kevin would just turn around and say,
we're going to decide for you.
I'd rather we as a committee made those decisions ourselves
and we choose the future of how that goes forward,
rather than, but I think you're right.
I think I'd have to defer, wouldn't you?
If I can just clarify the point there.
Yeah, yeah.
This is, we will resolve this in debate.
What I'm just trying to understand
is the technical point to inform us
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:24:11
when we're making that decision.
I think you just have to be very clear that officer's advice is
that this is Greybelt and that's been set
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 2:24:23
out in some detail in your papers.
There's been a clear assessment of the strength
of the Greybelt purposes or the lack of that strength in terms
of the contribution of this site and that without evidence
to the contrary, I would have to say it would be very difficult
to find that this was not Graybelt.
My other line was about the Graybelt assessment
and two questions that I had around that is we heard
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:24:55
from the speakers, so one of the questions is,
is Iver Heath a town?
What's the officer's position on that?
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:25:17
So in terms of the green belt assessment that underpins the draught local panel that's at regulation 19 at the moment,
Ivor Heath is described as a village and that's what we've based our assessment on.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:25:32
Yeah, and what's that based on within the council's evidence?
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:25:40
It's generally based on the facilities that are provided to serve that.
And to serve that settlement and
whether or not that actually is in the realms of a town.
When we considered it before, the government advice
did not discount villages from the overall assessment.
It did say towns, but we had argued that actually,
either he could be considered in terms of looking
at that gap, but now it's not, we have to look at towns,
and that's really the sort of context
that we need to consider it with.
And once there might be some, if you like, challenge or counter arguments in terms of whether or not it's a town for the purposes of the exercise that we're carrying out, we can't regard it as a town.
Okay, and the second point about those principles then is
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:26:50
Purpose be of the green belts about the coalescence of
Towns and we've just you've just articulated that it's not considered a town. However, this is a site that's kind of in the middle
between
two urban areas
What is the guidance then about?
How how much in the middle of a
of a gap, prejudices the gap, if you like.
Because this is, as I understand this site,
it would have quite a large distance
from either of the two places
that the speakers were referring to.
So does that actually prejudice the separation or not?
Is it too far from the other sites
to prejudice that separation?
or does a site that prejudices purpose B of the Greenbelt serves that purpose?
Does it have to be contiguous with the neighbouring areas?
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:27:56
It talks about the visual separation of towns, it doesn't talk about the interspace of villages and other settlements within that realm.
But the PPG advice is quite clear.
So the test is that it's gonna have a strong contribution.
So for B, which is the prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
Strong is an assessment area that contributes strongly,
are likely to be free of existing development and
include all of the following features.
Forming a substantial part of a gap between towns,
the development of which would be likely to result in the loss
of visual separation of the towns.
So you've got to have a look
at the visual separation of the towns.
And there are big gaps in between those towns
that doesn't actually merge those towns together.
They're quite significantly apart.
Okay, so for purpose B then it is to do with visual separation.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:29:06
Yeah, it does go on and say what's moderate and what's limited, but given that we're actually
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:29:12
considering strong, we haven't gone into that. So this is the advice that we've sought to apply to this.
Thank you, that's very helpful.
Councillor Roberts and myself and a number of the members who actually were on the site visited,
We did actually look at that in both this application and
the other application about visual separation.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:29:29
And I think even if this or
one of those goes forward, I think there still would be clearly visual separation.
I think both Iver Heath and
Knox Beach were so far away, it literally was somewhere in the distance.
So we looked at it both, and again on the other applications as well,
we did look at that as clear visual separation.
So I think in terms of office assessment, I mean now being
on the site visit actually, I went, you know what, okay,
I now understand where they're coming from.
Because I had the same questions you had, Catherine.
Okay, so I think that's very helpful to understand the test.
I think if the members look at paragraph 8 .32 on page 28
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 2:30:10
as well, they'll see there that the conclusion is
that a generous gap would still be maintained
between the built -up limits of Uxbridge and Slough.
and this would not result in the loss of visual separation of towns.
And therefore, overall, it's considered the site does not perform strongly in terms of purpose B.
OK, I've got Councillor Gibbon, who I think is the last speaker on this theme.
Can I ask her?
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:30:37
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:30:38
This is just to help really with the need.
Is it possible to know the distance between the various MSAs?
Because you've got the one we're talking about now,
then the one that we were talking about in a bit.
And then there's going to be one to the side of this one
and one to the side of the second one.
What is the possibilities between the four service stations?
Just so I can see to help with my deciding about the need.
where the existing ones are located on M25.
So in your mind you want to understand where the existing ones are on the M25,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:31:15
which I think is probably south MIMS and probably, I think it's on my head,
it's probably Copham.
So probably there's a massive gap between south MIMS up at the top of M1, I think it is,
and then you've got Copham down at junction 9 of the M25.
I think that's what I think we then asking question is what the gaps would then look like
But I say I can't remember exactly the number of miles it is but it's a long it takes a long time around the Western
Western route from Junction 9 all the way around to Junction 21 over is a 22 where it says a long gap as it is
Where as is now? Yeah, so I think that's what they're looking at to say
I think that it's written down in the report some of the gaps
So if you look at page 118 of the officer's report,
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:32:09
table six sets out the existing MSA space
in exceeding 28 miles.
So I brought up the slides just to illustrate that as well.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:32:38
Can I just add to that that at paragraph 22 .21, page 122, it then goes on to set out the eight
gaps that would be unresolved gaps in the event that the Charles St. Peter MSA
would be approved so that it actually sets out what the remaining gaps would
be that can't be fulfilled by the alternative. Very helpful, thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:33:16
That sort of neatly leads us into the second theme, which is about the HGVs movements and
the highways movements.
Are there any technical questions on that theme?
No?
I think we've done a lot of technical stuff on that piece.
Can I just be quiet?
I'll let Susan come back and just give us a bit of clarification and then I'll come
back to the council which is in cancer,
Phoebe, but over to Susan first.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:33:44
I think that there was just, I think
in terms of the public speaking, there
was, I think, a question that was left over
for technical questions, which was in relation to the HGVs
and whether or not they were on a higher or lower
part of the site and what treatment was being proposed.
So I think Graham will talk you through that.
So, just to talk you through this.
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:34:24
This is the location of the HGB parking
to the northwest of the site.
It was mentioned by the African as well.
There would be, as well as acoustic screening,
the actual parking spaces, like most of the development,
is set down in its landform, so you're going
to have natural banks as well.
In addition to that, you'll have the mitigation in terms
of the planting around the perimeter of the site.
Can we go to the section?
So the section.
It's not in that one.
No, it was in the other one.
So in essence, because there's some...
It's beyond the immunity building at that same level.
It's that second one down.
So...
That one.
So it's almost, it's between the immunity building and the bank of trees in effect.
Plus the planting, plus the acoustics building, yes.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:35:37
And that's why I was queering over on when you said it because I thought hang on it's the other side of the
Community building so it's got the barrier of the emergency building
It's then got the bank of the trees and by the way, you've dropped it because of the mineral extraction
So that was how I understood it worked out
Yes, you sort of put it into a bowl in effect
Go on to
Councillor Feeley and then Councillor Waters about the HDVs and other bits. I just want to pick up a point
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:36:06
Graham was about a national grid road.
How is, where is it and what effect will it have
on the future development?
So recently the national grid, as you may know,
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:36:26
were granted an application to expand its facility.
They had, as part of their conditions,
they had to submit a construction traffic management plan.
For whatever reason, that changed,
and they had to submit a separate application
for a temporary construction route,
which is from the Slough Road
over the agricultural bridge into their site.
So it's temporary for a period of 15 months.
members on the site would have seen it.
It's fully tarmac'd to take the weight of large vehicles
and the bell mouth has been constructed onto the Slough Road.
So that's there for a period of 15 months at the moment,
but notwithstanding that,
there'll be a condition placed on this outline
for details to be approved by the Council.
Thank you.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:37:31
Could I just add that it said that it was 15 months for that period of time.
I think that there is an allowance of about 12 months for the reserve matters applications
to come forward so there shouldn't really be that sort of overlap in terms of those
two constructions at the same time.
Where back to the zone there, can you demonstrate it or not?
It's actually the same place as where the intended start and end of the market.
There was a throwaway comment I thought which said the motor vehicle is going past the school.
That's nothing to do with the construction for the national grid, no.
It's not, okay.
So yes, it goes, at present it takes a northerly route
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:38:53
up to the agricultural bridge and across into the area
where they're constructing the new substation.
Okay, thank you.
Council Waters, over to you.
Yes, so two questions.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:39:09
I'm sure in terms of national highways,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:39:10
when they've done their assessment and the location of it and safety and
obviously we get this sort of service station there's almost always a slowing
of traffic that takes places as vehicles move on to the highway not so much as
you move off. Again have they assessed if you had two service stations in this area
would that significantly is that totally acceptable to national highways so that
or have they just looked at each one separately in the same way as we're all almost looking
at it separately?
We asked that question of national highways and they didn't raise any objection to having
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:39:58
two. They looked at the weaving distances between the various junctions either side
of the MSA and there are some departures for Coln Valley
that need to be overcome.
But in principle, national highways have said
that that isn't a, they haven't raised an objection and said
that I think there was an initial consideration
that was accepting that there was a case for departure.
But there isn't anything in terms of the National Highway
saying that you can't have two MSAs.
What they've done is they've just said
that we need to consider the MSAs
against the criteria in the Circular 1022.
And the second question,
which came up in terms of the Environment Centre and the bridge which has an issue with
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:41:04
coaches, which is a current issue. Has there been any discussions? I know there's been
like a no has come back in terms of anything that can be done. Was there a particular reason
other than it being outside of the site and so it wasn't considered important to actually
build it into the project but it'd be good to know what sort of discussions took place
on that bridge, because that would improve things significantly and prevent the walking
that's taking place at the moment.
I'm not aware of any discussions, because as it sits outside the red edge of the site,
there wouldn't have been any consideration of that bridge.
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:41:44
Obviously, the applicants said they're going to be open to discussions with the Environment
Centre but would that presumably would include us at some point, those outside the Red Edge,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:42:00
how do we get involved in that? As the highway authority, it's the highway authority who
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:42:05
are responsible for that road and the bridge that leads up to the Iver Environment Centre.
So they would have to be involved rather than us making any kind of decision or condition
or anything here? Yes because this is actually outside of the application site and is not
affected by the access arrangements for the Iver Centre.
I'm just checking to see if there's anything in our gift
that we could do, but I think that's maybe beyond us.
I think the only suggestion that I can make
is that if members want that to be explored further,
that we take that message back and provide it
to the highway authority or landowner
to take into consideration.
We've just got to look at what is relevant
to this particular application.
I think an informative may be where we go with that.
Yeah, so I'd already discussed that with the officers
and I suggested we do an informative.
We can't make condition
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:43:00
because it's outside the Red Edge area.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:43:02
So the public understand who watching this,
we're only allowed to talk about what's physically
within Red Edge of the actual application.
But I think the informative would be
make a strong cross -working collaboration between the community, the
Environment Centre, us as the Highway Authority and the applicants to come
forward with how they can work together collaboratively along those lines.
I think I would be concerned about an informative that wasn't directly related to the development itself
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:43:34
but happy to take away and to write a letter if members feel that that is appropriate to the relevant body.
I suppose your current support system. Yeah coming on this point one thing that was going through my mind is whether we could
Set a condition about boundary treatment at that
location
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:43:51
Because that would be within
This application the boundary treatment of this application neighbouring
that road
in your mind as a landscaping, you're thinking in terms of it can't,
it wouldn't end up being a negative impact
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:44:12
on the neighbouring boundary, if that makes sense.
Is it easier with all the right things?
Exactly. With the impact on the neighbouring property,
the condition relating to the boundary treatment along that boundary,
whether that would be something that could be added here and whether
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:44:28
So that would help mitigate some of the impacts
that were spoken about earlier.
Councillor Roberts, I'll just put this up on screen.
This is the indicative area
of where the southbound slips are going.
There is a condition recommended to be attached
to the outline and it will require the submission
of a comprehensive landscaping scheme.
So that would cover that issue.
That's already in the report within the appendix D.
Appendix D, I know.
We're looking through 1200 pages, you can't always find anything the first time.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:45:09
I'll find the condition.
Fantastic, we'll come back to that in a bit.
Okay, excellent.
So I think that was all the things I had on the highways piece and that's what leads
us into the environment centre piece, stroke the farm and stroke that sort of element now
next week, that's our third theme. So, Councilman. Thank you Chairman. It's
really good to see that there's 64 mentions of the Alderbourne in the report, which is
very welcome. It's a river I know very well. I've done conservation work in that
Cllr David Moore - 2:45:44
river. One of the big issues is invasive species like skunk cabbage. My first
question is, on your report you might be touched on that. What mitigations are
been put in to ensure the mitigation against invasive non -native species.
And this is a huge problem, especially with water contamination, cross -contamination from
silt, things like that.
And I'll go on to my next questions after that.
Thank you.
That was quite a technical one, wasn't it, Councillor Woll?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:46:26
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:46:30
So as part of the scheme, the applicant proposes to, there's a number of things, de -culvert
parts of the River Audible.
and on top of that there are proposed enhancements
as part of the biodiversity gain.
In terms, so twofold,
the order form would need to be protected
during construction, so it is likely that
in terms of kind of runoff and pollutants,
There would need to be, there is a condition regarding runoff and how that is managed.
And secondly, there is a condition regarding the details of planting and what species are
to be put in, etc.
And that was recommended by the Environment Agency.
I'm not sure, did that answer your question?
You also in the report mentions, it said here that the conditions are strong enough and
a legal agreement wasn't necessary.
Cllr David Moore - 2:47:39
It was a legal agreement considered for the Alderbourne for protections.
You were content that obviously your recommendations are strong enough.
Sorry, could you repeat?
I struggled here.
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:47:51
In the report you said a legal agreement wasn't necessary.
Cllr David Moore - 2:47:56
Was that in consultation with the environment agency?
Were they satisfied that the conditions were strong enough with those protections for the
It would either be dealt with by condition or legal agreement, not both.
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:48:12
So in this instance, officers were content that it could be dealt with by condition.
We wouldn't double up in terms of security.
It says here on 25 .9, as noted from the environment agency,
consultation conditions have been suggested,
and therefore a legal agreement would not
Cllr David Moore - 2:48:24
be considered necessary.
Are you suggesting that there will
be a legal agreement further down the line,
or regarding the biodiversity of the river?
Page 134.
Because the necessary saving up there is condition, if done by condition rather than legal agreement.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:48:53
So the government advice is that where matters should be dealt with by condition is not necessary
to then secure it through a legal agreement as well because it's adequately mitigated
and dealt with that way.
Thank you.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 2:49:11
I think if there's any applicant on any application breach's condition then we have right of redress, don't we?
Yeah, automatically.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:49:18
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:49:22
Rather than having to worry about going back to court we can just go, no sorry, your breach condition, sorry.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:49:25
You can pay the consequences of the way.
Okay.
Cllr David Moore - 2:49:33
And my second half of my question on environment is regarding waste and obviously as I mentioned earlier to my question to the applicant,
MSAs attract huge amounts of litter, fly tipping.
I believe my ward is the only ward in Bucks
that has an MSA already, which is Beckonsfield MSA.
I appreciate it's slightly different.
It's got public access to the 8355.
So it does not help when it comes to fly tipping and littering.
But the point still stands.
And what, is there any kind of consideration of, forgive me
if I've already missed this, but I couldn't seem
to find a substantial condition or agreement
where the MSA would contribute
in their waste management plan substantial litter picking,
fly tipping enforcement, things like that.
Or what's been laid out there?
When you mentioned I was looking for the condition,
there is a condition regarding this
where they have to submit the details of a strategy.
I was just trying to find it now
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:50:37
because there's quite a few conditions, but I'll come back with a...
Oh, thanks.
Condition 44.
And is that, in Condition 44, forgive me, but how is that going to be enforced?
Because if it's a strategy on the plan, it's really going to be a strategy and a plan.
Does that make sense?
You have a strategy, which is lovely, but unless you have a physical plan that says,
this is how you implement...
Condition 44 says no development shall take place until a site waste management plan for the construction and
Operational phases of development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 2:51:16
Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved plans
If there's any breach of that plan, then we could take action by breach of condition. And thank you
I just add to that. I understand there was a very similar condition on the Beckonsaw at MSA
Cllr David Moore - 2:51:31
But sadly those standards slipped and they stopped litter picking and doing those mitigations.
And we raised it as councillors and it was, there has been some remedial work.
But what I'm suggesting is if we could ensure that we enforce that
and not have standards slip, that would be great.
Thank you.
Maybe put in additional informative that based on our experience
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:51:54
on the MSAA we have elsewhere within the county that we would not just expect it to be put
in position but it's being implemented and just say,
you know, as a note.
So that's part of the condition itself.
So I don't think that's necessary.
Okay. But I think the applicants will hear us loud
and clear if that makes sense.
And the applicants did say that they were aware of that
and that that is their standard response at their facilities.
Thank you.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 2:52:20
That covers those three themes.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:52:22
I don't think there are any other themes we need
to cover off for the motorway service area.
Yes, Councillor Roberts.
Sorry, I just wanted to ask a question
around the veteran tree situation.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:52:35
There seems to be a bit of a difference of opinion on this
about these two veteran trees.
And I was just wondering if you can refer to that one then
in terms of difference from the tree officer report
and how that's different now and what the situation is.
I think you and I are always in the same way,
Leith Councillor, because my other question about the veteran tree was,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:53:01
what was the mitigation piece if those two trees have to go,
even if they're grade A versus veteran?
So again, we were growing our own about,
because we saw them on site and went, they look pretty good.
So what happens in terms of what's the mitigation,
what's the plan they have to do?
So is it like, the expectation is they're going to have to
of these plant a minimum of an additional 10 to 12 trees
or whatever, or try and relocate them or do whatever.
So I don't know quite what that plan they have to come up
with in terms of those particular issues.
Thank you.
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:53:35
So in terms of recognising whether trees are veteran
is quite a subjective task,
which is why there's a difference of opinion
between the applicant and the council.
the advice we received from the council's tree officer.
So the applicants, I think it's this one,
this is the tree dispute T12,
which needs to be removed
due to the geometry of the slip roads.
So of course we have to go by the advice
of our tree officers.
So as reflected in the report,
we have seen a loss of two veteran trees.
The test in the MPPF is whether there's wholly exceptional
circumstances for these removals
and whether there's a suitable compensation plan.
It doesn't define what a suitable compensation plan is,
but based on the net gain and the amount of planting
that is being proposed by the scheme,
officers are content that it meets those exceptions.
And it's, you're accepting the view that their loss can't be avoided.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:54:51
Is that your position?
Due to the site circumstances and the geometry of the routes into the MSA then yes.
Can I just show you where?
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 2:55:05
I think on the plant, on the, so the public's understanding, we've now got our site, the
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:55:14
tree retention and start removal plan and it's the two trees in orange and yellow that
are highlighted and one as you clearly see is one is physically where the slip road would
be and then the other one is where I think the actual site they're doing would be.
So I think in both cases, but to me I think, so just clarify, I thought there was something
I heard everyone that was up to 35 % buying net gain potentially.
I know normally it's a minimum 10%.
So what I want you to understand is what the additional or
additionality of what this application is offering us over and
above these sort of being bare minimums, if that makes sense.
It's in terms of net gain, it's 85 .92%.
It's quite simple.
Okay, that is simple.
Okay, right.
I didn't catch the figure there.
85 .92.
Gaining of 85%.
85 % gain.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:56:08
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:56:10
We normally still get 10%, that's quite substantial.
I think that covers all the technical questions for this element.
I then adjourn this application.
We then reach the second application where which was CM 4 slash 0 0 36 21 land adjacent
to the end 25 junction 15 16 Iver Heath, Colin Valley minerals application.

5 CM/0036/21 - Land Adjacent to M25 Between Junctions 15 & 16, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

So do we have any technical questions of the officers in relation to the minerals application?
Okay, Councillor Turner.
Cllr Mark Turner - 2:56:58
I was just really interested in, well two things.
Firstly, that the applicant is, looks like it's a special vehicle
for building the valley most services area.
I appreciate that you mentioned putting in potential restoration works,
but how would that happen if for instance there wasn't a significant sign,
well if both service stations went ahead and one decided to pull out,
specifically this one, how would it be enforced restoration work?
It's an awful lot of stuff to be removed.
Would it stay as a gravel pit, a bit like the ones in Marlowe and Little Marlowe Country Lakes,
and therefore be restored round that.
How it would be financed if, for instance,
that particular company closed.
Is there any sort of deposit or anything like that
that people could put in escrow or something like that
to ensure that it was financed?
Just trying to think of how it would work
if, for instance, that company folded as a special vehicle,
having taken the minerals and not see any benefit
of moving forward with the MSA.
As I said in the presentation, there is a fallback restoration scheme which is tied
up in the conditions set out in Annex E. I think you're saying what if the company disappears
or goes bust.
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 2:58:17
Financial matters obviously aren't normally planning matters.
I suppose what you're saying really is could we require some sort of restoration bond to
be provided which have to be through a 106 agreement to cover off the fact that
the operator may disappear and therefore the council would be left with having to
carry out the works to comply with that fallback scheme. I'm sure my legal
colleagues will have some comment on that. Certainly in years gone by and I've
been doing minerals for some some years now we did used to have that sort of
restoration bond but I believe government guidance then moved towards
recommending against it.
The mineral, a lot of the mineral companies,
and I accept what you're saying,
this would be a standalone company,
but a lot of the mineral companies do have their own
almost like voluntary scheme which they all contribute to
to potentially pick up such situations.
But I think it is possible if you thought it was necessary
to make this development acceptable,
given that there is a very small risk, I think,
that these members say might not come forward,
then you could consider some sort of restoration bond.
Clearly the applicant would have to agree to that
for it to be part of the 106 agreement,
but maybe our solicitors can help with that as well.
So I think it would be unreasonable to expect a bond
in this case because the figure would be such a high amount
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 2:59:49
for restoration, but we would seek to enforce
in the usual way.
Obviously there's a value in the land itself.
And I think we also have to bear in mind in the circumstances
of this case that there is an intention
and obviously this application has been going
for a significant number of years now.
So it's a very strong intention for the development of the MSA
to go ahead if permission is granted today.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:00:24
I think we do note the concern though that the expectation is that that would be restored.
So what we would, if the fallback position.
But there are conditions.
Indeed, yeah exactly.
But I think we as a committee would robustly expect that if whatever is in the fallback position
that that would be implemented.
So I think we've got to give that clear steer of there's no such thing as a free lunch.
This would be Council Paterno's point of making sure that it does get, if we had to do a fallback position it does get done.
Council Walters.
I'm going to ask a question that's completely different.
From the parish they talked about some of the points that they put forward.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:01:06
but one particularly was trying to get some controls
on that six month period on the set up
in terms of timing near school, pick up times,
drop off times, and trying to put some kind of condition
in there, nothing seems to be within the report.
Could you confirm that and is there anything we could do
to try and alleviate that period of time?
The highway authority, obviously they're looking at it from a highway technical point of view,
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:01:41
except that they've not required any further restrictions in hours of movements or routing.
Clearly you could, if you felt as the committee that it was necessary to make the development
acceptable in amenity terms, I suppose, or you could obviously take a different view
to the highway authority and highway safety terms, that it was necessary to limit the
hours more strictly than has been proposed in the conditions that we've set out in Annex
E, then you could potentially limit the hours as has been proposed when the schools are
coming in and going out, for example.
I have experienced this again with the former county council where the committee took that
view with another site, but it was a waste site, and put such a limitation on, although
it was not the officer or the highway recommendation, and that circumstance was appealed and the
appeal was allowed, so the inspector found against having that condition.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's not correct.
If you draw the conclusion, it would be necessary, but I think that's for the committee to decide,
really.
Thank you.
I don't know the details in terms of that school and how dangerous it would be.
It would be difficult for me to say.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:02:55
Would you also think if that went in that could delay or extend the period of time that it might take to do the set up?
Well the more you limit the time, the more hours of each working day there is for lorry movements to come and go.
So logically I would expect it would.
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:03:14
whether it be a significant delay, I couldn't tell you.
I think that will be dealt with as part of the construction traffic management plan in condition 27
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:03:36
and the effects, if any, on the school will be taken into account in considering that plan.
So I understand where Council Waters is coming from because we had another application last
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:03:48
month where there was a construction management plan where it was given us the detailed booking
systems AMPR which is all the things that the parish have raised and my expectation
is when that comes back to us I would expect that sort of thing to be included in it but
obviously we can't condition that today but I think we can give a clear steer. We expect
if the applications are proven to be good neighbours to both the community and the other
environment centre and the others that actually they are good neighbours and they do work
collaboratively with them. So I would expect that to be part of that construction management
plan.
Councillor Moore.
Thank you Chairman. I think it would be inappropriate if I didn't ask a question about the Alderbourne
Cllr David Moore - 3:04:33
in regards to the minerals because chalk streams face
awful levels of discharges at the moment,
not just the alderworm but across bucks.
Silt buildup is a huge problem.
And silt buildup means that the chalk stream can't flow
properly, impacts biodiversity and the environment.
What physical measures are being put in to ensure there isn't
this silt laden water flowing into the alderworm,
and essentially clogging it up,
and what physical measures are being proposed here?
Well, as the applicant said,
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:05:12
there will be a buffer zone provided to the Alderbourne,
and there are silt settling ponds,
so the scheme is designed that everything goes
through the settlement ponds
so that you don't have that issue, basically.
So these are a form of silt traps, then?
But yeah, basically, yeah.
So this is standard practise at mineral workings.
In my experience, assuming the operators work
as they have proposed they will, then that
will deal with the issue.
If there's incredibly heavy rainfall,
what's the capacity of these ponds?
Cllr David Moore - 3:05:46
Because heavy rainfall means sediment runoff into,
potentially into the old port.
So is it a deep runoff?
Sorry, I still can't.
I can't tell you the volume of these.
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:06:00
I'm afraid I don't have that figure in front of me.
But they would be designed to build
in that sort of incident.
But obviously, we can't say for certain,
I suppose, in this day and age with how we get water,
that there couldn't be an issue.
But I think it's been designed to limit
the likelihood of that happening.
That's probably the best I can say.
Is there any?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:06:27
and I think that might well be within the report.
Okay, right.
But I think, yes, certainly the understanding I have is there would be attenuation ponds and the rest.
There would be, certainly for plants I saw, it literally would be dealing with extreme scenarios.
So, yeah, we get the point, but I think what I understand from the report, David,
is that it has been covered in within the report, that yes, that has been taken into
account.
Yes, I mean the scheme has been designed, but obviously I can't guarantee to you that
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:06:58
there would never be an issue in an extreme weather event, but it's certainly been designed
to deal with that matter.
That's all I can say.
If I may, Chairman, just very quickly.
Cllr David Moore - 3:07:11
I'm being very generous here because you've been already at three.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:07:14
Yes, just talk to the incredibly sensitive.
Cllr David Moore - 3:07:18
There's only 300 or so in the world. So we've got to get this right, you know, they're really important
And it's the water monitoring going to take into account pH
temperature
Mineral content is they're going to be really specific
Water monitoring to ensure as a KPI essentially that if things do go wrong we know quickly
Well, that's my understanding but obviously that that is that would be a you know, it's a technical matter
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:07:41
I'm in obviously no way an expert on those matters, but we have brought in all the conditions having consulted with the environment agency on the
Application so in a normal circumstance
They will have thought all that through and given us the conditions to deal with that those concerns as they would be flooding etc
Cllr David Moore - 3:08:02
Thank you very much. Thank you. Chairman at the environment agency on the most glorious organisation, but but take your point. Thank you
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:08:10
So interestingly, I've just been reminded we had a very very late submission from Kong Valley Regional Park
which I think needs to be brought to the members attention.
I think Graham, you may well have that
in your list of things,
which I think actually may go to your points, Cas,
the more about the feedback from
Collin Valley Regional Park.
To Graham, he was on.
It's 23.
Yes, I think it's really, I think that,
just so it's again on record,
because again, the public won't be aware
that we had to elevate,
I mean late, I mean last night from Colm Valley Regional Park.
Just now?
Oh, just now.
I knew one was coming but I thought it was right as we speak.
Just come in but it was put on the files last night.
Graham Mansfield - Principal Planning Officer - 3:08:55
So, these comments below are made on behalf of the Colm Valley Regional Park.
Please pass this short document on to members of the committee.
So in reference to PL2433208, so that's the Colm Valley services, they state,
this application has a huge impact on the Colm Valley Regional Park, not least severing
a key corridor for people and wildlife between either Heath, Black Park and Uxbridge.
Despite clear opportunities for good design and mitigation to preserve and enhance this
corridor, no consideration is being given to it whatsoever.
The application will also result in the closure of the Iver Environment Centre.
This application is part of the cumulative impact of many large proposals, all considered
in isolation without the master plan, which now threaten the very existence of the park.
These include the following projects very close to this site.
Uxbridge -Moore Electricity Substation,
Sequence Data Centre, Woodlands Park Data Centre,
and Cyrus One Data Centre.
Point three.
We urge the committee to refuse the application
for the reasons given in our responses
to the plan application.
Point four.
The draught 106 has been published
and contains very little to address the enormous impact
on the Convalley Regional Park,
except for BNG and rights of way.
If the Council approves this plan, then we believe the Committee must insist on significant
and commensurate Section 106 for green infrastructure improvement in the part of the Con Valley
Regional Park immediately next to the site within a maximum of 1 km.
This is in line with Policy CP9 in the South Bucks Plan, Policy IV13 in the Ivers Neighbourhood
Plan and the Con Valley Regional Park Policy in the draught Buckinghamshire Plan.
Section 106 should also cover cost of relocation of the IVA Environment Centre.
It then moves on to planning reference PL 22 -14110A, which is the Chalfont St Peter application.
They state, this application has a huge impact on the Coln Valley Regional Park,
including loss of agricultural land, impacts on rights of weighing, and will be visible across the valley.
Additional lighting will make it even more prominent, detrimental to both the landscape, long -range views, and the biodiversity of the regional park.
Opportunities for mitigation to preserve and enhance this part of the Conwelling Regional Park are not being taken.
This application is part of the cumulative impact
of many large proposals, all considered in isolation
without a master plan, which now threaten
the very existence of the park.
These include the following projects
very close to this site.
975 houses at Chalfont St. Peter,
High Speed 2, Chiltern Tunnel Portal,
and the Con Valley Viaduct.
Multiple housing proposals just over the county boundary
in Maple Cross Hertfordshire.
Is this related to Charfon's Oedipa?
Oh, I thought it was the minerals.
We'll deal with it in Charfon's Oedipa.
Sorry, I've just realised that it's...
I carried on.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 3:12:29
I've just realised that that relates to the alternative,
so we'll come back to that and inform you
when we're dealing with the public speaking at that point.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:12:47
But I think based on what I heard, those issues have already been dealt with by the report.
I think we just had to be open and transparent with received it, but A, it was late and B,
we've actually dealt with those issues in the report.
So just purely transparency, but actually based on all the technical questions we already
had, all the other questions we already had, we've actually gone through all those issues
that have just been raised actually within the questions
from the public, questions from the members,
and actually the responses back from the officers.
So, but I thought it was good, it was better that we actually
at least flagged it that we had had the late response.
It was a late response.
But the fact that it has actually been looked
at and dealt with.
Okay, so I don't think there are any more.
Sorry, Councillor Waters, you wanted to go back to one, didn't you?
Yeah, just looking at the supplementary paper with the conditions on the point that I raised,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:13:41
if we went to page 33, highways, point 13, it does talk about really a report there in
terms of details of vehicles accessing the site schedule, identifying when they would
need to need access and goes through a whole range
of different things, which actually might cover
any discussions in terms of the school,
in terms of the condition there, in terms of traffic movements.
That obviously needs to be a report to come forward
to cover all that as a condition, which would include
all those different things.
So if within that some accommodation or thought
would go on through that would be good in terms of that.
Obviously ask the applicant to have a look at that when they report their report, but obviously it is there an
Opportunity to go through that rather than it being a complete no
in terms of considering so we're not asking for anything new just to
Highlight that would be good if we could could really consider a little bit of
Control during those periods if it was going to cause major issues
Sorry, I just thought I'd highlight it, that it was there in some form, but not exactly
how I worded it.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:15:04
Sorry, just so I can understand.
So we look at the same condition on page 785 in the main report and then we then got page
33 in this supplementary as well, but actually it turns out it's the same condition on highways
That does deal with the piece of council which is just described
It gives you much more because there's much more control
But actually how it would be dealt with going forward in terms of if it was approved that that's what the end result would be
So hence because we've got 1200 pages this thing trying to work out exactly where everything is
But we've got all the detail all in there just in different locations
okay, right, so
Just a quick question or a point as well regarding the tonnage of sand and gravel out of the
site.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 3:16:09
Do I understand that 173 ,000 tonnes in normal circumstances is not a viable proposition
and just do as a proposition to actually just do,
just take those minerals and send it out to the,
you know, sending gravel out to a particular site.
In my experience, that would normally be a lot less
than a mineral company would bring forward
for a normal quarry.
So this is just to facilitate this development.
Yeah, I appreciate that, yeah.
I mean, we're storing, it wouldn't be,
But what I'm saying is if the MSA didn't go ahead,
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:16:45
Cllr Andy Huxley - 3:16:47
would it be practical to actually take 173 ,000 tonnes out?
Well given that they've got to put the slips into the M25,
and I can't tell you exactly what the costings would be,
I think it would be pretty unlikely personally.
Yeah, okay, thank you.
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:17:01
I'll just add that the applicants have actually said
that it wouldn't be viable to do so.
Yeah, that sort of thing, thank you.
Yes.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 3:17:10
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:17:14
It's a relatively small extraction compared to some of the ones we looked at relatively recently.
We've been to Trench's farm etc. and that was considerably larger for like a 10 year period etc.
So a 4 month extraction is compared to what most minerals when they start applications would be.
Yeah, that's very limited in comparison.
That then brings us to the end of the technical questions on CM 003621, the Colne Valley Minerals
application, so then a Joan Depp application. We then go back to the first application which
is PR 20 forward slash 43320A which is the land north of the A4007 which is known as
the common valley model service area for the debate. So this is where we'll have general
debates. So if the council want to put their hands up at this point and then they can then
speak. Okay I've got Councillor Moolamunga, you're first to indicate. Thank you chair
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:18:33
we are moving into debate yeah. 20 years of being involved in planning applications I
say this is a first for me.
I've never actually had to consider an application
for a motorway services area.
And I think for the benefit of members of the public
and those watching, people should
be aware just the amount of work that the committee have

6 PL/22/1411/OA - Land Between Junctions 16 and 17 Of The M25, Near Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire

had to look at and the amount of work generated by the officers
here.

4 PL/20/4332/OA - Land to the North of A4007, Slough Road, (Between Junctions 15 and 16 of The M25), Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

The short report alone is 350 pages worth of documentation.
That does include the application yet to come.
There's only 231 pages relative to the two applications
that we're considering now.
Online, in connexion with these applications,
there are 1 ,005 additional documents.
I think if there was ever a case in all my experience
of listening to the advice of our planning and legal officers.
This is it.
For all the experience there is around this table,
and I appreciate there's more than I who
have many years' experience, we can't conceivably
have the detailed technical knowledge to fully appreciate
all of the issues.
For my own part, I've listened carefully
to what the
the various speakers have said in particular I
Made notes about councillor Matthews and councillor coops comments about grey belt
and the conflict with the
I've a neighbourhood plan and I'm more than satisfied that
These have been satisfactorily explained by our
our offices today in terms of the Graybelt issue,
local plan and NPPF and the relative impacts,
particularly in relation to the five -year housing
land supply and the changes in the NPPF from 24 onwards.
I think the other point I picked up was from,
is it Katie or Kathy Barton, from the Environment Centre
and are shocked and amazed that they have 8 ,000 visits a year.
So 150 people a week, every week of the year going through there.
It's clearly a very important location.
In terms of the issues they have, it seemed to me to come down to the need
to safely transport their pupils from the gatehouse up to the main site.
and potentially some soundproofing to enable their lessons to carry on in the event that there was a noise from
parked vehicles, particularly those with cooling systems.
It won't take away, whatever is done there, won't take away the noise of the motorway,
which is there now and is always going to be there, so it's not going to make a huge difference anyway.
But I would urge the environment centre representatives and the applicant to get together and talk
seriously about how they might mitigate those issues.
The provision of a mini bus service for a period of time to carry pupils from the gate
to the centre would not cost the applicant the earth.
And I think one of my colleagues raised the issue of boundary treatment while soundproofing
fencing in relation to that would clearly be helpful.
Again, not something that in the grand scheme of things
for this application is going to particularly harm
the Corn Valley MSA Company Limited.
So I think given all of what I've said about our officers
who are particularly would like to congratulate
on the work they have done,
I am happy to propose to committee acceptance of the officer's recommendation.
And I think we're probably only covering the first of the two now, though I would say my
thoughts apply to the second also, just in case the chairman doesn't call me for that,
because he thinks I've already said too much.
So that's my input.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:23:10
Thank you, Councillor Munger, you and I have been planning for an awful long time between
the pair of us.
This is the first time for both of us to do a motorway service area.
So, I'm a formal proposer, do I have a seconder?
So Councillor Feeley is the seconder.
This now changes my script slightly.
So therefore...
Well, unless the members want to continue with the debate.
Okay, so either continue with the debate on this first application or adjourn this application
and move to the minerals application.
So that's my two choices in the hands of the committee.
Do you want to finish the debate on this now?
And then move to the...
Oh, you want to go to the...
Okay, right.
Okay.
But I think people might want to have a discussion.
So I've got Councillor Robertson and Councillor Turner.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:24:02
Yes, in terms of contributing to the debate, I'd like to echo Councillor Mungo's comments,
in particular the efforts of the officers who've dealt with a mountain of information
for this and helped us guide us through it.
The particular point I wanted to mention was around the grey belt assessment.
we've heard this a lot on the area committee that I sit on it's been a
topic of conversation in every area committee meeting that we've discussed
so I was particularly interested in the application of the Greybelt rules in
this particular case and how they were how they were the judgments that were
made on that. I just want to say I'm satisfied with what I've heard on that point about the
Greybelt assessment so I do support that conclusion. There's a number of things we could debate
about, you know, is Iverheath a town, but we've heard the assessment and I think that
the visual separation guidance as well, I think they satisfy those Greybelt rules and
I think for the purposes of the debate it's worth stating that on the record.
There's a number of specifics in here about the trees, the chalk stream protection that
colleague David, Councillor Moore raised and the boundary treatment.
I think those are important things that I'd really encourage the applicant and the other
parties to engage in meaningful debate about how those can be addressed.
But overall I'd be happy to support the proposal in favour of this.
Okay, so we've got a formal proposal, formal seconder.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:25:58
We've got Councillor Turner followed by Councillor Smith wants to speak.
Thank you, Chairman. I agree with what's said. I think there's a very strong strategic need.
But just going back to what Councillor Munger said about the transport,
I'm just wondering whether there's something that could be put in the S106
as a potential contribution towards the Environment Centre
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:26:24
so that there could potentially be some funding either towards some transports.
I think it would fail the SIL tests.
I don't think it's reasonably necessary for this development to proceed.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:26:36
It's outside of the application site and it's not directly affected.
So I think that would be an unreasonable request.
But it is certainly something that we can support in terms of a letter
and perhaps facilitating discussions between the environment centre and the developer.
My thoughts were, I concur with you Councillor Turner, that the feedback I've got is that
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:27:04
there will be a formal letter from me as Chairman of Student Sites on behalf of the committee,
to applicants, to the Environment Centre, to the Highways team, to get an urgent meeting
together to actually work collaboratively to resolve those impacts and mitigations work
collaboratively. But I don't think because it's outside the
Red edge area we can't enforce it by condition and or informative, but I think the letter
Clearly showing our views where we've had from both cancer feeling cancer waters and Roberts and yourselves about what that might look like
We'll come up with the formal words and then we'll obviously copy everyone in and all that looks like cancer cancer
Just I was intrigued because from what we've seen with the air quality
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:27:49
There's no real impact has been
assessed yet there is 20 ,000 contribution towards air quality in IVA.
That seems like almost a voluntary thing unless that is something that's required specifically.
So just wondering whether or not we could actually just request from the applicant
that they do make a contribution towards the transport for the Environment Centre.
I think the amount for the air quality assessment is because it's in an AQMA and so there's
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:28:22
a specific requirement and specific policy that deals with that and that isn't the case
in respect to the Environment Centre.
No, your point about the contribution towards transportation piece, that would be part of
the letter along with the other points you've picked up within our committee.
So there's a whole list of bullet points of these areas we need to think about and go
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:28:41
through and see how we can actually mitigate and go forward collectively and
collaboratively with the environment centre, the parish council, the community
as well to actually make sure we do get a good resolution if that makes
sense. Okay so I had Councillor Smith. Thank you chair and just going back to
that point, given the amounts of concrete that's been poured into this
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:29:07
site I wonder why they can't just fix the bridge but that's really not what I
to say. It just it seems like we've had a long discussion and it's a very long
report and it's quite right I think that we should take the time over this any
any encroachment onto the Con Valley national resource any any encroachment
into a green belt really needs this level of discussion but it's quite clear
that having designated this as grey belt that this is a development that is
is gonna, we'll go ahead.
I'm just deeply disappointed really with the developer,
but also with our policy, our council.
When you have a commercial development of this scale,
this size, why we can't be a little bit more future focused
in looking at water retention and water treatment,
rather than drawing vast amounts of drinking water
from the local community when we know what's coming,
what we're facing already this season,
and why we are quite happy to pave over large amounts
of the countryside with tarmac,
but without considering actually putting some solar panels
to mitigate the amount of energy
that this enormous structure is gonna draw
from the local grid.
It just feels as if we need to be
a little bit more future focused as a committee.
But as developers, I mean, we really should be expecting
a little bit more from you than what we've in front of us.
But having said that, I think we're faced with a position where we will need to approve
this development, given that the designated of this is a great grey field site.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:30:54
Councillor Smith, you know I want to say in wavelength, so to make it so it can be not
enforceable but so it can actually be part of the process, the discussion I've had with
the officers is if we have that as part of an informative, so the letter will be the,
because that's outside of the area,
because this is parked within the area,
we can actually make that clearly
both for the photovoltaic and the wastewater
and the being carbon neutral,
which the applicants talked about,
is sort of working with them,
making clear we expectation is we expect this to be exemplar.
If this goes through, this being exemplar,
and actually this is how you go forward,
if you're gonna do any more of these,
this is what the expectation looks like.
So your carbon neutral, water neutral,
and actually you do the, as you do on the continent,
you have the solar panels above the parking spaces,
Does that actually mean you can be in a bit of shade as well
and actually then be self -sufficient,
if that makes sense?
Thank you, that's really refreshing to hear that.
We're not going to get many of these, are we?
It's just a shame to miss this opportunity,
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:31:46
even at this late stage in the climate crisis.
But hence the informative.
So therefore, we can then have it
as part of that whole process, if that makes sense.
But I think as a general point in terms
of big scale infrastructure things,
I think that's what I'm trying to push for going forward,
is we have that sort of thought process as a sort of given,
if that makes sense, and the start point if that makes sense. So that would be informative.
So I've now taken over the other speakers I've got. So that was Councillor Smith and
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:32:14
any other more speakers I've got? No? Okay. Therefore, we have a formal seconding, sorry,
formal proposal from Councillor Mungo, a formal seconding from Councillor Feeley. Oh right,
so Councillor Mungo's the composer. Sorry Chairman, sorry. Thank you. Yeah, no, I think
I think Councillor Smith is absolutely right.
Cllr David Moore - 3:32:32
It's so important these are future -proofed.
And I understand the interpretation on the grey belt
and we've hashed through that regarding 155.
But I remain very concerned about the environmental impact.
The Alderbourne is an incredibly delicate shortstream
and there's nothing here to show long -term monitoring
of this stream and the lack of strong legal protections
protections to ensure such monitoring.
I welcome the SUDS, the buffer zones, the de -culverting.
There are some positive steps there,
but I feel this isn't future -proofed.
Like a proper alder -born monitoring plan
that is gonna ensure that if this is approved
that this isn't fallen to the wayside,
that we continue to monitor it,
because it's a very delicate river
and it's had a lot of discharges already.
It's had issues with invasive species
and the Colm Valley Regional Park does a lot of work
in removing invasive species as it is
with very limited budget, by the way.
We could see some contributions to this river
because it needs a lot of funding and support.
Whether this can be more legal protection to S106,
a long -term monitoring plan would be welcome.
I didn't quite see that here from the officer's report.
And I think there should be some strong protections there.
And also on the littering point, like I said,
we know from empirical experience that, for example,
with the Beaconsfield services, there have been some sort
of startual issues with littering and fly tipping.
And I'd like to see, again, like with the Aldebourne,
a long -term monitoring plan to ensure that littering
and fly tipping is monitored and that the operator
of the services is going to work with the council,
with the waste team to ensure
that the environmental impact is mitigated.
And the other thing of course is you have CCTV
which helps catch fly tippers and littering.
There is no long -term plan about that, about monitoring.
So my point is I'd like to see stronger protections there
and I don't think there is substantial environmental
mitigation on those points.
But I also take my colleagues' views on grey belt
and there are obviously substantial material
considerations that are somewhat satisfied.
But the environmental impacts, specifically the older born
and litter and fly tipping, I don't think are,
for me are substantiated to what we need it to be.
I'll let Susan come back.
We think we found where it actually is covered,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:35:27
but I'll let Susan explain.
Yeah, so there is a condition
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 3:35:32
which the Environment Agency had asked for,
which was for details of the deculverted
and enhanced sections of the river Alderbourne
to be provided and that would include details of maintenance,
regimes and management firms.
So I think we've covered that.
Condition 21, that's page 276 and 277.
It's not a legal agreement, it's a condition.
No, it's a condition, but obviously if there's a breach
of that condition, then we can take that up
with the applicant and seek for them to remedy it.
and that is, as Chancellor Collinwood has said earlier,
that is a speedier, more direct process
against which they don't actually have an appeal.
My fear as chairman is it's very disjointed,
all these different conditions,
but there isn't a long -term plan in one place
that is concise and comprehensive.
Cllr David Moore - 3:36:31
We've got these different conditions,
and I appreciate that that's there.
There isn't a long -term strategy plan
for the Alderbourne in this.
There's a bit here and there, but a bit destroyed.
My reading of that condition is that's what,
if they don't bring one of those back,
then they're in breach, right?
So that's my understanding.
And the key bit for me about condition
is basically if you breach, you will be penalised.
So you don't have to go to court,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:36:55
you don't have to do any of that.
So just a programme of standards.
In planning conditions, if you breach a planning condition,
we have automatic rights to just go,
right, you're in breach, stop, right?
So therefore, based on the number of conditions you've got,
actually I think you will end up with a comprehensive strategy
and plan because they have to then comply
with all the conditions and then give evidence
behind each of those conditions of how you're going
to physically deliver that condition.
So therefore, I'm content.
But as your chairman, I'm happy to work on your behalf
to make sure those are implemented.
As you know, I am very hands -on chairman
to make sure those things are implemented
and to the expectation that we and the public are going to see, that's what they actually
get delivered. So I'm content with that piece.
This is a very convoluted process. If that's the last speaker on the debate for the first
application, I now adjourn the first application. We now go into the debate about the CM003621
Lampteen Sinchon 1516 and this common value minerals for debate. Therefore I ask for any

5 CM/0036/21 - Land Adjacent to M25 Between Junctions 15 & 16, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

I think Councillor Munger, you already indicated, and I think Councillor Fielder indicated, that
they were happy with the...
I would love to, but I've been to...
So you apparently, I'm advised you have to do it in this certain order.
I got the physical prose or physical seconding.
I got the impression from Councillor Munger.
he was looking to propose approval for the second one already.
Happy to propose.
And then I got an impression that you were happy to propose approval for the second one
as well, but I do have to allow debate on that second application.
So if I've got a formal proposal from Council Munger, a formal proposal from Council Feeley,
it's a really convoluted, we've had to go through it on the legal process, right?
So are there any questions on the second application in terms of debate?
You've got a formal proposal, formal seconder.
I'll answer the questions on the minerals application.
Council will give it.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:39:06
I just wanted to ensure that when they were mining or digging or getting all the minerals out of the ground,
that they were monitoring how much sort of dust and stuff was going into the air,
because as they're already, we've been told already is an air quality problem.
I just wanted to make sure that they, could it be sort of slightly stricter than normal,
as there is an air quality problem already,
yeah, that they're monitoring to ensure that it's kept damp
or whatever so that it doesn't make the air quality worse.
Well, I mean, there's conditions on dust management.
I mean, obviously, if the committee felt there was a need
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:39:43
for to have something stricter than that
to make the developer acceptable,
then obviously you could potentially add
that to the condition.
I mean, this, you know, I can't say there will not be any air quality impacts, but with
the dust management plan in place and given where the actual area of extraction is, obviously
there will be the vehicle movements as well, I think that would be sufficient to properly,
you know, to give the necessary control under a planning condition that would be, as has
been said in other conditions, potentially enforceable if it were to be breached.
Does that help?
Yeah, thank you.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:40:23
Yeah, I think again, I think the sense from the committee is we're happy with the condition,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:40:26
we want to make sure the implementation matches what our expectations and conditions are.
So if you as the officers feel actually you need to, when the plans come through,
that there's things you're not 100 % happy with, we would as a committee be of support the fact of
if you think actually the plan that comes through isn't exactly as you expected it to
and you need additional pieces to come through or to be added,
then I'm happy as chairman to be advised and then work
with the officers to make sure that we have the exemplary,
the detail in the plan matches what the conditions you're
expecting, if that makes sense.
For example, if the condition says submit prior
to commencement, submit dust management plan for approval,
that's submitted.
That's a technical thing.
We would consult the environmental health team
on that and maybe the public health officer as well.
And obviously if they were telling us it wasn't
satisfactory, we'd go back to the applicant, as you've said,
and say more was required.
Councillor Moore.
Thank you, Chairman.
I would like to suggest a condition again regarding the
Cllr David Moore - 3:41:30
all report and the afternoon of these mineral works
for the commends until there is a monitoring plan in conjunction
with the LFFA, the Environment Agency,
and the local planning authority,
which includes water monitoring, phase monitoring,
extraction, sediment controls, because again,
I cannot stress enough that Chawthury
are incredibly sensitive rivers.
And the existing report, I don't see a reinforced
condition that will monitor the water quality, the levels,
and I'm just suggesting perhaps whether there's scope
We can have a condition for an audible invitation monitoring plan
We're joined up thinking with the Environment Agency and the local planning Authority the flood Authority, etc
Well, I mean also if the committee considers that's necessary in addition to the conditions already set out to make the gender acceptable
And obviously it's open to you to have such a condition
I mean obviously any condition if it requires a submission
David Periam - Planning Lead Officer - 3:42:34
The legal position is that's for the planning authority the council to determine so as I've said
if it was a water environment type condition,
we would then consult with the LFA environment agency
as appropriate.
If they're obviously content with that
and if that joined up thinking, then I
think it would be prudent, Chairman.
Cllr David Moore - 3:42:57
Chairman, there is a condition requiring a 10 metre buffer
zone along the water course.
That's condition 36.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:43:11
And that has got a lot of details there for regarding planting scheme and obviously for
protection of the water course.
Does it cover water monitoring and invasive species?
Well it says details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development
and managed over a five year period following completion of the development.
So yes I would say that it does seek to protect that water course and a ten metre buffer zone
is obviously quite substantial.
The buffer zones are welcome.
I think they're actually been introduced
across the county as a policy on short -streams,
Cllr David Moore - 3:43:45
but I'm talking about a long -term monitoring condition.
That's very robust in wording.
So the officers just explained
it's a five -year monitoring post -completion.
There's a five -year monitoring piece post -completion.
But again, I think back to our earlier point,
if when these are all submitted
and then the officers are unhappy,
I'm happy to work with the officers to make sure that what our expectations are are actually delivered.
So yes, they're making sure that the conditions that we've set out are actually then adhered to.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:44:16
Because again, if they breach the condition by not doing the monitoring they're supposed to do,
then they are in breach and therefore we can then, in effect, make the applicants deal with that ASAP.
It's a polite version.
Right, so Councillor Turner.
In fact, just going back to what Councillor Moore was saying, I think the difficulty
Cllr Mark Turner - 3:44:40
of testing is one thing, and it's the action after testing if there is anything going on.
There is the River Colne Catchment Action Network who I think already do testing
in various of the chalk streams already.
But I don't know whether they would, it's a question of,
it's all very well doing testing, it's a question of what action you're going to take if there is any pollution found
and ascertaining where it's come from because I think there are other things that go into those chalk streams as well.
Quite difficult to monitor.
I was just going to say that obviously we as a local planning authority can be looking at the relevant conditions
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 3:45:26
but there are controls through other environmental acts that would also be capable of being enacted
in order to overcome the concerns that you've got in the longer term.
Okay, so that...
Okay, so we've...
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:45:49
So you don't have a purpose?
No we do. We have a proposal from Councillor Munger to approve for the approval.
And a seconder from Councillor Phealy, yes. Seconded again for this application.
Can we say in this section?
Yes. So relation to application, second application, CM00036 forward slash 21,
land adjacent to M25 between Junksons 15 and 16, Buckinghamshire,
of the common value minerals application, I have a formal
proposal from Councillor Munger indicating for me that,
and a formal seconder for Approval Councillor Feeley there.
So I just want to make sure it's done all correctly and legally.
Okay, thank you.
Right. We've now debated each application, therefore now,
obviously I've voted for proposing a secondary
of each of the applications.
I theoretically would ask the officers for any further advice, but I think we've had
that advice go forward. I think we're now content with the feeling of the committee,
the requirements of the committee, in terms of informatives and or conditions and or the
letter's got to go to the relevant parties. We will now take the votes and then this will
with each application in turn, adjourn for the voting and then adjourn and then do the second one.
So we'll vote on the first application, take the vote and then go to the second application to take a vote.
OK, so, Councillor Munger is proposing on the first application PL20 forward slash 43320A,

4 PL/20/4332/OA - Land to the North of A4007, Slough Road, (Between Junctions 15 and 16 of The M25), Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

Land adjacent to the north of the A4007 Slough Road between junction 15 and 16 of the N25 Iverheath.
So that's Councillor Munger and then that's Councillor Peeley.
Opposing the officer's recommendation.
Opposing the officer's recommendation for approval.
So I now need to go then to speak, please.
And I have all members voting in favour of the offer recommendation, please raise your hands.
That's not gone, is it?
So eight.
Eight, okay.
Nine then, chairman, including you.
Okay, and then those against, okay, and any abstentions?
And one abstention?
Okay, that's the first application.
We then move on to the second application which is CM003621 Land Adjacent to the M25

5 CM/0036/21 - Land Adjacent to M25 Between Junctions 15 & 16, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

to Injunction 15 and 16 Iver Heath. This is the Colm Valley Minerals application. Again
I have Councillor Munger proposing and Councillor Pheley seconding. So therefore I have all
members vote in favour of the officers recommendation for approval. Please raise your hands.
8, 10.
Councillor Smith.
So you...
Councillor Smith are you voting in favour?
In favour, sorry.
Yes, okay right. You're just a bit behind there, sorry.
We've done the round and it's like, okay right, yes.
Okay, therefore that's an 8 and therefore those...
Chairman including Councillor Smith, it's 9 including Councillor Smith.
Oh sorry, 9 including Councillor Smith, sorry.
Okay, 9 including Councillor Smith.
Those against? No. And then those abstaining?
One.
Therefore, application PL243320A land north of A4007 Slough Road to junction 15 and 16
Ivor Heath for the Motorway Service Area has been approved.
And then application CM003621, land adjacent to M25
between junction 15 and 16 Ivor Heath,
corn valley minerals again has been approved.
Now this would normally go into item six,
but I think on the basis we're now at 2 o 'clock.
We've been at this for four hours.
I think we would probably want to have some sort of break
for refreshment and or food and or whatever it is.
I know the public and some of these people have been waiting a long time, but I think
for me, I think a sort of half hour break would be enough time to come for and or food.
And there's food available in the members lounge apparently.
Okay, right.
For the committee itself, yeah.
Okay, so thank everyone for their forbearance and participation for this part.
There's one more application to come after lunch and we'll reconvene back out to 230.

5 CM/0036/21 - Land Adjacent to M25 Between Junctions 15 & 16, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:51:11
okay, thank you.

6 PL/22/1411/OA - Land Between Junctions 16 and 17 Of The M25, Near Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire

strategic size committee on Thursday 30th of July that started 10 o 'clock this morning.
We've now determined both application PL243320A and north of A4007.
And then obviously there was second application CM 036.
Ward 21.
And that was the, so the first one was the motorway service area application.
Second one was the, the common value mirror application.
So they've now been dealt with on their own merits.
So therefore we now look at moving to agenda item six, which is application PL forward
slash 22 forward slash 1411 forward slash 08, which is the land between junction 16
and 17 of the M25 near Chalfont St Peter and Buckinghamshire.
Remind this application will be heard via the same process before but this time straight through with no adjournment between sections because it's one application not two.
So could I ask the public speakers please respond by calling your name to indicate you're in attendance and then please ensure your verbal representations to the committee relate to the relevant planning considerations.
Regarding the planning application being considered that doesn't include any personal comments.
Public speakers will be called to speak in turn and after the members have asked points of clarification they can return to their seat.
I'm aware that there are other council meetings going on this afternoon so I'm aware that some councils will have to leave the chamber to go to attend other formally constituted council meetings in the building.
Okay, so just want to cheque in terms of people who are in attendance.
I've got Councillor Karen Dixon here, great.
I've got Councillor Isabelle Darby, who's here, right.
Councillor Linda Smith, I can see, yes, here.
And I've then got Hazel North as the objector, okay, great.
And then I should have Sebastian Tynum, who is the agent, is here.
Right, okay, great, thank you.
Okay, so I'll now call on the case officer Rachel Marber to introduce the report on the application.
Just so everyone's aware, unfortunately again, so Council Mungo was here for the first two applications,
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 3:54:04
but obviously he has to make a, again, an additional, another council meeting he has to attend,
so therefore he won't be here for the third application, but he gives his apologies for this application,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:54:16
but unfortunately, as we know with all our councillors, we have multiple hats and multiple roles
and multiple committees we sit on and unfortunately he's in a different committee.
Okay, right.
So over to you Rachel if you'd like to present the report on this application.
Thank you chair.
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 3:54:33
Before I start I have some updates to give further to you on the update sheet.
So the first one is paragraph 11 .48 of the report with reference to woodland management.
This would not be secured through the Section 106 agreement.
However, replacement planting will remain secured and protected by condition.
Secondly, update to paragraph 22 .14 of the report where the gaps shown are correct.
But please disregard the table six numbers, they do not correspond to that paragraph.
Thirdly, there's update to affinity water and EA conditions and
have been set out in Appendix F, which is the draught condition
list.
And then fourth is the Colm Valley Regional Park
representation, which will be read out in full later.
So let's start with the presentation.
The application is an outline planning commission
for all matters reserved except for access
for the construction of a new motorway service area
between junctions 16 and 17 of the M25.
The application is being called to committee
by the two ward members, and it's also been referred back
since what was last heard in September 2023,
just because of the passage of time
and change in policy considerations.
So showing the application site outlined in red here,
you can see that the application parcel
straggles either side of the M25.
To the west we have Chalfont St. Peter,
which is just located off the map here,
and Denham Lane running along there.
To the east we've got HS2 Chilterns Tunnel
in construction, showing here.
And beyond that we've got the West Hyde and Harefield.
To the north of the site is Maple Cross.
cross and the Free Rivers district boundary runs along this red outline here.
In terms of adjacent uses we have the Orchard's Traveller's site just located here to the
north of the site.
We've also got various quarrying activity located south of the site.
In terms of planning constraints the site is designated Greenbelt but considered Greatbelt
as set out within the report.
And there's ancient woodland just showing off the map here
to the south of the site to ancient woodlands.
So this is a photo of the site from the M25
in May this year identification through the trees
which we retained here.
And you can see that it's being used for HS2.
It was mineral stockpiling.
They're just using it for water retention at the moment
which is what you can see from this picture.
But for planning assessment purposes,
we're considering the original state of the land,
and this is a picture of the land pre -HS2,
also from the N25.
This was dating October 2018,
just to show the site contours,
how it's characteristic of the landscape character area
in the terms of the Dry Valley and the slopes,
and also the agricultural use.
So this is the HS2 land restoration plan,
once HS2 is being put in place.
So the application site before us today is just shown here
in brown, which is actually saying restored agricultural use.
Just to provide a bit more site context,
so these photos from within the site itself.
This is looking, the blue arrow shows the general direction this picture is looking at.
It's looking towards the retained tree, which you can see here at the centre of the site.
And you can see the M25 just runs in the background
on a slightly higher elevation behind the pylons of this picture.
Again, so it's important to say that this site, this is the site now.
It's been restored to its natural pre -HS2 works contours.
It's just waiting cultivation. So the restoration is mostly underway now
Again, so this is showing kind of the existing contours of the land
And how it kind of steep well, it's got more of an incline towards the motorway
And I think this picture this is from the very south of the site looking up
North and you can see that the m25 is actually a higher level
And runs directly along side the site there
And again, this is looking down towards east of the site
where there's probably more visual prominence
of the development proposal
and that's looking towards West Hyde and Harefield.
So this is showing the existing public rights
of way network which surrounds the site.
And then alongside it I've included the HS2 rights
of Way plan just to show how that will fit in to the surrounding landscape in terms of
public accessibility in the surrounding area.
So you can see that the rights of way will link into a realigned right of way that links
into Denham Way.
HSU is going to introduce permissive paths which are shown in yellow.
So linking to the visibility of the site, I've included here the zone of theoretical
visibility submitted with the application, which shows the visual extent of the development
in the local area.
So you can see that the views achieved in the development are very much to the west
and to the north, and the child films in PETA actually can't see very much the development
at all, and that's to the west.
So taking you to some of these viewpoints where you can see the views will be worse.
The first one is viewpoint three, so that's standing all the way here in kind of the furthest
distance and hair field.
You can see you look across the valleys into the site.
So these are taken from the landscape, the applicant's landscape visual impact assessment.
So that's the existing view and you can see that you would look over the motorway service
area as shown in the location.
This is a view to the very south of the site and you're looking into the site so you can
see the HS2 fencing here and here you're sitting at a much lower level than the application
site.
And then here's the view from Czolpfent St. Peter's footpath where the majority of the
MSA buildings will be located on the other side of the motorway service area.
On this side you have the slip roads and access bridge, which you can see.
And then the buildings will sit behind the motorway,
as you can see running along there.
And then this is a view from West High Lane.
And again, the motorway service area will sit behind this landform here.
And again, a view from Maple Cross.
It's the right -of -way coming out from Aprilcross looking towards the site and you can see the motorway service area sits below the existing landform
again
So as this is an outline scheme
What's being established is the principle of development? So in order to guide the principal development a perimeter plan has been submitted
And this establishes the building zone so you can see the building zone for the facilities building
parking, HUV parking, and the fuel filling station.
And you can also see the establishment
of landscaping treatment as well.
This plan also shows the connexion
from the public right of way running to the east
of the site for staff utilising the site
to behind the facilities building.
And this plan also establishes the square metre footprint
of the built form as well as the height as well.
So then the full detail which we are considering as part of this application is about access.
So this is the access arrangement plan.
And this is showing that access to the site will take the form of slip roads on and off
the M25 in both directions, travelling via a roundabout arrangement and then via an overbridge
to get to the facilities within the site with the fuel filling located first point.
when you enter the site.
It's important to note here that this is all detailed
except for the design of the overbridge.
So then just showing indicative drawings
of the buildings themselves.
These are indicative to come forward
at reserve matters stage.
But what has been secured is the general form,
materials and design and the design principle statements
met with the application also the design access statement
which has been secured by condition.
And the green reef which you can see has also been secured
as part of biodiversity net gain.
You can see the building follows the size
established in the perimeter plan
and it also follows the height which is 9 .5 metres high.
It follows through to a similar design for the fuel filling station.
We've got a maximum height here of seven metres high, shown there.
So pulling that all together in an illustrative master plan, you can see the fixed details
of the access and then moving on to the zones of the facility building surrounded by the
car park, HGB parking, and then the fuel filling station as well.
So I've put here a cut and fill plan.
There's gonna be some earthworks required to put the development in the site.
And the idea behind this is to create a platform so
the buildings that are lower level within the site.
And then landscaping sits at high level to surround the buildings to try and
create a screen and a buffer to minimise visual harm.
So this plan is showing that at the lowest depth the site will be cut to 10 metres.
At the highest depth, the landscape ones, they will be about 14, well it says 14 .47 here
and then the landscaping will sit above that.
So just to put the earthworks into context, these are some, again, illustrative internal sections.
So this one is taking you through the site here so you can see the M25 here with the
access road to the west, the west of the site, and then the eastern parcel with the buildings
and you can see the landscaping sitting above the bund and the building set down slightly.
And then this is again showing how it works with a section through the entirety of the
So you've got the M25 there.
As Graham touched upon in his presentation,
the MSA facilitates the knees along the M25 in terms of gaps
in excess of 28 miles.
And so this plan is showing the other MSAs in locality,
and then the applications site in purple,
and welcome break which was just considered in pink.
And this is set out in the report
but the child consent PETA MSA will close 19 gaps
of which five would not be closed
with the welcome break MSA.
And that just demonstrates that there is a need
for the development along the network.
So on balance, the application is recommended for approval.
Thank you.
Thank you Rachel. We'll now hear from the ward member, Councillor Karen Dixon.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:07:12
If you'd please come to the public speaking table.
And then once you begin, you'll have three minutes of speaking time.
I can speak to you after you've had two and a half minutes.
It's over to you, Councillor Dixon.
Dear Chairman, members of the committee and members of the public watching at home.
Public Speakers - 4:07:35
On behalf of the CSB residents in the parish council, I strongly object to the proposed motorway service station between Junction 16 and 17.
Why? Because a major commercial complex with a filling station, extensive parking for cars, coaches and heavy goods vehicles
and 24 -hour lighting and noise will permanently and irreversibly damage the landscape, the tranquilly, the biodiversity
and the character of these parts of Buckinghamshire.
A major 24 -hour commercial development in open countryside, replacing agricultural land
with extensive hard -standing fuel facilities with service yards and slip roads will permanently
open 90 acres of CSP's grand landscape in direct conflict with the National Planning
Policy Framework and it will blight the lives of thousands of our residents with associated
noise and light pollution.
This is not a small rural development.
A central issue running through the application seems to be the designation of grey belt that
has raised a number of questions from councillors here today.
The NPPF definition of grey belt specifically excludes lands which is identified in footnote
7, providing a strong reason for refusal or restricting development.
The NPPF guidance is clear that identifying land as grey belt alone does not mean it should
be developed, other environmental constraints and planning harms must also be considered.
And in this case, most obviously, the most important environmental constraint is that
the site lies within the Colne Valley Regional Park, within the metropolitan green belt,
close to ancient woodlands and important recreational routes.
And officers acknowledge the harm this development will do to the landscape, even after mitigation.
Sensible landscaping may soften the impact, but we'll never again be able to recreate the open countryside that would be lost once this huge development is built.
The scheme conflicts with important landscape policies and would result in a permanent loss of versatile agricultural land, and it would reduce emergency landing opportunities associated with Denham Aerodrome.
This application to develop a motorway service station on our green belt has come before
and it keeps being rejected.
The planning officer rejected, Bucks Council and the strategic sites committee objected,
Colne Valley Regional Park objected, HS2, the Children's Society objected, even Thames
Valley Police and the fire department were concerned about safety grounds and Denham
Aerodrome certainly has objected on safety grounds.
In solidarity with these respected groups we believe the harm to the Colne Valley Regional Park and the wider green belt environment far outweighs the claimed benefits.
And we respectfully urge the members to please refuse this application. Thank you.
Thank you Councillor. Two minutes and 51 seconds. Just in time.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:10:28
Okay, so are there any questions of clarification based on the comments that Councillor Dixon has made?
Nope. Oh sorry Councillor Edwards, sorry.
You've mentioned about objecting to the Greybelt designation.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:10:48
Can you clarify which specific reasons that are for your objection to that?
There's the three purposes of the grey belt.
Probably not, Councillor Roberts, not specifically.
There's so much talk about the grey belts at the moment and about what identification is fitting and where.
Public Speakers - 4:11:12
That falls very much on the planning offices and on the committee members to decide whether it passed the test or doesn't pass the test.
We just are looking at it visually on behalf of the residents. I think they sing it visually they sing the size of it
And so yeah
The impact is more emotional I suppose then specifically
Okay
Thank you, that's a very good question
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:11:34
Okay, so any other questions for council
She needs to get to it's within the council
But as we know, we may have many hats as councillors.
Okay, right, okay.
So we're now here from the board member, Councillor Isbell -Darby.
If again you please come to the public speaking table.
And once again, when you begin, you'll have three minutes of speaking time.
I'll quote from the previous reasons for refusal.
Public Speakers - 4:12:19
Development is of a scale and nature on an open green field site which would represent
an obtusion into open countryside, fundamentally altering its character and appearance.
In short, a blot on the landscape and this has not changed.
You'll have seen the HS2 activity when you visited and also on the slides today,
but please imagine the end of these works with remediated landscape.
There's two main themes to what I want to talk to you about today.
One is subjectivity and the other is cumulative impact.
We're here because of Greybelt, the assessment of which we've already heard is an officer
judgement that I believe you said earlier this morning.
The supplementary report acknowledges the publication of the draught local plan, immediately
dismissing its relevance due to the early stages of the process.
So much work has already gone into this and members know that.
There is no planned development in the local plan on Greenbelt or indeed on Greybelt and
I draw your attention to site 293 in the HeLa.
This site, which is the site we're talking about,
is assessed as unsuitable.
The report acknowledges the site proximity to ancient woodland,
its risk to aviation safety, and the loss
of BMV agricultural land.
All of these factors have been given a subjective assessment
of having limited harm in weighing up the pros
and cons of the proposal.
I don't agree.
Turning now to paragraph 19 .7 of the report on flooding,
which acknowledges that flooding in Chowthorn St. Peter Village
Centre occurred in March 2014 and September 2019
due to overflowing sewers.
It makes no mention of the most recent and most damaging event
in early 2024, when the village centre was closed
for more than four months.
There are significant new developments planned, including the huge epilepsy society site,
which has just been given permission by the Secretary of State and on appeal, both in
Bucks and neighbouring Hertfordshire, which will feed into the same sewage system.
More recently, Thames Water are now commenting on applications stating upgrades will be required
to the system to take additional demand.
And this facility currently struggles and frequently discharges into the River Colne.
The main reason why people use the motorway service area is for toilet breaks, which I
think you alluded to earlier, sir, which inevitably increase the discharge of waste water.
This beautiful area has suffered enough damage already from HS2 and now further with the
recent successful Epilepsy Society appeal decision for 975 homes, care homeschool, retail,
et cetera.
Enough is enough.
I urge this committee to be brave, stand up for our county, and refuse this application.
Thank you.
Thank you Councillor. Three minutes and one second.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:15:25
So I've had some latitude there Councillor. You've got an extra second there to finish your speech.
Okay are there any points of clarification? Okay I've got a couple of furry hands.
Okay so I'm going to start with Councillor Moore, Councillor Waters and then Councillor Smith.
Thank you Chairman. Thank you Councillor Darby.
You touched on the start of your speech about landscape and visual harm and the report has assessed it as moderate.
Cllr David Moore - 4:15:43
but in your view is it moderate or is it not?
What's your view on that?
Whilst we're told it's on the outskirts
of Chalfonts and Peter,
I can tell you that I know a lot of people
Public Speakers - 4:15:57
who prior to that land being fenced off for HS2 works,
that they walked there.
My husband used to go there and take beautiful photographs.
In fact, I used one of the photographs
as a Christmas card one year.
It is a stunning landscape.
You are looking right across.
You feel you're really out in the open air away from everything. It's lovely to be able to walk walk out
It's good for people's mental health to be out there and just take in nature. So I think it's better than that
Over to cancer waters
Thank You council Dobby you talked about
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:16:35
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:16:37
The sewage issues in Chelsea on some Peter and I'm fully aware of those
and that's
Just in terms of this site, do we know whether that would go into the same system in Chalfont -sur -Pitre
or would it be heading somewhere else?
Because I'm not being an expert of that sewage system, you might have a good idea.
I have detailed knowledge of the sewage system and where everything goes.
So Chalfont -sur -Pitre itself is in the Misborne Valley catchment area.
Public Speakers - 4:17:08
So all the sewage from Chesham, Anshum, Great Missenden comes down the Misborne Valley
to the lowest point in Chalfont St Peter where unfortunately
with monotonous regularity it appears to bubble up.
Although there have been some mitigations,
it is still a pinch point.
It then goes just further along to, I don't know
if you're familiar with the golf course in Chalfont St Peter,
and then it goes into a very, very old, very,
very deep sewer built in I believe the 1930s which takes it
under the hill to West Hyde, to where this is basically.
And then it goes along to Maple Lodge sewage treatment works,
which are along the A412.
So whilst the wastewater from this
won't actually come to Chalfont St. Peter,
it will be going into the same sewage treatment
works at Maple Lodge, along with the sewage from all the new developments which are planned.
So the Epilepsy Society one, it will go into Chuffin, St Peter and then along to Maple
Lodge.
And all the new ones in Hertfordshire, and there's a number of them and I know exactly
what Thames Water has said about a lot of them, it will all end up at Maple Lodge.
They are, Thames Water are planning works on Maple Lodge, but that is to reduce the
severity of the discharges into the River Con, so it is not going to be good for the environment.
Thank you. Okay, I've got Councillor Smith followed by Councillor Feeley.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:18:44
Thank you Chairman and thank you Councillor Darby. I'm amazed by your amazing knowledge of the sewage
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:18:52
system, quite envious in a way. But what I wanted to ask about was your reference to
the emerging local plan for Buckinghamshire.
And you mentioned that this area was specifically
not seen as appropriate for development,
as I remember you saying, I think.
So I'm still, I've had it explained to me lots of times,
and I've read it a number of occasions,
but I'm still a little bit unsure about the subjectivity
around green belt and grey belt assessments.
I wonder if you can say a little bit more
about what your understanding of,
about why this wasn't considered appropriate for housing,
but is now considered appropriate
for a major commercial development.
Well, I think that would potentially be a question
for the officers and not for myself.
I mean, what I would say is that if we took every piece
Public Speakers - 4:19:50
of land that has been designated grey belt
in the whole of Buckinghamshire and built on it,
Well, wouldn't we have an awful lot of houses?
And the planning policy officers have
been working incredibly hard on our local plan
to come up with something which satisfies the housing
numbers and the employment land.
So this is employment land, but it
satisfies the housing and employment land numbers
without taking sites like this out of the green or potentially
grey belt. I'm afraid I treat the name grey belt
with a little bit of a pinch of salt
Because it just seems a convenient way of removing land from the green belt which we all hold so dear and precious
Okay, Councillor feeling
Thank you chairman and council Toby. I just wondering did the
HS2
construction site there put a
Cllr Andy Huxley - 4:20:42
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:20:44
Pressure on your sewage system or your water systems
Yes, it did and
there was a pipe above ground, literally pipes joined together alongside the A412 at one stage.
Okay.
Thank you.
Don't see any other hands for clarification.
So thank you Councillor Darby.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:21:09
You can now return to your seats.
And I'll then call on, we're now here from Councillor Linda Smith.
and from the parish council.
And again, once you come to the table, you'll obviously again have three minutes in which to...
or speaking time.
Good afternoon everybody. Many of us here today have been here before.
Public Speakers - 4:21:58
I'm reading through the papers again. It would appear to me that the only change to the previous refusals is the question as to whether this land is now grey -belt.
We will all now have parcels of land where developers will come forward and argue the change to enable development.
This area is not just Greenbelt, it is Metropolitan Greenbelt, set up as a buffer around the outskirts
of London and our open countryside in 1938.
Chalfont St Peter is the gateway to the Chilterns countryside and its greenbelt is essential
to maintain this barrier.
In this area it is the boundary between Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire and Three Rivers District
Council.
It is there to prevent urban sprawl and the merging of towns and villages and to keep
land permanently open.
This is open countryside with agricultural land and haven for wildlife.
This will be a huge structure in this landscape with noise, traffic, movements and lighting
open 24 -7 all year round.
Page 19 and 20 of the officer's report outline the reasons for planning inspectors'
refusal on appeals which are still relevant today.
This is not Graybelt.
The healer recognises this.
Under site 293 promoted for use as an MSA, it says there are no exceptional circumstances
to demonstrate the release of this site from the Greenbelt.
and this is dated 6, it's got a date of 6 September 26, so it's current.
We should be fighting to retain our green belt.
Buckinghamshire Council values it and it is important to our residents
and any changes should be considered very carefully.
The parish council is very conscious that this is still part very much of the Metropolitan Green Belt
and it does serve the purposes in safeguarding the countryside,
checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing neighbouring towns from merging.
It is a judgement call made by the officers
and our judgement is that they are wrong.
We shouldn't be surrendering our greenbelt land.
Chalfont St Peter does have a neighbourhood plan adopted in 2016.
The officer refers to this in their report on page 93
under economic benefits, quoting policy PW11 as support for economic growth.
But the second paragraph, however, has not been added, and this says,
new employment in rural areas can have a significant impact on the appearance of the open countryside in Greenbelt.
It is important, therefore, that any proposals...
That's your time.
Sorry, three minutes and six seconds.
So, I can read more latitude than I did to cancel it early.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:25:08
Open to questions or clarification.
Have we got any questions or clarification?
No, okay.
So thank you for your time.
Once we turn to your seat, we'll then move on to...
Oh, you just turn the microphone off.
Sorry, thank you.
And then we'll turn to,
we're now here from Hazel North,
who's speaking in objection to the application.
So again, come to the table.
And again, you'll have three minutes of speaking time.
Good afternoon.
I'm speaking on behalf of an organisation
Public Speakers - 4:25:52
sent for Ciao Forks St. Peter,
a local action group with over a thousand members
formed in Chalfont St Peter in 2005 to facilitate neighbourhood comments
on large applications that are going to impact us.
And obviously this one is key.
Also in 2021 I represented as a Councillor the Parish of the Planning and Inspectorial Appeals for this site.
So I do know him quite well.
And I was also involved as a contributor to the
Chalfont and Peter neighbourhood plan,
first registered in Buckinghamshire,
and it's still applicable.
Linda has covered the fact that this area is still
Greenbelt.
The proposed MSA development area is part of the HS2
tunnel site, which wasn't in the original
documentation that we received, though you've mentioned it today.
It's part of that construction site and strict enforceable conditions through planning were
imposed on HS2, as they do for every site, to reinstate that site to a certain level.
This work is well underway and part of it is that from where the tunnel comes out, there
There is actually a part that goes above it and then it goes on into the agricultural
site which I'm not sure you've seen.
So the local expectation is that is what we will have at the end of the day, not on the
measure of surface area.
So they're well underway in terms of stating the flight and this includes returning the
that is going to potentially be the MSA to arable land.
I visited the area recently
and the work is very near completion
and in fact some of you have seen pictures of that.
A line, our local consortium for HS2
has consistently delivered above expectations
with other remediable work achieved very successfully
such as regenerating the landscape from our vent down to the 413.
They've got a good record for this, so I find it hard to accept some of the comments
that are in the report about them not producing good quality arable land.
And I don't understand how this land can be described as it is frequently as previously
developed land when it is being restored to its original state.
Another point I would like to make is that if you actually approve this, it potentially
means that we've set a precedent for other sites to enable them to override this work
I'm afraid you've had your time.
You're now at three minutes 10,
so I've been very, very generous at this point.
So we'll then go on to questions for clarification,
if there are any.
Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:29:11
Thank you for that presentation.
I'm still struggling with the green belt and grey belt,
and this is clearly a belt and it's green
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:29:21
and it divides the outskirts of London, essentially,
with the first settlement in Buckinghamshire, essentially.
But we've heard quite clearly from officers that if it's designated, we need some additional
evidence to be able to challenge that designation.
I was listening to see if there was anything that you were going to go on to say that would
provide that evidence for that different way of understanding the designation of this piece
of land.
Well, as I say, it gets very confusing for the public because it keeps being divided
up in lots of different ways.
Public Speakers - 4:29:58
We saw it as a complete part that HS2 had responsibility for,
which is all green belt.
And as far as we were concerned, that is how it would stay.
And as I say, if you remove that,
then that's setting a precedent for a lot
of other developments, isn't it, along the line.
Does that make it any clearer?
Yes, yes, thank you.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:30:30
And the other point that I was going to ideally mention, which may or may not help is that
Sorry?
Public Speakers - 4:30:32
We can only clarify what you physically said so far.
We can't bring in additional information, unfortunately.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:30:38
I was very generous in laying three minutes, 10 seconds, when I only allowed Councillor
Darwin three minutes and one second, so therefore you had longer than she did.
So of course you can't bring any more, any different information in, it has to be based
and whatever the statement you physically have made,
because we had to be fair and equitable to all parties,
because say I had 10 minutes, then again,
the applicant would then have 10 minutes, if you see what I mean.
So can't bring any new information in.
Okay, so I don't see any other, so how's the feeling?
You've got a question.
Great, Chairman, thank you.
So this land was used previously by HS2?
Sorry?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:31:17
This land, or some of it, was used previously by HS2?
Correct.
Did it cover the whole of that area by the side of the motorway?
It covers the whole of this area and the other side of the M25 as well.
Okay.
So it could be classified as previously developed.
Previously?
Public Speakers - 4:31:34
Previously developed land.
Sorry, I still didn't catch it.
Previously?
It therefore could be said that it's previously developed land because HS2 were there because
they had their own where they were constructed some of the work for the tunnel weren't they?
I don't understand why it's called previously developed land. A lot of it is like where
this site is was actually used to store land, store soil and all that sort of thing while
they were doing the works. There wasn't any buildings on this area and there's no roads
into this area that we're talking about at all. Never has been.
true but in fact there was construction of the panels for the tunnel there
wasn't there? It was part of the site yes but it's a part of the site that was
used for soil storage. Okay yeah I'll pick that up later yeah thank you.
Just for public's awareness we did physically go onto the HS2 site and then we also
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:32:40
had additional so we stood right at the top of the hill with the original
bus and then the site manager then took us around the whole of what would be
motorway service area so we did get to see the whole of the site again is
within the HS2 plan if that makes sense so the site visibility members did
get the opportunities to go and have that detailed. I know myself and
Katamore did, we have the additional ability to go in the 4x4
around the whole site to actually see where the physical motorway service area
would be physically located within that HS2 site.
So just give clarity to the members of the public.
We did get to do that detailed site visit
in addition to understand exactly where we are today.
Okay, so just so, but the reason I think,
because I think you've already been to the site three times
I remember right, to Council Peely previously.
You've done three site visits and that was our first.
So we will continue, Council Turner.
Thank you, Chairman.
Can I just ask, did you mention
that this was due to be restored?
It is being restored.
It is being restored.
It's well underway which is sort of what these...
Cllr Mark Turner - 4:33:42
It's effectively being returned to Greenbelt.
It is well underway.
And that's the whole site that's being used.
And it is due to be completed this year.
And as I say they've got a park that they're developing as well a bit further along.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:34:03
I think between myself and Rachel the officer I think we did send on the presentation
presentation we did show some current live photographs of what it looked like as of today.
So she shows pre, during, now post.
So those photographs you see on the presentation, I included our visit earlier this week as
well.
So that did include where, it's that restoration that you saw where the field and the trees,
that's it, in effect restored in effect.
But it hasn't been seeded and turfed and whatever, right?
So but that that you see like that, that's what, as of today, that's what it looks like
Day that's post the HS to work, but it is all still within that HS to curtilage
So hence why council he was asking that question
No other points of clarification, thank you for your time Hazel
Moving on to oh yes. I now have to see now talk
Public Speakers - 4:34:55
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:34:56
Harry to read out the statement from the oh
yes, sorry the
readout the
statements, again, the latest statements,
came late last night that we only got literally during the
first application from the Colm Valley Park.
And that's their written statement.
Again, as we said previously,
because they're written statement we can't have,
once a clarification because it's just a written statement.
And I've had to do the same
with all the previous written statements I had today as well.
Over to you, Harry.
Yeah, three minutes.
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 4:35:32
This application has a huge impact on the CVRP, including lots of agricultural land,
impacts on rights of way and will be visible from across the valley and additional lighting
will make it even more prominent, detrimental to both the landscape, long range views and
biodiversity of the regional park. Opportunities for mitigation to preserve and enhance this
part of the CVRP are not being taken. This application is part of the cumulative impact
of many large proposals all considered in isolation
without a master plan,
which now threaten the very existence of the park.
These include the following projects
very close to this site.
975 houses at Chalfont St. Peter,
High Speed 2 Children's Tunnel Portal,
and Colvally Viaduct.
Multiple housing proposals just over the county boundary
in Maple Cross, Hertfordshire.
We urge the committee to refuse the application
for the reasons given in our responses
to the planning application.
The draught 106 document contains very little to address the enormous impact on the CVRP except for BNG and two cycleway proposals.
If the Council approves this plan, then we believe the committee must insist on significant commensurate section 106 for green infrastructure improvement in the part of the CVRP immediately next to the site with a maximum of 1 kilometre.
This is in line with the CVRP policy in the draught Buckinghamshire plan.
It's pertinent to note the following from the Minister.
The Government recognises the vital role that the Colm Valley Regional Park plays in providing access to the countryside for millions of people who live in proximity.
Its importance for biodiversity.
I share the desire to ensure it's protected for current and future generations.
That's from the Right Honourable Matthew Pennycook, Minister for Planning and Housing.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:37:20
Thank you Harry. So that was all the speakers in relation to the ward members, parish council and objectors.
We will now hear from Sebastian Tybham, the agent for the applicants.
Again if you would like to come to the table with any of his relevant colleagues.
And if he could introduce his colleagues as well, that would be fantastic for the members
of the public who are watching.
Again, once you're ready, you'll have three minutes of speaking time.
If you could just introduce your colleague, the lady next to you.
I'm joined by Mrs Sarah D 'Auncy, who's assisted us on the Environmental Impact Assessment
for the App Protection.
Public Speakers - 4:37:58
Okay, so once you're ready, you'll have three minutes of speaking time.
Good afternoon, members.
We support your officer's recommendation to approve the application subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement, which has been provisionally agreed with your legal team
Subject to your endorsement extra ready to bring the development forward without the need for additional Secretary of State approvals
MSA's are there for the safety of all those using the strategic road network for this reason
They represent a critical piece of transport infrastructure that must provide adequate resting and parking facilities
Due to their role, the need test applied to MSAs development by national policy is purposely
very simple and clear.
A gap of more than 28 miles between existing MSAs equals a demonstrable need.
I cannot stress enough that this is a maximum distance.
Only one gap greater than 28 miles is required for there to be a defined need, and national
policy confirms councils need not question the need and public safety benefits where
such gaps exist.
The need here is acute.
The proposal addresses 19 gaps above 28 miles.
Five of these are not addressed by the welcome break scheme.
The officers have therefore robustly confirmed
the need for the extra MSA is afforded
significant positive weights,
regardless of any previous decisions.
We also ask that substantial positive weights
should also be afforded to the provision
of 190 overnight HGV spaces provided by extra.
Government surveys confirm there's an urgent need
for more spaces in the southeast region as a whole.
Only attaching limited weight to this provision
Is therefore entirely at odds with the government's objectives in this regard?
Regarding site specific issues the site is deemed grey belt by your appointed consultants and your officers
The land is already heavily disturbed by HS 2 works
Contains other urbanising features including large electric pylons and is well contained by the motorway and HS 2 line in physical terms
regarding denim airdrones objection
section 21 of the officers report and previous inspectors decisions
confirm the physical characteristics of the application site,
including the pylons, motorways, and topography,
significantly limits its suitability for emergency landings,
and therefore this does not represent a valid reason
for refusing the application.
The proposal is not within a defined flood zone area,
is not within an air quality zone,
retains all veteran trees on site,
and does not impact on any heritage assets.
It delivers 24 to 28 % BNG uplifts,
new habitat areas, landscaping, woodland planting,
sub -basins, energy efficient buildings,
renewable energy solutions, a living green roof,
120 EV charging spaces, and funding to improve
nearby bridleways and cycleways.
Whilst there is a loss of some agricultural land
and some localised landscape harm,
your officers have confirmed that these do not outweigh
the significant benefits of the proposal,
which also include the creation of 674 jobs
in the construction phase and 244 in the operational phase.
On that basis, we politely request
that you support the application
in line with the officer's recommendations.
Thank you.
Thanks, Sebastian, and two minutes 56.
There we go.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:41:05
It's always a challenge to do the three minutes
I could tell you.
Okay, so, we've already seen one hand already,
so points of clarification,
so Councillor Moore, over to you first.
Thank you, Chairman, thank you for your presentation.
My question is, obviously you touched on mitigations.
Given the experience of litter issues at,
Cllr David Moore - 4:41:26
of course your extra, extra Beckonsfield
has been huge issues and I did touch that
on the last application, but specifically
on this application related to your presentation.
What mitigations can you reassure this committee
that you're gonna tackle the issue of ways fly tipping
because at the moment where the site is,
it's on the environs of London.
I appreciate it doesn't have straight access to child forms
But how are you going to actually follow through with a good mitigation plan for litter?
Fly tipping and associated waste problems that come from motorway traffic
Yeah, thank you for your question. I mean, I'm not directly involved in the backens field site
So I don't have any direct knowledge of it other than I do know that site is is a junction
Public Speakers - 4:42:11
motorway service area so that is accessed off the motorway but also off
the local road network as well. So obviously those that can travel to that
side can come from a much wider area should we say in the locality. So I don't
I don't know quite the issues in terms of the littering in that particular location or the
flight shipping. In this particular case we are an online facility so direct
taxis is only available off the motorway so you'll drive on non -slip roads as
on the motorway.
So all users of that will be people making a journey
on the motorway.
We can get extra do, like Work and Break said,
they take pride in their sites.
They will put forward a management plan
to the long -term maintenance of the surrounding landscape
that's within the red line area.
And should that need to include specific provisions
on litter picking, then I'm sure they
don't have an issue with that.
Just to clarify with the officers, there is a condition 38 which includes a site waste
management plan.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:43:18
I think as you said in the previous application, we're working very closely with Apple to make
sure that they do adhere to that and obviously if they didn't then it would be a breach of
planning conditions.
They know if it's a breach of planning condition then technically we can request that they
do not continue to trade.
So hopefully that puts your mind slightly at rest Councillor.
We'll be very clear on that all the way through.
Okay, we'll Councillor Roberts next,
and then Councillor Smith.
Thank you, a couple of points, probably quite quick ones.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:43:48
The first point was, you'll know that we discussed
about the other side, which had previously been approved
and yours not approved.
So given with the Coal Valley site being approved,
What is the residual need?
Extent of the residual need that your site would meet
Yeah, so in terms of an e -case this is set out in the officers
Reports, I mean the principle into explaining very simple terms
Public Speakers - 4:44:23
The principle difference between the two is that our site is north of the junction of the m40
And the welcome break site is south of the junction of the m40
So anybody wanting to travel in the northwest section of the M25 between
Beckonsfield and either South Mims or London Gateway or Toddington, you don't
pass the welcome break site at all and the numbers for that are significant.
We're obviously in a very large area surrounding the Greater London area as
well. M25 and M40 connexions are very significant so we really meet those needs
Because there are gaps of beyond 28 miles between those services. So the gap between
South Mims and Beckons Fields is just over 28 miles the one to London Gateway
I believe is around 32 miles or so
And then the one to Toddington is further still so the gaps that we address that are those ones
Obviously we address other gaps that the welcome break scheme also addresses as well. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for clarifying
The second question was you've highlighted,
and it's highlighted in your information,
it's about the jobs creation.
I was just wondering if you've got any information
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:45:38
about how many of those jobs you would expect
to be locally provided?
It depends how you define local, Councillor Roberts.
I mean, the vast majority will be, yeah.
I mean, we don't have any specific targets
for this particular application,
but we have worked on schemes in the past where there was an employment
Public Speakers - 4:46:02
programme schedule that can be secured through the 106 agreement as well
that seeks to try and facilitate a certain portion of local jobs. Obviously it's a big
authority Buckinghamshire usually they're tied to the local authority area
potentially sometimes to areas where there are potential areas of deprivation
as well, not in the south necessarily where we are today, but I would expect the vast
majority to be from the Buckinghamshire area or immediate neighbouring authorities.
Okay, thank you.
I'm just checking with the officers where that element of the employment piece might
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:46:44
come in, Councillor Roberts.
Sorry, what?
The employment question you've been talking about, I'm just checking with the officers
Where does that come within the report and my understanding is it's part of a 106 agreement that would be fully fleshed out
But I think we could make it very clear that there's an expectation certainly from the committee's point of view that
The preference would be for local employment first. Yeah, sure. Yeah, that is the point that we're getting at is
Okay, so we'll expand within the offices will expand on that in more detail in the technical bits for you
But yeah, so we have picked that point up
Okay, so I've got I think Councillor Smith followed by Councillor Phealy
Thank you chair. Yeah congratulations on the green roof, Seatum roof that's
fantastic. That presumably is to make it look much nicer given that it's in an
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:47:32
exposed and rather you know sensitive part of the of the county. But also
presumably means that there won't be any any renewables on the roof, any solar PV.
Have you considered where else within the site and particularly covering some
of your black tarmac, whether there'll be other opportunities
for solar PV and so that the site can generate some power
as well as use it.
You're correct, they won't be on the roof.
So yes, that green roof is there for landscape considerations
Public Speakers - 4:48:07
to make the scheme look good as well and also help hold water
as well, really.
So in terms of solar, not elsewhere on the site
necessarily.
already know we do understand and respect the landscape setting that we're
within. Now I do understand the certain car parks and if you go abroad you'll
see kind of solas across those areas. It's something that I actually could look at
in the future but it doesn't form part of this planning application. In terms of
renewable energy studies that have been undertaken for this site, ground source
heat pumps seems to be the main obvious one that we will look at in terms of
Providing heat we have explored other we've explored air source heat pumps that doesn't seem particularly realistic in this particular case as well
But certainly the ground sources we can do and then the energy efficient use of the buildings as well
The search basins have also been designed
The majority of them to retain water as well to retain water on the sides
They'll be rather than to dry basins and we also have
Attenuation under the car park for water as well to the drainage system
Yeah.
Councillor Pheebe.
Thank you, Chairman.
We heard earlier about HS2
and they're doing the recovery to the site.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:49:24
Have you had any discussions with them about that?
And clearly I'm thinking of,
if you get a plan of question for this,
what timelines would you be working to
for them to work to their timelines?
Yes, so the applicants are not myself but extra have been in discussion with HS2 for
a long period of time now.
Public Speakers - 4:49:48
So there is ongoing discussions in terms of how they can co -join, should we get approval
obviously, remediate, not remediate, because obviously we've developed it, but in terms
of they've got some existing attenuation ponds on there at the minute that they're
using.
So how we would move those about on the site as part of our construction process so they
can continue to do what they need to do in terms of the operation and
continuation of their scheme. Whilst we also bring forward the development proposal
extra working very closely with HS2 on other sites elsewhere where there's a
similar kind of issues as well so we don't foresee that problem there's a
strong working relationship and we're aligned to bring forward the development proposal should we get
planning permission in conjunction with the timeframes that Align have
suggested that they would be working to as well to finish finish their
particular works as well so we don't foresee that as being an issue. Thank you.
Okay, Councillor Waters. Just a quick one, following on a little bit from one of the other
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:50:50
councillors last we asked questions and raised issues in terms of sewage and
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:50:55
water treatment and things like that on and the pressures that Thames Water have
have you considered that and looked at one, how you could reduce the need for pumping
things into the sewage system or whether that also could cause a delay if they're not able
to cope with your needs?
Well, yes, we have looked at the drainage matters in terms of sewage.
Public Speakers - 4:51:26
So within this in the main facilities building itself the urinals a dry urinal so they don't use water
Obviously the toilets do
in terms of then the capacity at
The local sewage works. I think the point that was made is that it's it's connected on the same system
But we wouldn't run through
Chalfont and Peter chalfons and Peter kind of runs past our connexion as it were into the local sewage work
I've explored Thames Waters plans for that area and they don't identify a capacity issue
with that particular wastewater sewage works facility.
I do understand there are issues elsewhere within the borough, including obviously in
relation to the welcome break site in terms of where they will be pumping to as well,
but it's not an issue, it's not one of the sewage facilities that's at the top of their
radar for emergency kind of capacity issues.
Obviously, as a utility provider, they will have to provide that infrastructure subject
to what the council approved.
They're duty bound to do that.
And we have planning conditions that requires to work with the water boards and United Bend
Thames Water as well.
So.
I think I heard you say that in your statement you were talking about a 24 % bio net diversity
gain.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:52:56
On a previous application we've heard about potentially a 85 % bio net diversity gain.
Have you had discussions with the Common Valley Park about whether you could do any offset
with them to increase your bio net adversity gain,
if that makes sense, by working with them
as a mutual partner potentially,
to actually then increase that,
I'm not saying that's 85%, but just, you know,
it then shows a much more, you know,
collaborative approach across the wider part of the area,
if that makes sense.
I don't believe those direct discussions have taken place.
So yeah, we're between 24 to 28 % BNG uplift.
Public Speakers - 4:53:37
I suppose the comparables to the previous scheme,
that you've referred to.
Obviously they've got a lot of mitigation to do
in terms of the loss of the veteran trees,
which we don't have to do in this particular instance.
We're above the 10 % requirement,
but we will need to inevitably submit
a biodiversity net gain plan
as a conditional end section.
Well, I'm thinking this instance is section 106 requirement
rather than the conditional requirement.
So as part of that plan,
full details need to be fleshed out.
The rebaseline assessment of the site
that will be undertaken at the time as well.
And I've no doubt actually will try and maximise
as far as possible what they can do in that regard.
I would need to take instructions as to whether
we could add in another clause to the 106
that if there was something, I think it couldn't go
any further than applying best endeavours
to maybe work with the Colborne Valley Park
rather than being bound to it.
It's probably as far as I could go today, yeah.
I don't think of any other points of clarification.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:54:42
So thank you and your colleagues for your time.
I want to go back to the,
Yes, questions, those are public questions.
We will now go on to technical questions for the officers.
We'll see if Larry Han's going there for this point.
So we've got Councillor David Moore to start with
and then Councillor Mark Roberts and then we'll work our way around the room.
And then Councillor Felix will work our way around the room.
We've got Councillor Smith, Councillor Turner, right.
So we'll start with Councillor Moore and work our way around the room.
Thank you, Chairman.
As she leads on to Condition 38, thank you for pointing that out.
And I understand it says no development shall commence until a site waste management plan
Cllr David Moore - 4:55:26
and for the construction operation phase of development has been submitted.
But there's no kind of operational condition here.
It doesn't say you have to do daily litter picking
or a certain amount of time for litter picking.
The clearance on like the HTV areas,
because there's always a lot of litter around HTV areas,
as well as the main car parks.
There's nothing about the slip road,
about litter picking around there.
There's a lot of vehicle -worn litter picking.
I'm gonna put a camera up on the slip roads,
AMPR for example.
And we've already heard from the applicant
that they, not to put words in their mouth,
but they implied in response to my question
and that they are open to be looking,
following best practise.
So I'd like to clarify whether there is possibility
to strengthen that wording to be more operationally sound
on that condition to ensure we have top,
you know, coverage of anti -literary.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So the condition covers the entire extent
of the red outlines that includes the sip roads and everything.
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 4:56:34
I mean there is also a security steering group which is secured
about the section 106 agreement which monitors the site for criminal activity
and littering is obviously criminal activity and the monitoring of that is
secured and funded through section 106 so it could be something where that's
expanded further to include just keeping tabs on how much litter is there.
I think if we could expand that, that would be very, very helpful.
Thank you, sir.
Councillor Roberts.
Yeah, I've got a few points.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:57:08
On the subject of, starting on the subject of grey belt assessment, I've understood the
assessments about the contribution to purposes A, B and D.
But in this case, what I wanted to just clarify was whether the
Coal Valley, it being in the Coal Valley Regional Park is a
designation that engages footnote 7 or not.
It's not, no, it's not protected landscape.
Okay, that's fine.
That answers that one.
I am a little confused about the different
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 4:57:42
grey belt assessments.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:57:45
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:57:47
We heard from the speakers earlier about the healer assessment.
So I looked these up here.
We've got, so first of all we've got the green belt assessment areas, assessment areas that
covered both sides of where the motorway is,
OGB44B2 and OGB40B1.
They both assess these sites as grey belt,
grey belt and a provisional grey belt.
What I'm not sure is, is this site part of those parcels
of land or the entirety of those parcels of land?
And secondly, as far as the healer's concerned,
And we've got Opus Reference 293,
where this site was promoted for a motorway service area
in the Gila.
And that was judged to be unsuitable in the Gila.
But it's not clear on what grounds it was judged unsuitable.
So I'm just wondering if you can help clarify those points.
So starting with the Greenbelt assessment, so the site, I think this is what the sensor
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 4:59:19
is implying as well, that the site is split between two parcels of Greenbelt assessment.
One which is,
how do I?
Yeah.
One which covers the buildings and the parking on this side
and the other side which covers the access road.
So in the latest Greenbelt assessment,
the access road parcel is just stated as grey belt.
And this parcel is provisional grey belt
subject to impact on the ancient woodland
which I pointed out further to the staff of the site.
Whereas in my assessment, we found no harm
to that ancient woodland stuff that note seven doesn't engage.
And therefore, the site as a whole is considered grey belt.
In terms of the healer, I'm not actually sure
if the site was recommended or why it was dismissed.
But what I would say is that the local plan is kind of looking
at Bucklewomshire as a comprehensive hall,
whereas we're assessing the speculative application
against the policy framework before us as it comes in.
Okay, it's just confusing because it is the site
and it was promoted for this purpose.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:00:33
Susan, give more further clarification on that point.
Yeah, because it judged unsuitable but not clear why.
Yeah, my recollection was that it was,
that the healer was primarily looking at residential
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:00:48
and employment sites, it wasn't necessarily looking at MSA sites.
And so, the reason why it was dismissed was that it was not in a sustainable
location because of its separation from Child Front St. Peter and
Jerry's Cross.
So this is a very different situation in that this is
a sustainable location to serve the motorway.
because it's right on the motorway and right next door.
So I don't think that HEALER is necessarily the relevant test
for considering whether or not this is suitable
for an MSA development or not.
Okay, thank you.
It's just confusing to see it that way.
And so thank you for the explanation.
I think the public, I think I have an same recollection
as well that the HEALER was only about housing and employment
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:01:46
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:01:48
in the generic sense, not about a motorway service area per se.
So therefore it was about where our most suitable employment sites would be.
So example, Pinewood Studios would be one of our major employment sites, if that makes sense.
So therefore that's what the healer was talking about within the county,
where our most suitable employment sites.
So that would make sense why it makes it look odd, but actually it is correct in terms of the fact it doesn't apply.
The last question I had was about this one about the jobs.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:02:22
So one of the things in this plan is the footpath
and cycleway connexion that would between,
which would be between this site and Chalfonts and Peter.
So I was just interested in seeing how
that might be made use of and to encourage local employment
from Chalfonts and Peter area.
And so if there's a way of picking that up in the agreements, that would be really good.
So the footpath connexion to the site is actually on the eastern part, so it's coming
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:02:59
off, this is a footpath, and it's coming off there and into the site.
So actually its connexion is more kind of east way rather than the shelf on St Peter's,
So it's more Denham Lane.
I thought it crossed the motorway.
No.
The footpath area.
Now we've connected to this right -of -way network
to the east of the site.
So it's this public footpath.
Yeah, but just up at the top.
You can go under the motorway and go into chapel.
It's just the most direct route in terms of sustainable connexions is why Denham.
The point was that there is some connexion there and if that can be made use of sustainable employment, active travel to employment, that would be a good thing.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:04:02
Yeah, so that connexion is being upgraded to a cycleway.
Okay.
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:04:11
I just wondered whether or not at this point
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:04:16
it'd be worth just clarifying that the definition
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:04:24
in the draught section 106 agreement is for local people,
for those whose principal place of residence
is within the area covered by the adopted
Chilton District Council local plan,
or if no such persons can be found,
you meet the relevant criteria of persons
living within the county of Buckinghamshire.
And there's also a definition of local businesses as well,
because there's an overarching strategy
that is looking at businesses recruiting
right from the construction stage all the way through.
Yeah, that's encouraging, thank you.
Okay, moving on to Council of Waters,
because I don't think Council Givner's located, so no count of water.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:05:07
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 5:05:10
Thank you. I'm just going to come back onto the question on the sewage side of things,
because I know in other parts of the county where the sewage companies, water companies,
have problems and I don't know whether obviously we have the applicants saying there's no problems
at, what's it called, Maple Cross Works, but in the north of the county we do have problems.
are there any problems there that we perceive or is the capability able to take whatever comes?
Because there was a difference that came from Councillor Darby in terms of her view and the problems of that particular unit
and whether that would actually be something where we would have to put in some sort of grand peering clause
in terms of they would have to actually deal with that before you actually would be able to put this on site
because that's what we've done with applications in the north
of the county or had to do for housing.
Thank you.
I can't comment on the situation on the ground
in Chalk on St. Peter.
I do understand that it's subject to sewage flooding.
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:06:14
I can only base my assessment on the information in front of me,
which is that Thames Water have not raised objection.
I have seen what you've suggested in the past
with Thames Water suggests some players condition
until they do the infrastructure upgrade,
but that's not what we've got in this instance.
They said there's capacity and they've got no objection.
I picked up, because the issue was raised
in the Epilepsy Society, a pill which was allowed last month,
and the inspector said that Thames Water is responsible
for the sewage network.
They are doing extensive upgrades and improvement
in that area, and they have not raised objection
to the development, and therefore he has concluded
it would not increase the sewage flood risk in the area.
Okay, so there's a level of confidence there and we're not going to be expecting lots of
discharges.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 5:07:04
Yeah, I think here's where the onus is very much on Thames Water and they need to manage
that situation.
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:07:11
I think the fact that there's been a relative and the Epilepsy Centre decision is literally
in the last three months if I remember right.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:07:23
It's a very relevant and very recent inspector decision.
He had took that piece into account at that decision
literally less than three months ago.
So he's obviously queers,
Tim's worked quite heavily on that part already,
if that makes sense, on our behalf.
So it's not just our officers thinking that,
it's the inspectors tested that as well,
therefore we can only take it on that basis.
I think it was just that we need to have a level of comfort
from all the different, and that was useful to hear.
But yeah, I think for us, I would make sure that we are making sure that they do,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 5:07:52
TENT will do then deliver on their promises on the previous application that was given on their Pepsi Centre.
Councillor Feeley, over to you next.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:07:58
Thank you Chairman. I just want some clarity on something.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:08:08
The Secretary of State sent back to us to say that they weren't going to call the application in on the previous application.
There's a little bit that I don't understand and it states down here about the council in its capacity as a landowner is robustly defending the application.
I just needed to understand that because apparently it said they filed an application with the court for permission to bring a judicial review, proceedings, challenge and the reissue of a notice.
So perhaps the officers could clarify, are we a landowner of some of this or not?
I think the reason to bring it to your attention is that it's the applicants for
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:08:56
this application who are looking, who have submitted a claim for
judicial review on the alternative application that you've just considered.
So it was just bringing it to you for information.
The council does not have any interest in this site.
Okay. So the application we got before us, if we refused it,
does the other application stand?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:09:22
I think that's where we started off giving advice
in the first application.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:09:36
Yeah, I know it's probably same one season. It's just I need to understand this that position
Yeah, so we've got an application before us
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:09:42
Which we could agree or refuse if we refuse it the previous application
Which the Secretary of State saw and asked us to consider
stands I
Think it gets confusing in that it depends on what members concerns might be
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:10:03
And if it is looking at disagreeing in terms of the grey belt and the need issue, then
we advised on the first application that you would need to consider deferring all three
for a comparable exercise to be brought forward.
That was not done on the first application.
So, and the advice that we gave is that you need to consider this on its own merits.
The difficulty is that if you are disagreeing with the officer's recommendations, you'd
need to set out quite clearly why and to explain it.
but what it, depending on what you're saying may be the concerns,
that could have implications for the decision that you've just made,
if a comparable exercise has to be taken.
The original application was in the Greenfield site.
This application we're now considering, we're saying is in the Greenfield.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:11:12
We're saying they're both in the Greenbelt and both Greybelt through our assessment.
Okay, thank you.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:11:19
For layman's people and the people watching on the webcast, in simple terms,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:11:26
they were both doing Greenbelt and the assessment now based on National Planning and Policy guidelines,
at least now they both need to be Greybelt, both in motorway service applications in front of us today.
Yes, so they are apples and apples if that makes sense.
It's just a question of location if that makes sense.
Okay, obviously then the relevant topography and the relevant other pieces go with it.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:11:57
Okay, does that finish your questions, Councillor P
given that we now have just approved a motorway service area just a few miles up the road.
Does that have any impact or change to the assessment of need in the report?
So we previously advised that the assessment of need has identified that there is a need for
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:12:36
of both MSAs that the Charles -Font Saint -Peter fulfils a further five gaps that the
Colne Valley MSA does not fulfil. And those gaps are in excess of that maximum 28 miles
set out in the circular one of 22.
So what we are saying is that there is no singular need
for an MSA that both meet the tests of needs
under the circular one of 22.
It's very helpful.
Okay, Kazza Turner.
Thanks, Jen.
I've got a couple of questions.
Cllr Mark Turner - 5:13:30
First thing is about Greenbelt and the Greybelt assessment, which in the first application
24332 there was no reference to the draught local plan.
This one gives reference to the draught local plan in terms of OGB 44B2 and OGB 40B1 plus
the footnote 7.
I'm just wondering, I thought there wasn't much weight for the local plan, therefore
just wondering why it's been mentioned, if that is what we're determining the application
on, on its merits. And the other question I've got, well it's more of an observation,
is that the draught green belt assessment split what was whole bands of green belt into little
parcels, which then makes more grey belt available to be built on, but doesn't really assess
the whole of the belt as a whole, which I find slightly troubling, because what we'll
end up with in truth is that lot of footnote 7, ancient woodland, we will end up having
things built right up to the buffer, which, you know, long term is going to destroy habitats
and so forth, so that's more of an observation. So the question is really, what's the difference
between the green belt in September 2023, which was refused, and now physically, is
it just that we're assessing it in a different way? Essentially yes. So in December 2024
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:15:00
the new MPPF was released and that changed the policy on Greenbelt introduced this greybelt.
So when the application was previously considered greybelt didn't exist. And then since then
the council conducted its own greenbelt assessment which I won't go into the individual breakdown
land parcels but that's helped to inform what land parcels are greenbelt and
grainbelt as a starting point and that's also why that wasn't referred in the
previous assessment because that's 20, well it's this year work. What I did refer to in the
previous report was the old greenbelt assessments which also breaks down the
land parcels in 2016. The site similarly fell under two separate land parcels
But again, in that assessment, even in 2016, it was assessed against all the Greenbelt
purposes, but only performed moderately.
So you have to perform strongly to not be considered grey belt.
So just to confirm then, the reason for refusal last time, even though the actual area is
identical has changed.
Cllr Mark Turner - 5:16:05
And the recommendation now is that it's grey belt and for approval based on that.
And more to that, there's also been a change
in the flood risk approach as well.
So with that revision in the MPPF,
they've removed the need for a sequential test
for surface water flooding.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:16:20
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:16:21
So that harm has also fallen away.
So there are a few other kind of changing of harms
which were previously identified, which no longer exist.
And can I just say that in terms of the
greenbelt assessment, the parcels
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:16:38
in the greenbelt assessment are larger
than the site itself.
So we have looked at that as the starting point
and then looked at the site itself and how it performs
and whether or not it performs strongly
against the purposes that we need to test it against
in the green belt.
So we have looked at it in quite some significant detail
in terms of that performance and whether or not
it meets the strongly test that I previously read out to you.
So, sorry, just going back to the draught Buckinghamshire plan then.
So are we saying that the draught Buckinghamshire plan does carry weight
Cllr Mark Turner - 5:17:15
because it's part of the HELAS and the various other things or?
So the draught local plan we're saying and we have done in both
updates has limited weight.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:17:28
It's now published as a regulation 19 consultation.
The evidence behind it are material considerations and unless we come to a different view on that
evidence it would be very difficult for us to set aside the starting point for considering
it and then obviously the detailed assessment as to whether or not this is grey belt or
not.
I think what we described is once the Secretary of State has approved the draught local plan,
then that might be a different set of circumstances.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:18:06
But as of today, it's only a regulation 19 consultation, isn't it?
So therefore, cannot be taken as a public understanding.
At this stage, the process, although we've articulated and engaged with the public,
we now know what we think the answer to the question is in terms of the whole of the county.
but it's only our draught that we are now consulting again
that will then go to the Secretary of State
and ultimately the Secretary of State and the inspectors
will decide sometime in 2027, 2028, I guess.
Casa Huxley, you can put your hand up.
Thank you, Chairman.
Can I first say these last two applications on MSAs
have been an eye on her in a way.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 5:18:51
Different applications, again, for storage of memory
and things like that.
But I must admit, I'd like to thank the officers who
put in a tremendous amount of work on this one,
on both of them, really.
I've also learned about species of birds,
and I found out what a dulak is, which
I didn't know what was before but for those who didn't cheque it out it's a
sparrow with a different beak, head colour and body markings but the thing I would like to
raise a subject on is item 21 which was I got very confused in reading about
aviation safety which one minute I'm thinking it's one way and then it's
and people deciding that yes you can it is a landing area should a plane get
into trouble and no it's not and I just like something you know explanation is
really where we are with it because if you look at the various sections there
seems to be contradiction all the way through and I just find it very strange
that things would be worded like this
and as to exactly where we do stand on aerodromes,
if you like, I mean, Denham's obviously,
it's just less than a mile away
and down the road, if you like,
and they're concerned that they won't be able
to land places if we, land planes,
if they get into trouble on that piece of land.
Should it be developed? So
You know if you look at the whole
Couple of pages if you like it's I found it quite confusing
Yeah, I apologise I can see that I've got a lot of information before you and I
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:21:04
Was just trying to make clear but essentially dead an aerodrome concerns are the loss of the emergency landing say the open undeveloped build
In response to that, the applicant produced their own aviation safety report which said
that it's not going to be used for emergency landing.
So the Council decided to commission our own to provide kind of an independent review.
And our own aviation report said that they would use it for landing but because of the
nature of the site in terms of the steep topography which I tried to show you the pictures of
the M25, now HS2, and the telephone pylons,
I don't know if you can get a photo up,
but actually negotiating it in a case of an emergency,
you'd have to be very desperate.
So in the end, we've identified some harm
for the loss, but limited because of the constrained
nature of the site.
Thank you.
I think for the committee and the public watching at home,
that's where we put a picture of the site we saw
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:22:04
on our site earlier in the week, as you say,
we looked at that topography of that site,
I think that you would be looking to land anywhere else,
in fact you probably would probably look to land
on the N25 rather than there,
because the topography was such you literally,
when we were in the 4x4, we were literally going up
and down the hill like that, right,
so you wouldn't really want to land there
if you could really help it.
And in fact we worked out actually the N25
was probably the safest place to land probably.
But yes, generally, I think 21 .10 to me
gave the ultimate summary of the SM would be potentially potential limited
harm for emergency landing but ultimately it's not enough to justify
refusal if that makes sense. So that's where I think in 2110 that's how I read
the officer's recommendation in that element.
And just to clarify that this is a matter that was looked at in detail in
the previous appeal and the inspector concluded that the risk was not of a
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:23:01
magnitude that would be sufficient to justify
dismissing the appeal.
So I think that's all the technical questions.
I think Councillor Gibbons has not asked any,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:23:16
so we'll move on now to the general debate.
So whoever wants to indicate to go first up to councillors
but they're into the open debate,
no understanding of the open debate,
will then go to a proposing seconder
and a innovate so council waters you want to go first thank you I'm one of
the two councillors who were here before all this I think some of the things
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 5:23:41
which have changed then we were looking at a site that was in Greenbelt there
was no such thing as grey belt the assessments which we've been through and
we asked on the previous applications in detail to try and get us the point of
why this would now be considered grey belt.
And I know all of us are on any of the committees
in the south, every committee we go on,
as was mentioned earlier by Councillor Roberts,
we know the ins and outs of grey belts in every which way,
and it's really difficult to get the concept.
But it does change what we're looking at.
The previous applications was all about,
once we agreed one site, the other would fall away
because there were not going to be these particularly special circumstances, exceptional circumstances,
available to the other side.
And so that was the difference.
Here, that is not what we're looking at.
We're looking at there are needs, and there are still needs, even with one of those applications
being agreed.
All of those needs haven't been satisfied.
And so actually the needs element still exists but within a grey belt context.
So it's that type of thing I've had to get around looking at it in a completely different
way though largely it's the same.
There has been on the previous application there were concerns where employment was getting
quite a heavy weighting.
The committee then was not particularly happy that people living in Chilford and St Peter
would particularly be coming to this particular site for employment, that there may be other
methods of accessing it and that there will be particularly some clear encouragement to
get local employment out of it, that could well change from where things were, so that
improves it.
I think some of the points that were made, and that's why I've gone on, I've talked about
sewage quite a lot this time, but it was one of the things to get clear because I think
there are concerns, there are issues in the area,
and making sure that we have been through that
in some detail, and we have got a level of confidence
that that can be dealt with on the site.
I think that's important.
So I think we then look at the overall,
all the various different things that we've sort of
talked about on this particular application,
and the same as the other application.
They're quite different, the layouts are quite different,
the green roofs, the solars, whatever is going to be there.
I think overall, I think what we have found
is the detail that the officers have put forward
and the questions that we've put,
I think have covered a lot of the points that we had.
Probably I would say the one point
that Councillor Moore had made about LISA,
probably the area to be conscious of when that is assessed in terms of the plan is if we're now improving
the walkway cycle way, that maybe some kind of condition can go into actually making sure that that is included
in their thoughts of how they keep that clean because that is to get people particularly to the site to work there
and that would be one of the areas that could become listed because it's an extra area that we might need to look at.
Overall, as a user of the motorways in that area, yes I do have some feeling it's going to slow the traffic down
and it's going to cause problems having two service stations in the area, but that is where the national highways come in
and they've made their statement that that is the benefit,
so I've arrived at that in terms of some of the safety elements of having this there.
So overall I can't find the significant reasons because we're not making a different,
we're not making a decision about is one, how harmful something is within the Greenbelt
in terms of the other because we're looking at Greybelt.
That was a different question we were asking before.
this is one where can they perform the services they're meant to perform?
Do they comply with the planning regulations?
Have we been through all of those?
Have we protected countryside, biodiversity and all the various other things that we need to do?
And in my mind, on balance, yes we have.
So I would be supporting the application on this occasion.
Thank you.
Thank you. We've got Councillor Gibbon, Councillor Roberts, Councillor Moore, Councillor Smith.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:28:27
So we'll go with ladies first, so Councillor Gibbons and then we'll come around to Councillor Pieli then.
So Councillor Gibbon, could you be very quiet?
Thank you, Chairman.
Just sort of going on from Councillor Waters' comments, I'm a bit concerned about the...
when...
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 5:28:42
Oh, my mind's gone blank.
When it was mentioned about the...
I'm sorry, when Councillor Derby mentioned that the sewage was actually overflowing.
I wouldn't really feel happy about this unless I had assurance from Thames Water that was dealt with first
before any more strain was put on that system.
Based on the feedback we have from Thames Water, what they said.
I think Thames Water have been really quite clear. They have the responsibility for sewage.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:29:17
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:29:18
if they raise with us a difficulty in terms of capacity,
then we have provided a Grampian condition,
requested a Grampian condition that prevents occupations
until such time as that upgrade has occurred.
They haven't said this in this event.
So I think that we've got to go and be advised
by the specialists in that respect.
I don't think we've got any evidence to counter that other than obviously what's been said to you today.
So I think...
What happens if they come to us at a later stage and say, oh by the way, because of the epilepsy centre appeal and now this,
they then come back to us at a later stage, do we need to flag that if they came back to us at a later stage
and change their position, if that makes sense.
Could we have a grand pin position in there that says,
oh, if they come to us and say, oh,
by the way, because we hadn't realised about epilepsy centre
appeal being approved and whatever,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:30:21
if they come back to us later stage and say,
oh, we think you've got a problem,
is there a mechanism we can incorporate
or an informative we can put in there going,
we have flagged this for 10 years,
or they said there's not a problem.
If they come back later and say, oh, yeah, well,
actually there is a problem.
We'll go, actually, no, it's down to you
to go and fix and relevant developers
that then have a discussion between the pair of you to go,
you know, that's all, you know, reflect it.
You've said no, there's no problem,
but actually NATO has a problem.
So there is a mechanism in that process, I don't know.
Well, I would say it's Thames Water's last comments
on the application were from December just gone.
So that was after the epilepsy public inquiry.
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:31:02
So they were aware of all the schemes before that time.
But the decision had been made.
I think an informative would be okay.
Okay.
I think Council, given myself, I think we'd be both happy if there's an informative to that effect.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:31:22
That, you know, because their original comments were pre the Inspector making the decision on the Epilepsy Centre,
circumstances have changed, therefore we dealt with them coming back and they're all by the way.
So I think an informative, and I'll let the officers do the relevant wording accordingly if that makes sense.
I think you do have to bear in mind that the epilepsy centre inspector, as we've previously
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 5:31:41
said, found, again interrogated the issue and again found that there was no issue. So
I would query the need for an informative but by all means.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 5:31:48
For an informative release it makes the point of we're cognisant of that. And so later on
the public don't go, well what planning committee were you doing and what were you thinking
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:31:58
about so if we go no we have considered the item we did include it we have so
we're not you know it's down to the terms of order to solve the issue right
but with Lisa if we have an informative not allow the office to go away into the
relevant wording this makes it highlights the issue right if that makes
sense okay okay so I've then got a look cancer Roberts cancer Moore cancer Smith
and then can I ask the field?
There we go.
So thanks very much.
I'd just like to just make clear where my thoughts on this.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:32:37
There's lots of useful information in the officer's report
that answers the questions.
I think we've had good answers to the points
that we've raised today, so that's satisfactory.
On the grey belt question,
I've got a lot of sympathy for the people who spoke about the loss of the open countryside.
And in that particular area, if you go back over time, there's the M25, the HS2 site,
and the change there is considerable.
I think the point for us is our role is about looking at the regulations as they're laid
out and the MPPF lays out clearly what tests we're required to assess by for the grey belt
rules and regardless of what we think about the open countryside, it's applying those
rules is our role here and I'm satisfied that we've tested those rules today and
that it meets the grey belt definitions that we've explored. So from that point
of view I'm inclined to support this recommendation.
Okay, Councillor at the Council and more.
Thank you Chairman, yeah I'd like to echo my colleagues
So far and especially Councillor Roberts,
central government have changed the rules.
Cllr David Moore - 5:34:09
Processes planning authorities to make into very difficult positions to make
difficult decisions, but we are a decision making body.
And we had to make a decision.
I abstained the last application because of the,
in my view is the lack of mitigation for chalk streams.
I think this application is a little different.
I do reluctantly support it.
Despite the chaos that HS2 has done,
and despite these changes to central planning policy,
we have indeed tested this thoroughly
and to the current management plan
and the current planning policies.
What I would like to see though is really robust wording
on condition 38 because I think it's a game changer.
If we literally say, look, you cannot start this operation
until there is a robust waste litter picking operational plan
that says you're going to do this, you're going to do that,
you're going to put the cameras there,
you're going to ensure there's coverage on the slip road
and not slipping away from those responsibilities
like we saw at the Beckonsaw MSA,
I think would be really positive.
And I know you've touched on that and you said that
with the discretion of the chairman that that can happen.
So if so, I'd be happy to support the application.
We, most of the services are both touching your area, my area, so therefore we know it very well.
So we're very cognizant of that.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:35:35
The wider impact these things can have on the wider community and the wider part of Buckinghamshire.
But yes, we're happy to work with the officers to have a relevant additional wording to make sure that it is robust and we can hold them to account.
Okay, so I've then got Councillor Smith followed by Councillor Phee.
Thank you, Chair, and yes, I agree.
I think we needed a fairly chunky piece of evidence to go against the officer's recommendation,
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:36:03
and we've been listening for that chunky piece of evidence to give us a contrary view,
and haven't heard it, hasn't come forward.
So we have no choice but to go forward and to follow the officer's recommendation in this case.
I would like to repeat once again what I often say, really,
and that is that it is hugely disappointing
that we're putting tarmac over several acres of farmland,
and we're not putting up a single solar panel
across that parking space.
And I accept what the chairman said earlier
about this is something that maybe we can fix
and sort out for the future,
but it is deeply disappointing to hear from developers
that they are quite happy to use tarmac
and no shade, no solar PV.
But on the basis that we really have no choice but to support our officers in this recommendation,
I would propose the motion of supporting the officers.
Okay.
Right.
I'm with you, Councillor Smith.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:37:11
I agree that, yes, it's very disappointing we don't get solar PV on all the parking spaces
and or you know, and it be a self -sustaining and the rest.
Yeah, so I don't know if we can't obviously do it by condition per se,
because I thought it was going to be under the 106 agreement in terms of how we make sure
that these things are dealt with.
So we do have an energy statement to be submitted with each reserve matters application.
So that's lots of individual energy statements.
That's condition 11.
And as part of that they do have to reduce CO2 emissions,
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:37:46
use measures to increase water efficiency,
maximise savings and just do other,
those are just bullet points,
but it's up to them to come forward.
So we can then, we'll be monitoring closely
on how they actually implement that plan
of conditional 11.
Because again, the JAPAN -CSA sitting listening to us,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:38:04
we would expect it to be a robust plan
that clearly delivers and clearly achieves
what's specifically been put in the condition
by the officers which is I think, is it reduction,
I don't think there's a piece in there that says
about reduction.
Yeah, it says it should reduce reduction in CO2 emissions
and use renewable sources.
Rachel Marber - Strategic Technical Lead - 5:38:27
I think we have, I think so far I've heard quite a lot
of support for the officers who are going to do so.
No proposal.
Proposal?
Yes.
Was it a proposal?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:38:39
Yes, I think it was a proposal.
That was a proposal?
That was a proposal.
So it's like a second year?
I was happy to second that.
So over to Councillor Feeley.
You've been very patient, sorry.
It's a long wait.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:39:02
Along with my colleague next to me, this is the second time we've had MSAs.
Last time it was three.
I think the good thing about having the two today is some of the information was transferable.
I think that was really quite helpful to us to be able to focus on it.
I recognise that they're both only outlined planning
and therefore we'll be coming back with reserve matters.
I very much hope and look forward to that.
So picking up on what Councillor Smith said about walkways and cycleways,
also my colleague about waste management and how that is dealt with.
I think that's really important and I'm sure the officers will take that on board
when we look at the reserve matters bit.
And PV, PV is a word at the moment and wherever there's opportunity we should be using it
and technology has moved on a long way.
Therefore I think we're in a different ball game completely, we're in a grey belt,
The Great Belt is where we are and therefore I will support my colleagues recommendation to go with the officers recommendation with I think one amendment.
Was there one amendment to a condition Cesar?
There was a review of condition 38.
Yes that's fine.
That's fine.
I think your point, Councillor, for you about reserve matters is very key.
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:40:30
I was just double checking with the officers what the process would be for that.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:40:33
Now, theoretically, in the current constitution,
reserve matters only come back to the committee here if it was called in.
I accept that.
So I would urge if the local members reach the applications and want to make sure they come back to this committee for reserve matters,
make sure they call them in.
Because we can't, as a committee, we're best necessary calling it in.
The local members, you have to call in an application if that makes sense.
But I think the devil will be in the details, you write, you say, can't say.
Can I propose that the officers refer to you as chairman?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:41:12
I think it would be very difficult to
Susan Kitchen - Strategic Planning Adviser - 5:41:23
minute that and to for it to be sort of recorded in that way because the
Constitution sets out what the delegated powers are and it doesn't actually
require and set a limit in terms of that but if it's called in under the
constitution for committee it can be considered by committee.
And orgy.
And orgy.
So I think where the constitution is set out
some public understanding is that if it was called in by local members it can be either
deferred to me as the chairman to work on your behalf or the whole committee gets to
sit in.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:41:59
So I'm in your hands but I would think I would try and work on the basis that as long as
if I get called in I look at it and I think I'm happy and content I'll then deal with
on your behalf, but if I think things are outstanding,
I would then ask it to come to the committee.
As long as they're planning reasons.
It's always only about planning reasons on this committee
because, as you know, council are failing.
As long as it went through, we did that.
But yeah, it was ultimately the constitution
is that the amendments had to form in first,
then come to committee to review.
And I think it's acceptable to work with the officers
on that basis.
And then if not, then it would come to the full committees
thereafter.
I think that's so everyone understands
as a process of how it would work out on reserve matters.
Okay, fine.
Therefore, have I got a formal proposal
and a formal seconder for this application?
And then we can then go to a vote.
So any...
You just said that Councillor Smith had proposed.
Yes.
Oh, sorry, okay, yeah, sorry, okay.
You're right, so Councillor Smith had proposed,
I had seconded.
And then now for all those in favour of the proposal
as set out by the officers,
along with the amendments of Section 38
and a bit of an informative.
See you down there Mr Chairman.
OK, OK.
Excellent.
Right.
So therefore, that application has been approved.
and therefore at 4 .25 in the marathon.
I'd like to thank both the councillors,
the members of the public, the parish councillors,
the local members, the officer team for the mammoth
and other work list, these three applications we've dealt with.
Thank everyone for their time today.
The date of the next meeting will be the 26th of August,
which normally will be the 27th, but actually it's going
26th of August this one and there are two more there are two different applications coming from
that one of which we've already done the site visits for those two sites already.
So now the meeting is closed at 4 25. Thank you very much.