Interactive webcast player

Strategic Sites Committee
Wednesday, 2nd September 2026 at 10:00am

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  3. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  4. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  5. Leslie Ashton - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  6. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  7. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Leslie Ashton - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Public Speakers
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr Phil Gomm
  6. Public Speakers
  7. Cllr Phil Gomm
  8. Public Speakers
  9. Cllr Gregory Smith
  10. Public Speakers
  11. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  12. Cllr David Moore
  13. Public Speakers
  14. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  15. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  16. Public Speakers
  17. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  18. Public Speakers
  19. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  20. Cllr Gregory Smith
  21. Public Speakers
  22. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  23. Public Speakers
  24. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  25. Cllr Gregory Smith
  26. Public Speakers
  27. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  28. Cllr David Moore
  29. Public Speakers
  30. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  31. Public Speakers
  32. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  33. Cllr Phil Gomm
  34. Public Speakers
  35. Cllr Phil Gomm
  36. Public Speakers
  37. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  38. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  39. Public Speakers
  40. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  41. Public Speakers
  42. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  43. Cllr Mark Roberts
  44. Public Speakers
  45. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  46. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  47. Public Speakers
  48. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  49. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  50. Public Speakers
  51. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  52. Public Speakers
  53. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  54. Cllr Phil Gomm
  55. Public Speakers
  56. Cllr Phil Gomm
  57. Public Speakers
  58. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  59. Cllr Gregory Smith
  60. Public Speakers
  61. Cllr Gregory Smith
  62. Public Speakers
  63. Cllr Gregory Smith
  64. Public Speakers
  65. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  66. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  67. Public Speakers
  68. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  69. Public Speakers
  70. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  71. Public Speakers
  72. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  73. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  74. Public Speakers
  75. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  76. Cllr Gregory Smith
  77. Public Speakers
  78. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  79. Public Speakers
  80. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  81. Cllr Gregory Smith
  82. Public Speakers
  83. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  84. Public Speakers
  85. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  86. Cllr Gregory Smith
  87. Public Speakers
  88. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  89. Public Speakers
  90. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  91. Public Speakers
  92. Cllr Mark Roberts
  93. Public Speakers
  94. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  95. Public Speakers
  96. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  97. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  98. Public Speakers
  99. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  100. Public Speakers
  101. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  102. Public Speakers
  103. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  104. Public Speakers
  105. Cllr Gregory Smith
  106. Public Speakers
  107. Cllr Gregory Smith
  108. Public Speakers
  109. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  110. Cllr Gregory Smith
  111. Public Speakers
  112. Cllr Gregory Smith
  113. Public Speakers
  114. Cllr Mark Roberts
  115. Public Speakers
  116. Cllr Mark Roberts
  117. Public Speakers
  118. Cllr Mark Roberts
  119. Public Speakers
  120. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  121. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  122. Public Speakers
  123. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  124. Public Speakers
  125. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  126. Cllr Phil Gomm
  127. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  128. Cllr Phil Gomm
  129. Public Speakers
  130. Cllr Phil Gomm
  131. Public Speakers
  132. Cllr Phil Gomm
  133. Public Speakers
  134. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  135. Public Speakers
  136. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  137. Cllr David Moore
  138. Public Speakers
  139. Cllr David Moore
  140. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  141. Public Speakers
  142. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  143. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  144. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  145. Public Speakers
  146. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  147. Public Speakers
  148. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  149. Public Speakers
  150. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  151. Public Speakers
  152. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  153. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  154. Public Speakers
  155. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  156. Public Speakers
  157. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  158. Public Speakers
  159. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  160. Public Speakers
  161. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  162. Public Speakers
  163. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  164. Public Speakers
  165. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  166. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  167. Public Speakers
  168. Cllr Mark Roberts
  169. Public Speakers
  170. Cllr Mark Roberts
  171. Public Speakers
  172. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  173. Public Speakers
  174. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  175. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  176. Public Speakers
  177. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  178. Cllr Mark Roberts
  179. Public Speakers
  180. Cllr Mark Roberts
  181. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  182. Public Speakers
  183. Cllr Mark Roberts
  184. Public Speakers
  185. Cllr Mark Roberts
  186. Public Speakers
  187. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  188. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  189. Public Speakers
  190. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  191. Cllr Phil Gomm
  192. Cllr Gregory Smith
  193. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  194. Cllr Gregory Smith
  195. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  196. Cllr Gregory Smith
  197. Public Speakers
  198. Cllr Gregory Smith
  199. Public Speakers
  200. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  201. Public Speakers
  202. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  203. Cllr Phil Gomm
  204. Public Speakers
  205. Cllr Phil Gomm
  206. Public Speakers
  207. Cllr Phil Gomm
  208. Public Speakers
  209. Cllr Phil Gomm
  210. Public Speakers
  211. Cllr Phil Gomm
  212. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  213. Cllr David Moore
  214. Public Speakers
  215. Cllr David Moore
  216. Public Speakers
  217. Cllr David Moore
  218. Public Speakers
  219. Cllr David Moore
  220. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  221. Public Speakers
  222. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  223. Public Speakers
  224. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Cllr Phil Gomm
  3. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  4. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  5. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  6. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  7. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  8. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  9. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  10. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  11. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  12. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  13. Cllr Phil Gomm
  14. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  15. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  16. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  17. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  18. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  19. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  20. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  21. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  22. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  23. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  24. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  25. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  26. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  27. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  28. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  29. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  30. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  31. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  32. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  33. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  34. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  35. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  36. David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning
  37. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  38. David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning
  39. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  40. David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning
  41. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  42. David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning
  43. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  44. Cllr Mark Roberts
  45. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  46. Cllr Mark Roberts
  47. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  48. Cllr Mark Roberts
  49. David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning
  50. Cllr Mark Roberts
  51. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  52. Cllr Mark Roberts
  53. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  54. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  55. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  56. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  57. Cllr Mark Roberts
  58. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  59. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  60. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  61. Cllr Mark Roberts
  62. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  63. Cllr Mark Roberts
  64. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  65. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  66. Cllr Mark Roberts
  67. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  68. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  69. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  70. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  71. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  72. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  73. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  74. Cllr David Moore
  75. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  76. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  77. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  78. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  79. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  80. Cllr David Moore
  81. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  82. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  83. Cllr David Moore
  84. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  85. Cllr David Moore
  86. David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning
  87. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  88. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  89. Cllr David Moore
  90. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  91. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  92. Cllr David Moore
  93. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  94. Cllr David Moore
  95. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  96. Cllr David Moore
  97. Cllr Gregory Smith
  98. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  99. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  100. Cllr Gregory Smith
  101. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  102. Cllr Gregory Smith
  103. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  104. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  105. Cllr Gregory Smith
  106. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  107. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  108. Cllr Gregory Smith
  109. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  110. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  111. Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA
  112. David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning
  113. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  114. David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning
  115. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  116. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  117. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  118. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  119. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  120. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  121. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  122. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  123. Cllr Mark Roberts
  124. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  125. Cllr David Moore
  126. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  127. Cllr Gregory Smith
  128. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  129. Cllr Phil Gomm
  130. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  131. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  132. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  133. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  134. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  135. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  136. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  137. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  138. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  139. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  140. Cllr Phil Gomm
  141. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  142. Cllr David Moore
  143. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  144. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  145. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  146. Cllr David Moore
  147. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  148. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  149. Cllr David Moore
  150. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  151. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  152. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  153. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  154. Cllr Mark Roberts
  155. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  156. Cllr Mark Roberts
  157. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  158. Cllr Mark Roberts
  159. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  160. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  161. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  162. Cllr Gregory Smith
  163. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  164. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  165. Cllr Gregory Smith
  166. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  167. Cllr David Moore
  168. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  169. Cllr David Moore
  170. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  171. Cllr David Moore
  172. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  173. Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways
  174. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  175. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  176. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  177. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  178. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  179. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  180. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  181. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  182. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  183. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  184. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  185. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  186. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  187. Cllr David Moore
  188. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  189. Cllr Mark Roberts
  190. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  191. Cllr Mark Roberts
  192. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  193. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  194. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  195. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  196. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  197. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  198. Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
  199. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Public Speakers
  6. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  7. Cllr David Moore
  8. Public Speakers
  9. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  10. Public Speakers
  11. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  12. Cllr Phil Gomm
  13. Public Speakers
  14. Cllr Phil Gomm
  15. Public Speakers
  16. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  17. Cllr Gregory Smith
  18. Public Speakers
  19. Cllr Gregory Smith
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  22. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  23. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  24. Cllr Phil Gomm
  25. Cllr Gregory Smith
  26. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  27. Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer
  28. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  29. Cllr Phil Gomm
  30. Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer
  31. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  32. Cllr David Moore
  33. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  34. Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer
  35. Cllr David Moore
  36. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  37. Cllr Mark Roberts
  38. Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer
  39. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  40. Cllr Mark Roberts
  41. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  42. Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer
  43. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  44. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  45. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  46. Cllr Phil Gomm
  47. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  48. Cllr Gregory Smith
  49. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  50. Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management
  51. 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 this meeting of the Street
Excites Committee. Please note that this meeting is being webcast and public and press can
see and hear throughout the webcast. In the end of the event of a technical issue with
the webcast, the meeting will be paused until that issue is resolved. There are a couple
of housekeeping items for me to cover. Members, please note that the use of
mobile phones are not permitted during the meeting, so please turn them off or put
them on to silence. The iPads can be used to access the modern Gov app which has
the agenda on it. Members, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand at the
appropriate time. Please remember to turn on your microphone before speaking and
and switch it off again when you've finished.
In the event of a fire alarm, and most people here will have heard the one at half past nine this morning,
so there shouldn't be a fire alarm,
but if there is, please use the nearest fire exit.
There's one, two, and three there.
And then assemble in the overflow car park, which is situated at the right -hand side
as you go back out of the main doors and then keep going to the right -hand side
as you exit the building.
If there are any members of the press present, please can you make yourselves known?
Okay, if not, okay, because they have their own little special desk in the corner there.
That's fine.
Okay.
So, before we move to the first agenda item, I'll ask each of the members and officers
to introduce themselves, starting with Chris to my left.
Good morning.
I'm Chris Stewart.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 0:01:45
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 0:01:48
I'm the major team leader for the West Area and also the team leader for Minerals and
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 0:01:58
in Buckinghamshire. Thank you. Good morning I'm Adam Smith I'm a Principal Planning Officer in the Majors Team.
Good morning I'm Andrew Cooper I'm a Highways Development Management Officer at Buckinghamshire Council.
Morning David Marsh Highways Development Management Core Team Leader for Buckinghamshire Council.
Philip Gunn, Councillor for the Quaeton Ward.
Good morning, Greg Smith. I am Councillor for the Hadlam and Stone Ward.
Good morning everyone. My name is Councillor David Moore and I'm Member for the Farnhams and Stoke -Pagers Ward.
Good morning. My name is Mark Roberts. I'm Councillor for Amherst and Cheshire -Boys Ward.
Good morning, I'm Cathy Gibbon, Councillor for Beaton, Kingbrook and Wing.
Good morning, I'm Jonathan Waters, I'm Councillor for Penn, Tylers Green and Loudwater Ward.
Good morning everyone, I'm Patrick Feeley, I'm the Councillor for Gwent and Underwood
and the Claydons.
Good morning everyone, I'm Lesley Ashton, the Democratic Services Officer.
Leslie Ashton - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:03:04
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 0:03:10
Hello I'm Catherine Stubbs, I'm the planning team leader in legal and a senior solicitor.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:14
And I'm Councillor Alex Collingwood and I'm Chairman of Sheegh -Sites and also member for Marlowe and Marlowe -Autumn.

1 Apologies for absence

So turning to agenda item 1, apologies for absence. Do we have any apologies for absence?
Leslie Ashton - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:03:27
Thank you Chairman, we've received apologies from Councillors Huxley, Hussain, Munger and Turner.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:37
Thank you.
Agenda item two is the minutes.
It's only to agenda item two.

2 Minutes

Do the minutes of the committee meeting held on the 30th of July.
These can be found on page three of your agenda pack.
Are there any objections?
All happy to meet as long as a correct record.
Thank you.

3 Declarations of interest

Okay, moving on to Item 3, which is declaration of interest.
Do any members have any declarations or interests to declare?
Okay, excellent.
Okay, we'll now consider the Office of the Report.
I will clarify the order in which the application will be considered.
The Planning Officer will introduce the application with any relevant updates.
Local members, parish, Town Council representatives and the Local MP.
Then members of the public, agent will be invited to read their statements in the following
order.
So, first will be the local member, then it will be the Local MP, then it will be parish

4 CM/0022/22 - Land To South East Of Hornage Farm, Bicester Road, Chilton, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9SE

and town representatives, objectors, supporters, agents and applicants.

Officer's Reports

It should be noted that pursuant to the provisions of the constitution, regarding public speaking
at planning meetings, I have exercised my discretion that I agenda item 4, that Greg
Smith will have the additional three minute slot, which is not normally afforded, and
allow Long, Crendon and Oakley parishes to have their own respective three minute slots.
I also permitted the applicants to be accompanied by technical experts so they can answer any
questions from the members. After each public speaking statement, members are able to ask
the speakers for clarification on matters raised in their statements and only in their statements,
and these must be addressed through me as your chairman. I'll then ask the members if they have
any technical questions, the officers follow this, the entire committee will then discuss the
application. And as we've done previously, we'll look at these in thematic orders,
I'll explain that as we get to that part.
Members may seek further clarification of officers on points regarding the application
or any points raised by speakers in the main debate.
Officers will respond to the issues and questions raised by the members.
The committee will then make a decision by vote.
Members will need to propose and second the recommendations.
So moving to Agenda Item 4.

4 CM/0022/22 - Land To South East Of Hornage Farm, Bicester Road, Chilton, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9SE

We now move to application number CM forward slash 0022 forward slash 22.
Land to the south east of Hornidge Farm, Bistero, Chilton, Buckhamshire, HB 18 9 SE.
Page 9 of your agenda pack.
Could the public speakers please respond after I call your name to indicate you are in attendance.
Please ensure that your verbal representations to the committee relates the relevant planning
considerations regarding the planning application being considered and do not
include any personal comments. The public speakers will be called to speak in turn
and then in turn and after the members have asked their points of clarification
will be asked to return to their seats. So Councillor Clive Harris.
Are you here?
Greg Smith, MP.
Yeah.
I've got Gregory Liversmoor for Longcrenden Parish Council.
Yes.
I've then got Councillor James Smith for Oakley Parish Council.
Yes.
Okay.
I've then got Ben Hacksworth for the Objectives.
Yeah.
Okay.
And then I've then got Thomas Heuans speaking on behalf of Andrew Haines as a supporter.
I then got Alex Savic, supported by Anna Beckvar, Finn Boyk, Sophia Thorpe, Reginald Ness, and
Jeremy Collins as the agents stroke applicants.
Okay.
I will now call on Case Officer Adam Smith to introduce the report of the application.
Thank you.
Over to you, Adam.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 0:08:34
Thank you chair.
So the application is for the erection of an anaerobic digester facility with associated
infrastructure.
The permission is sought for a 25 year period after which the land will be restored to its
former condition.
Members were offered the opportunity to visit an existing facility operated by the applicant
in Winchester.
I've taken this aerial photo from their website and I will use to briefly explain the process
and familiarise members with the equipment.
So to start, just to briefly explain what an anaerobic digester is, essentially it's
biological process where feedstock are broken down by microorganisms in sealed
tanks to produce biogas which can then be injected into the national gas grid.
The applicants have advised that their current application would provide enough gas to
power Tame and Haddonham for a year. The feedstocks would be solely agricultural
comprising slurries, manure and poultry litter mixed with agricultural crops and
residues such as grass, rye and maize silage as well as straw. On the aerial
photos taken from their existing facility you can see where the silage
and agricultural crops are stored at the back under these green covers in what
they're called clamps. They're concrete walled structures with embankments and
they have green covers at the back. Turning to manure and silage these are
stored in enclosed buildings and tanks.
So the smaller circular tanks, some of those
will have the silage in and the manure
that's stored in sealed enclosed buildings.
The materials are mixed and processed
by pipes and hoppers into the tanks,
the fermenters, these domed structures.
And that's where the anaerobic digestion takes place and the gas is generated.
Next you can see some lorry backs here.
These are the gas tankers that take the methane gas out.
On the current app, this Freemaids facility only has lorries.
our current app also has direct gas injection to the grid.
Whilst on lorries, I'd highlight that the sites have weigh bridges,
both in and out weigh bridges for weighing the lorries.
They're all barrier controlled, and it means you can keep detailed records
of what enters and what leaves and how much.
I'd also highlight the gas powered, the gas generated on site.
Also, it powers CHP, combined heat and power plants here,
which are used to generate gas and electricity
for the on -site facilities.
Sorry, used to generate electricity and heating
for the on -site facilities.
There's also a gas flare at the back.
The flame is fully enclosed, and these don't burn all the time.
But they're there as needed.
And also to flag up, there's a network of lightning masks,
lightning protection masks.
As well as gas produced, digestate is also produced.
and that can be used as a fertiliser and a soil conditioner.
And it comes in a solid and liquid form.
The solid digestate is again stored in buildings, and the liquid digestate is stored in lagoons,
but it's stored under plastic.
So the lagoon here is different to the application one.
It's under the plastic, they store the digestate, and then on top they store runoff water.
The technology has also developed, so as well as catching the gas, the methane that is produced,
it also captures CO2 and that is then stored in the city's white tanks here and that is then
also tanked off and it's used in the construction and food industry, for example. At this point,
And I just also want to touch that there are other regulatory regimes which control matters
relating to anaerobic digesters, including matters relating to odour, emission, pollution
prevention, gas storage, fire risk, and safety.
And they're operated by other bodies, including the environment agency, the health and safety
executive, and other specialist bodies.
These regimes also require detailed technical assessments and ongoing monitoring throughout
the lifetime of the facility. It's worth highlighting at this point that the MPPF sets out that
the planning system should not seek to duplicate those controls and it should be reasonably
assumed that they will operate effectively. The key role of the planning system is to
determine whether the proposed development represents an acceptable use of land having
regard to its planning impacts. So I'll just quickly flick through some photos from the
site visit to Freemaids.
Here you can see the site office, which is essentially two, you've got stacked containers.
We've got the weighbridge in the foreground, and then looking again here, this is where
they weigh all the tractors or lorries as they come in and out.
It's all like a sealed surface across the site, and you can see here as we're walking
towards the back, and the next photos are in the back corner.
So here we have the clamps where they store the agricultural crops.
And you can see the concrete walls and just see the grey plastic mat on that one.
And then here's a straw processing building, a hopper and two of the fermenter tanks at this side.
Here's some of the sealed buildings. They were open for us when we were there.
So this one, there was a delivery going in with the tractor.
And I mean, this was the pellets,
ticking pellets in this one.
And then you can see the lorries coming in at the bottom,
collecting the biogas.
So these are the domed digesters.
This is what our application has five
of these proposed as part of it.
Here, the CO2 tanks.
These are the CHP.
Two of them there, and then here is the lagoon, and I say the digest state is underneath this
plastic.
And another one.
And on the gate as we went in, there was a permit, the environment agency permit sign
with contact details on the gate as we went in.
Okay.
On to the application site.
So I've roughly marked the application site in red on this plan.
You can see the M40, Tame, Haddonham, and the site roughly, slightly closer,
roughly between Longcrendon and Oakley on the Bistah Road, the B4011.
And you've got Chiltern and Easington,
the closest settlements on the ridge line up here.
You can see it's a rural agricultural area, and
and that's sort of a key part of the justification
for this facility.
Excuse me, can you just repeat the name of the boat
that's next to it?
B4011.
B4011.
Yes.
So, here's an accurate red edge of the site,
taken from the applicant's location plan.
The green and the orange land were introduced as part of an amendment, and they are essentially
to secure screening and additional landscaping, and they will be covered by a separate section
106 agreement.
On the red edge, you can also see that there's a slight spur coming out here.
This was also an amendment to the application where a direct gas grid connexion was included
as part of the scheme, and this is another important
vocational justification for the development.
This plan is taken from the applicant's
landscape assessment plans, and you can see
the site again in red.
The orange dots are listed buildings.
This is Hornage Farmhouse over here,
and the green over here is the ancient woodland.
You've got diameter, you've got radius of distance,
you've got 500 metres, two kilometre, and five kilometre,
just to give you an idea.
And again, you can see Long Crandall there,
Oakley there, Chiltern up here.
The lighter green is a local landscape designation
under the current valve development plan,
and that's an area of attractive landscape.
And it's on the other side of the road from the site.
So the site's not in that local designation.
Got another constraint plan here.
I've just put a star on the rough location of the main part of the site.
On this plan, you can see contours, which gives you an idea of the level changes.
And that sort of reflects the area of attractive landscape to the north and
east of the road.
The green and the purple on this plan are their public rights of way, and there is a public right of way that runs along the far side of the hedge to the application site.
The blue is flood zones, two and three, and then this black catching here is the sort of rough indicative location of the national gas pipelines.
Closer up view of the main part of the site here, again starred.
We've got the listed farmhouse over here, slightly elevated land level.
You've got Hornidge Cops Ancient Woodland over here, 500 metres from the site.
Again, public right of way, just outside the boundary of the site.
Hornage Brook runs along here, along this wiggly line here,
and that's where you can see the flood zone is blue,
flood zone three shown on this plan.
This is part of the reason for the delay in the application
coming to strategic sites committee.
The EA maps were updated last year,
and you'll see in the subsequent slides,
the applicant has essentially moved the development
40 metres away from the river and the tree belt
to get outside of that flood zone.
I won't dwell on this, but this is just a Google Earth photo just to bring the previous
sort of images, plans to life with the site, the tree belt, the river along there, the
farmhouse over here, and then you've got the wider sort of agricultural landscape around
it.
A few application site photos.
Members have also had the opportunity on a number of occasions to visit the site.
This is a couple of photographs taken looking either way from the access.
This is the existing access that would be altered and widened to form the development.
And the access road would run across this field into the next field beyond that sort of hedge row over there.
Then this is taken from this field in this corner looking back towards the application site.
And the farmhouse is just off in the top corner over here.
And the track would run along the sort of lower part.
nearer to the river.
And then a couple of photos in the site.
Looking across, this is where the tree belt
that runs along the side of the site
and the brook runs along,
and land levels sort of gently rise up across there.
Various photos looking across the field.
And then this point here is where the gas grid connexion
will go under and the public footpath is just outside the site over there.
And then this is from the far end of the field looking back towards the site.
Okay.
On to the plans.
So we're well through the presentation now.
I've talked about the amendments already, but one of the amendments that's happened
is the offset to take it out the flood zone.
So this is the tree bell over here,
and the whole development has been moved off.
And the other amendment that I've mentioned
is the addition of the red edge to include
the direct gas grid connexion, which comes in over here.
OK, so starting, we've got the site entrance over here,
and there are two accesses proposed
as part of the application.
There is an access directly onto the highway,
And then there's a separate field access, which was introduced as part of another amendment
to the application over here.
This road is roughly 230 metres long and 7 metres wide.
And whilst this is the primary access for vehicles, the field access would allow farm
vehicles from the surrounding farmland to access the site without entering the highway.
As we move into the site, we have the way bridges over here, two way bridges and in
and out. There is staff facilities and office and staff parking over here. Then we have
the grid gas connexion. Most of this is subterranean with a track. Then we have three clamps over
here. This is where the agricultural crops are primarily stored. This part of the site
has the cluster of, it's where the tankers collect the gas from, it has the two CHPs,
it has the gas stack and various sorts of ancillary equipment. Then there are a series
of five fermenter domes running along here. We have straw storage buildings and a separated
building down here, the separator building separates out the digestate, the solid and
the liquid and then we have the digestate lagoon over here and that again would have
it the digestate stored under plastic and then there's a rainwater lagoon over here
which would collect the rainwater off roofs and other parts of the development but there
is separate clean and dirty water storage on the site.
Before moving off this, just to highlight,
there is a base level of tractor and HGV movements
throughout the year.
For example, transporting the waste feedstocks in
and digestate out, and a limited number
of movements transporting gas.
but there is a peak period for several weeks due to harvest which will be split into two spells.
The applicant is offering restrictions for feedstock and digestate movements to 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and Saturday 7pm to 1pm.
And the application initially proposed during harvest
that there would be 194 HGV or tractor two -way movements.
So that's 97 in and then 97 out a day.
But in response to third -party comments, they have chosen
to reduce the number to 140 two -way movements.
And they have also capped the number of days
that these can take place to 24 days a year.
The applicants also offered a commitment that 35 % of the feedstocks will come from a 5 kilometre
radius and 80 % from a 20 kilometre radius.
And this again, forms part of the locational justification for the proposal.
And it's worth highlighting that vehicle movements can be monitored on and off site, can be monitored
due to the way bridges and the regulatory controls.
Okay, so this is the landscape plan, and you can see here the entrance road will be lined
with bands of native trees and shrubs with some earthworks.
There's also, I talked about the offsite tree and shrub planting, so you've got two areas.
You've got a wet woodland here, and then native tree and shrub planting here.
But the application also poses the retention of the off -site woodland belt over here to
aid with screening.
On -site there is landscaping to the boundaries of the site and beside the river there is
grassland and areas of tree planting as well.
And whilst this application predates statutory BNG, it is proposing 23 % habitat gains, 30 %
Pedro gains and 15 .6 % water course gains.
Moving on to sectional elevations, these should be,
hopefully some of these equipment is now familiar to you,
having seen the photos of the existing facility.
You can see they're looking down the site and
you've got the line of five digesters.
And then the next sections, there's two cut this way,
looking that way, and then two looking back.
So the river is on this part of the side.
So the first two, you can see the river down here
on the lower land level, and the development
sort of stepping up.
So the digesters are on the lower part of the side.
And then you've got the storage and processing buildings
stepping up, and the clamps as well stepping up.
And then looking the other way, these
are looking the other way.
So the river is down here, and the development
It's sort of stepping up as we go across.
I won't draw too long on the elevations
as we've already seen what the equipment looks like.
But here's some of the CO2 tanks, those white tanks
I showed you in the photos, and associated equipment,
essentially container -sized equipment.
Here's the CHP plant, which again, container -style
with a stack on the top.
Gas -upgrader, so it can be upgraded
to be injected into the grid.
And then here we have the gas flare.
We have the straw and chicken shed.
So chicken shed is chicken pellets,
straw bunker and where they process it.
Slurry tanks, so they're all enclosed buildings and structures.
The separator building where the digestate is separated
into solid and liquid parts.
Here we have the fermenter tanks, or the digester tanks.
These are 17 and 1 1 -2 metres tall, 34 metre diameter.
And I mentioned lightning protection earlier.
The applicant has provided some details
on lightning protection.
And they included some examples of how
they work on anaerobic digestive facilities as like a network, as like a web of various
different mass structures, and these would be secured by condition.
Moving on to updates.
An update paper has been circulated, and essentially this includes a clarification on national
planning statements for energy, includes details of additional representations received by
third parties and the applicant.
However, essentially these do not materially alter the assessment and
recommendations contained within the officer report.
So to conclude, officers recognise the proposal has generated substantial
public interest and the report contains a detailed consideration of the planning
issues raised.
As set out in the report,
officer considers that the site has a number of locational advantages,
including its proximity to agricultural feedstocks and
its ability to connect directly to the national gas network.
The proposal would generate renewable bio -methane, it would contribute to energy security, it
would support agricultural diversification and rural economic activity, and also deliver
biodiversity net gains.
The proposal has also been assessed by the Council's technical consultees and the statutory
consultees.
Subject to conditions and the Section 106 agreement, no objections are raised in respect
of matters including highways, drainage and flood risk, ecology, noise, odour or landscape
impacts.
Officers recognise that the proposal would result in harm to an identified heritage asset
and that harm attracts considerable importance and weight.
However, for the reasons set out in the report, officers conclude that the identified heritage
harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.
The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the development plan when read as whole
and with the new national decision -making policies of the MPPF when read as a whole.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and
Section 106 agreement as set out in the report.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:30:50
Thank you, Alan, for a very comprehensive report.
We'll now hear from the board member,
Councillor Clive Harris.
If you'd like to come forward,
the little one I guess is that one there.
As explained earlier, you'll have three minutes to speak,
after which there'll be any questions, clarification.
So over to you, Councillor Harris.
Chair and committee members, this application was originally called in by my predecessor,
Public Speakers - 0:31:24
Michael Rand. Since that time, this application has caused heartache and concern, not only
throughout my ward, but those wards beyond that that will similarly be directly affected.
Despite differing approaches and a history of changes to the application over recent
years, residents are still fearful of the proposal on all the original grounds, concerns
over road safety, increases in HGV movements, mass and scale and where the installation
measures up to the claimed green credentials, infrastructure and flooding.
Amongst those representations, it's been identified the officer's report is self -contradictory.
Starting with the gas grid connexion, the officers say the grid connexion is an important
locational requirement, which helps justify development in this countryside location.
Paragraph 5 .43 of his report then says the plant will not become operational until that
connexion is available.
But Condition 4 is intended to allow the plant to operate for up to 12 months before the
grid connexion has to be available, and there is no network capacity assessment or connexion
offer.
So, like some of the solar installations, there is still no way to introduce the gas
into the main grid, which means more trucks.
Further, regarding the water, the report states Thames Water confirmed adequate infrastructure
in 2023, but where is the evidence to support this?
As councillors, we each receive details daily
of road closures due to the failing water infrastructure,
and this area is no different.
In fact, I'd argue it's worse due to its raw nature
and the lack of renewed infrastructure.
The plant requires water,
and that water has to leave the site.
The report says the Environment Agency has an objection.
However, if written in its entirety,
the Environment Agency assessment is that
it's highly unlikely to grant an environmental permit
for the proposed discharge into Hornage Brook,
relying on conditions to be set
at a later date by condition.
So as it stands, the plant lacks the water
and gas infrastructure required for it to operate.
If I can now turn your attention to the Heritage Report,
there is another important omission regarding heritage.
In the substantive Heritage Assessment,
the report tells you that the Heritage Officer agrees
that there will be homes within the National Park House.
What it does not tell you is
that the Heritage Officer's actual consultation position was
an objection and the permission should be refused unless sufficient planning benefits
outweigh that harm.
That makes the reliability of those claimed benefits critical to form the tilted balance.
Yet the officer's report acknowledges that the claimed greenhouse gas savings are disputed
and have not been independently verified.
It also identifies that only five direct jobs will be created, which he elsewhere describes
as a relatively limited benefit.
In fact, the main economic benefits
for the landowner and the investors.
And the file supply arrangements
relied upon are indicative,
rather than contractually secured.
In fact, the higher prices offered for maize
risk food security and retail price inflation.
This is not a residential application,
so to my mind, the tilted balance...
Professor Harris, that's time.
Great, sir. I have a big thing behind you.
So three minutes and three seconds.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:34:31
Which now means I've got to give her a row of three minutes and three seconds as well.
Do the officers have any questions of clarification of Councillor Harris at this stage?
So are there any questions of clarification based on what Councillor Harris managed to fit in in three minutes and three seconds?
So I've got Councillor Gaughan and Councillor Smith, followed by Councillor Moore.
So Councillor Gaughan first.
It's very kind, Chairman. That was a very speedy presentation made there for us.
We kept up. But joking aside, it's a serious issue that we're talking about.
And you talked about flooding and the water drop off there.
Can you clarify of knowing that area? You know, we viewed that area.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:35:21
And this site sits quite low and that drops off towards Tame,
just down the road, and if you could clarify for me
that that area floods too, so it's quite flooded down there.
Does that affect where this site actually is?
It's not too far away?
Public Speakers - 0:35:44
Well the fact that a river runs through it shows it's the lowest area that could possibly be within the river.
Can you just, can you give me?
Yeah, the fact that a river runs through it shows it's the lowest area through which the water can pass.
And the whole area is subject to flooding, there's a great lack of infrastructure in terms of drainage.
And that's commonplace throughout that whole
Oxfordshire -Buckinghamshire border.
And it's a severe problem.
One more question.
Let me carry on, Chairman.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:36:15
And so we're gonna stay on the water project
because again, the river stream that runs behind it,
as we've just been experienced by our officer,
that all the buildings sit higher than the water level.
Is there a concern from you that there could be water spillage
that would go into that river that then would go
down to the flooded area and cause possible contamination?
I think there was always a fear of contamination.
Also, I'm sure the design will build an element of that out.
Public Speakers - 0:36:46
But, you know, all the, I mean, an industrial process
of this size, I mean, it's the largest development
that Acorn have actually done.
So it's going to be a huge, huge impact.
And I'd be very concerned about the amount of vehicles going in
and out and the amount of mud and debris
that's going to take out onto the roads.
So it's not just affecting the immediate site
and not just affecting the waterway,
but it's going to affect all the road drainage,
et cetera, to ensure that all the vehicles are
clean coming in and out.
Thank you.
Councillor Gregory Smith.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
And there was a huge amount of information
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:37:23
I was really struggling to keep up, so fast.
But there was a couple of things that really jumped out to me,
and largely because this committee,
as a number of occasions, have expressed real concerns
about agricultural land being taken out of food production.
And you mentioned maize as your understanding
is one of the main crops that's going
to be used in this digester.
Do you have an estimate from your local knowledge
of the amount of agricultural lands that will be used to grow sufficient.
I think the claims in the papers is about 50 % of the foodstuffs,
the product going in will be grown locally.
Could you give us an estimate of what that would be in terms of hectares or acres of land?
I'd have to say that I can't give you a direct answer on that but what I would say to you
Public Speakers - 0:38:23
is that anyone who watches Clarkson's Farm knows that if there's a profit to be made
in farming then you'll turn your attention to that area in order to increase profit.
It's a very tough world, it's a very hard industry to be involved with and therefore
as we've seen this year the harvest has been hit very very hard just by weather.
Okay, I hope to cancel more.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:38:46
Thank you, Chairman.
Without copying Councillor Gough's question, you beat me to it.
Cllr David Moore - 0:38:51
Regarding the brook, I understand one of the conditions of this application is a 10 -metre
buffer.
Why do you think that buffer isn't adequate?
And you touched on in your speech about discharge.
Could you tell me a bit more why, in your view, this is harmful to the brook, this application?
Public Speakers - 0:39:14
We see too many of our waterways have accidental discharge from sewers, etc.
And this would be no different.
I'd say it's a massive industrial process that's taking place here.
And once the water is used in different ways, ultimately there's a strong possibility that some spinach will take place
and find its way down into the brook, which would be terribly harmful for the brook itself.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:39:41
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:39:44
Thank you very much Chairman. There's clearly a lot of concern about transport and HTVs
and you touched upon that. Can you give me an idea of the usage of HTVs in the area at
Public Speakers - 0:39:57
the moment? At the moment all deliveries to farms etc. take place on roads, some of which
which have weight restrictions.
Those weight restrictions can be ignored by drivers
who have a job to do and deliver actually
within those weight restrictions.
But it's the sheer number of movements.
And whilst we've seen some great photographs here
of what appears to be quite a sizeable road,
once you get beyond the actual site itself,
the road narrows right the way down.
If you saw the Times, they had a photograph there
showing a bus having to go up onto the pavement
in order to clear an HGV.
It's just totally unacceptable.
When you go to Longcrenden,
the children cross the road to go to school.
It's the main road through the village,
and it's not a main road.
That road is consistently being altered and repaired
for various different gas,
or not so much gas, water installations,
and the drainage there.
And so we are seeing loads and loads of holdups.
The volume of vehicles they're talking about
pushing through here,
there is nowhere for them to go to clear the site.
easily so it's going to cause a massive congestion and as I say a real risk
risk to life and limb for those that use those roads. It's also a very
attractive area and lots of cyclists I know they're not everyone's best friend
but it's a fantastic area for cycling in the different hills. You have the HGVs on
those roads Sherry. You touched on Longquenda and clearly there's other
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:41:25
villages, and I know the area very well, such as Bruell and places like that.
Would you consider that they were appropriate for HGV transport?
Would you consider that they were able to take HGV?
As I say, it doesn't matter which direction you go in.
It almost feels to me as though this has been a desktop operation, whereby they've taken
Public Speakers - 0:41:47
the side, looked at the immediate area, and we've talked about concentric circles, and
they've just focused on one concentric circle.
Once you go beyond that, the vehicles just can't get through.
Yes, there are some getting through at the moment to deliver to the local farms,
but in terms of numbers they are tiny compared to what we're seeing here,
which is a mass movement of vehicles all day.
Okay, thank you.
I don't normally allow the council to come back and have a second bite of the cherry,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:42:14
but first as the first speaker I'll let Councillor Greg Smith come back again,
But to remind everyone, the points of clarification,
each council has to ask once and once only,
because we need to move through.
We have a large number of speakers
and we've got a large piece of work to do on this.
Thank you.
Thank you for that indulgence.
And I should have asked two together
when it weren't the first time round.
I really wanted to put on your experience
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:42:38
as a longstanding councillor.
And you mentioned the digester and its impacts locally.
The policy and the practise within Buckinghamshire has largely been supporting on -site, on -farm,
anaerobic digestion.
Do you see that policy is in contradiction, or this new site could be in contradiction
to that strategic direction for Buckinghamshire in terms of promoting closed -loop, on -site
anaerobic digestion in farms?
Public Speakers - 0:43:20
The proposal, I think, within the policy is designed so that it is of a size that the
farm can actually cope with.
And so if you've got a small anaerobic digester taking place that can cope with immediate
local farm silage, but I don't see a huge problem with that.
However, this is a masterpiece of industrial engineering.
However, it's in the wrong place because you just can't get to it.
And I would say that I would fear for my life going through Crenshaw with the number of
vehicles they're talking about coming through here.
So it might fit the policy, but not on this scale.
It would have to be something very much smaller with other supporting
Similar facilities as well, but with the vehicle boobs they're talking about just doesn't fit
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:44:13
Okay, I'm just going to cheque no other Councillors have got any other points of clarification because obviously four of the Councillors have done
a lot of detailed questions and clarification to you Councillor Harris
I was checking the other Councillors haven't got any before we move on to our next speaker,
which will be Greg Smith MP.
So just cheque the other Councillors are happy, okay?
Right.
Okay, well, thank you very much.
If you'd like to come back to your seat, Councillor Harris, then I'll now ask Greg Smith MP to
come forward and give his statement of three minutes and three seconds as well.
Over to you, Greg.
Good morning. For transparency, I should declare that as well as being the MP for the affected
Public Speakers - 0:44:56
area, I'm a resident of Cheersley, one of the villages negatively affected. This site
for this industrial scale facility lies within landscape character area 7 .5 relating to Burnwood
Forest and adjacent to the Brill to Winchenden area of attractive landscape. Such a massive
industrial development in the heart of Buckinghamshire countryside would have a completely unacceptable,
harmful impact on the landscape, it would be an abomination. Even the planning inspectors
in similar applications have found that harm to landscape overruled any supposed or alleged
benefit of such a site. The sacrifice of 15 acres of countryside to accommodate this development
cannot be justified as having carbon or economic benefits
when the applicant has completely failed to prove it.
The application is based on unproven assumptions.
Much of the material for processing will arrive
from many, many tens of miles away,
which will in itself increase the carbon footprint of the facility.
The application is based on unproven assumptions.
Where is this supposed gas grid approval?
There's no evidence of it.
Where is the water supply approval?
The Environment Agency are unlikely to permit discharge of flood water into Hornage Brook.
Where is the evidence that alternative, more suitable sites were investigated?
It's positioned between small villages linked by narrow rural lanes and roads where children
walk to school in playing fields and front doors are often directly onto the highway
such as Oakley, Cheersley, Shabington, Longcrenden and others, will mean in the region of tens of thousands of extra
HGV movements creating a road safety nightmare for the residents of these villages.
It is just not good enough for officers to pass this off as acceptable.
It's time to push back
against these desktop generated outcomes and get into the real world. There will be real -life impacts on real -life people.
This site is completely unsustainable.
And it's interesting to note that a very similar scaled application outside of Whitney was found unacceptable in terms of industrial development in a rural setting.
The impact on the landscape and impact on the adjacent highways.
A further similar site in Suffolk was refused on grounds including the introduction of significant
degree of industrial development and the significant adverse effect on the surrounding landscape.
The committee has sound grounds for refusal.
It's time to fight back.
Do not industrialise the countryside.
Do not take away from food production.
And do not risk real lives.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:48:07
I'd like to maintain to you exactly three minutes.
I've done this before.
Indeed, you and me together.
Okay, right. So, do any of the councils have any points of clarification for Greg Smith, E &P?
I've got Greg Smith asking Greg Smith at this point, so we'll start with Greg Smith that way, we'll work round this way again.
So I'll start with you, Greg Smith.
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for your presentation, that was really informative.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:48:36
You mentioned a few times about the industrialised scale, and so I wanted to repeat the previous question that I'd asked, really,
that I'm really trying to get a grip on.
And that's in terms of,
and really looking at your experience in government
and the position from government
about large -scale bi -digesters.
Does that have an impact on this county's promotion
or trying to promote small -scale farm -based
anaerobic digesters that genuinely use farm waste
as a way in a closed loop?
Does this sort of scale have an impact on that promotion of those small scale digesters?
Yes, I think the direct answer to that is it does have a huge impact.
Public Speakers - 0:49:27
This is a very large plant compared to others that we've seen in the county and
that has knock -on impacts on multiple fronts.
Firstly on food production in that we've already heard from evidence given by
that there is a risk that crops will be purposefully grown
to go to this plant.
That is just the definition, as far as I'm concerned,
of complete madness.
We have a situation where our national food
self -sufficiency is falling in this country.
We need to be producing food for people,
not to burn on some sort of strange altar
of so -called green energy,
which actually is nothing of the sort
when you look at the overall whole system analysis
of the carbon footprint of that.
And of course, then when you go
to this massive industrial scale,
you're into huge, huge road movements.
And anyone that drives the small lanes,
yes, through my own village of Cheersley,
but Long Crenden, Shabbington, Oakley, Worming Hall,
all places that will be affected by this,
will see those front doors,
literally a pavement's width from the highway.
Long Crendon, where children regularly cross over those roads
to go to school in one direction to the recreation ground.
Very busy Saturday morning football sessions out there
from Crendon at Corinthians and so on.
In Cheersley, crossing the road
over to the Village Hall car park or down to the footpaths
that cross over Manor Farm.
Likely, Oakley ran to the playing fields.
Children are walking these roads, and if there are hundreds of additional
HGV movements in the real world, that is dangerous.
And I sometimes reflect on a totally different subject, but
it speaks to my point.
Last night, I spoke in the House of Commons around
this usual lessons learned after a disaster has happened.
In that case, it was over the death of a 17 year old constituent.
The warnings are here on road safety, and I invite the whole committee to really reflect
on those warnings on road safety, because I will be absolutely devastated if a few years
down the line I have to get the adjournment debate in the House of Commons again and have
to speak to one of these lessons learned debates because someone in one of our villages and
Our communities in Buckinghamshire has been killed by an HGV or
had life changing injuries from these roads that are just
incapable of taking that level of traffic.
And please have a think about what those vehicles really are.
They're not a tractor and a trailer in the most case.
They're huge gas tankers.
They're big HGVs.
We've already seen the impact of that in so many other communities around Buckinghamshire,
from the great destroyer HS2, from the construction of the prison at Grendan Underwood, from the
construction of East West Rail, going back the incinerator.
They're dangerous, seriously dangerous.
And the volume of traffic being forced through these narrow, small, rural roads because of
the scale of this, stuff being brought in from tens of miles of radius, is directly
going to risk bucking into your lives.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:53:00
Okay, I've got Councillor Moore followed by Councillor Feeley.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for your very eloquent points. You mentioned in your
Cllr David Moore - 0:53:08
original speech that, I'm already saying this facility will be allowed to operate for a
full year without a grid connexion, and I understand that this site's been chosen because
as it's near a gas grid connexion point, is that correct?
So there's no evidence of a permanent gas connexion
Public Speakers - 0:53:24
whatsoever, and I've been campaigning against this
for nearly four years now, and it's always been spoken about
that gas will be taken away by tanker,
so some sort of new introduction of pipelines,
as far as I'm concerned, is for the birds.
It has always been spoken of in terms of gas tankers
by road taking the gas away.
That's got danger and red flag written all over it
as far as I'm concerned.
Councillor Pheely.
Thank you, Chairman.
And a couple of points if I could.
Can you talk us through the balance between
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:54:04
the food production and the need for gas?
So there's plenty of gas under the North Sea.
We should be getting that out for a start.
Public Speakers - 0:54:12
And the wider point I would make is any transition to clean energy
can't be at the cost of everything else.
Now, a lot of what would go to an AD plant often would be bedding or
feed for animals.
Now, I don't need to remind anyone around this table about the particularly harsh
heat we have had, the very poor harvest that farmers have suffered this year.
a lot of farmers are already through that winter feed.
They're already through it.
They're looking for it.
So it's not just the direct food production
for human consumption, but it's also our food's food
that is going to be impacted by things that could otherwise
go to animal feed and bedding and so on actually being burnt
and going through the anaerobic digestion process
to produce this gas.
The transition away from fossil fuels
is not one that's gonna happen overnight,
but we've gotta be incredibly cautious
about the trade -offs that are looked at
as part of this process.
And I should say, this is a trade -off
that would be if anyone was minded to grant it,
and I really can't imagine how anyone would be,
but if anyone was minded to grant this,
this is a trade -off between food production,
between animal feed and bedding,
between safety of real human lives on the roads.
And I'd say just as the planning inspector
and other examples have found that the harm,
the harm massively outweighs any biogas
that would be produced by this facility.
There are other ways to get us to that transition,
and including getting our natural resources
out of the North Sea.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:56:04
I'd just clarify with the officers
is about the gas connexion.
And my understanding is, as it stands currently in the report,
they are required to physically make the gas connexion
within 12 months.
So it's not that it's not going to happen,
but it's within 12 months.
That's something that, depending on how the critic feel,
they may want to really investigate that further.
But just to give clarity to the public and the residents
and people watching outside, just
clarify what the report and what the application physically
says of today.
It wasn't what the original application said,
But it has been fundamentally changed that it has to connect within the national gas
grid within 12 months.
Councillor Gaughan.
I understand why you're our MP now with a speech like that earlier on.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:56:47
So I'm just going to pick up on a few things.
I'm glad you just picked up on the gas issue because originally we were told that the gas
connexion would be straight away, whereas now it's different.
So I have concerns just like you.
But what I would like to do is just go back.
Some of my colleagues tend to feel this might be farm, I've heard the word farm waste.
This is not waste, is it? Just to clarify a bit because you've been talking about that
and you talked about coming out of the food production.
So I'm going to ask an opinion because the MP's been talking about it.
With this product, this agricultural feed product, going to the digester,
So, could that possibly, in the long, like you've been saying, farmers have lost a lot
of crop this year because of the heat.
Could this possibly, this is assumption, put the cost of additional feed up for farmers
in the long term?
So, they could possibly, without realising, suffer, I'm being told.
And there's a bit of speculation there, can't I?
I'm just saying, the MP was talking about it, so I'll put speculation there.
So I move forward. So we're going to move on to traffic then.
I knew where I was going but I think a lot of people were going, yep.
I'm going to go on to traffic. So this is a B road
going through the rural area of our lovely countryside
of Buckinghamshire. And if you could
comment for me because you live there, I do know it quite well, but that area
is a very hilly, rural, up and down area like
Brielle, could you clarify?
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
One B road has been mentioned.
Public Speakers - 0:58:33
But actually, if you look at the overall traffic route,
some of those are simply on straightforward country lanes,
lower than a B rated road.
So the risk is even higher on those roads.
And if I was to be very cheeky while sat within the council
building, the condition of some of those roads
isn't exactly tip top.
So the point I would make is that adds to the actual overall danger.
Bouncing along some of those roads just in a regular road vehicle can feel
hairy at times, a serious accident with an HGV hitting one of those potholes.
Going over the risk of that particular,
it's carrying a full gas load, would be massively significant.
But the point I always come back to is the proximity
of physical buildings, front doors, where children
and adults, adults are just as much at risk,
come out onto the highway, straight
into the path of these HGVs.
It just doesn't bear thinking about.
And on your point on, as you asked the question,
I'm very happy, unlike most politicians to answer it,
that yes, there is a risk.
There is a risk that if too much stock that would otherwise have gone to feed or
bedding or anything else goes to anaerobic digestion instead.
Well, there is only a finite supply of it.
So yes, that could end up putting up the price to those farmers that wish to still
buy in for feed and bedding purposes rather than to create gas.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:00:09
Okay, just digging back into the road because that's an important issue.
And it's a rural area.
We know that there's a freight strategy being discussed in that area at this
present time.
But again, being a rural area, and I think maybe when we do
site visits, Chairman, in future, that we look around
the areas too, like villages as well, because it does have
an effect.
Like you're saying, people walk Schlesinger Street out on
the street.
In Quaington, where I look after, HS2, et cetera,
exactly the same.
But again, in the rural area, a lot of people use that as
their health and well -being.
recycling, equestrian riding, you know, have you got plenty of that going on in that area?
Yeah, I mean, there's actually one of the maps that was shown earlier, showed a footpath right past the facility where people do regularly walk.
Public Speakers - 1:01:03
I have walked that myself. In fact, a couple of years ago, there was a walk of a lot of us that were against this proposal that walked through there,
or just how close people would get to this industrial proposed facility.
Cycling is incredibly popular in that neck of the woods.
Actually, because many of those roads and villages are off the approved
transport routes for things like HS2.
Therefore, they are that bit more attractive as it stands for cyclists and
those looking for a safer road environment today to use.
rather than, and sorry to quote your ward,
but going up against the endless stream of HS2,
mega prison, et cetera,
HGV movements through Quainton
and up through the Claydens, et cetera.
So that probably would have an adverse impact
on those wishing to cycle
because they are not gonna want to put themselves at risk
going head to head with those heavy goods vehicles
that this facility would bring were it approved.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Kazgul.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:02:09
Cathy Gibbon, you've actually indicated so.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:02:14
I'm not a farmer so I'm a little bit confused about the crops that are being used to feed this digester.
So I would just like you to explain to me a bit, when they talk about these crops like maize and whatever,
Do they mean maize that would be to feed people,
maize that would feed all the other crops that feed animals,
or is it waste that can't be used for anything else?
I'm just trying to see whether it's,
this feedstock is stuff that could be feeding people,
animals, or whether it's just waste predominantly
that's being used.
It wouldn't be waste predominantly, as I understand it.
There would be a mix.
Public Speakers - 1:02:49
Some of it would be waste that could not be used
for human or animal consumption or bedding
or anything like that, but some of it absolutely would.
Now maize is often on most farms a break crop,
but if farmers are incentivized to grow that
as opposed to wheat, barley, oats,
or grass to graze cattle, sheep, et cetera on,
then that will have an adverse impact
on domestic food security, local food security,
and to my mind, it is just a madness,
and utter lunacy for any farmer.
And most farmers I know want to produce food.
Food production is the primary purpose.
And it's a tough time right now, and I get that.
I get that.
But to take away that primary purpose, well, at what point
do they stop being farmers if they're not
growing food for humans to eat?
OK.
Are there any other councillors who've got any other questions
and saw Greg Smith, the RNP.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:03:52
Okay, thank you, Greg.
I'll let you go back to your seats.
I'll then call the next speaker.
Just so, to Councillor Gough's point about site visits,
yesterday, myself and Councillor Gibbon did both actually
go via Chiltern and Oakley and Longcrendon.
So we did do the sweep of the whole area deliberately
to see what the road structure will look like.
And I know that Councillor Mark Roberson
is dissimilar as well.
So there are a number of us on the side who did exactly that piece to understand the wider context.
Okay, so we'll now move on to the next speaker, who is Grévy Lismore, representing Longcren in parish council.
So let's come forward to the table. Once you begin, you'll have three minutes of speaking time.
Thank you Mr Chairman.
Public Speakers - 1:04:50
Chair members, I am speaking for the Long Crenshaw Parish Council on Highways and Severance.
The charity road junction in the 4011 is already recognised as over capacity by Box Highways
and the Acorn Zone survey recorded over 10 ,000 vehicles over 12 hours here before additional
traffic is considered. The applicant's December 2024 route plan proposes 62 additional HTB
movements per day through this junction in the middle of Londcrenden. The May addendum
removed just two peak days from this plan, but otherwise it leaves these conclusions
unchanged. These are dangerous and intimidating vehicles, not abstract percentages. Parked
cars constrict Cheersley Road beside the recreation ground in Crenden. Families cross it on the
way to school and the playing fields, and at the square, a bus stop, a zebra crossing,
narrow pavements meet this mini roundabout. Photographs have shown HGVs clipping it and
mounting the curb and hidden lamp posts. The officer's report identifies Bicester Road
as the most sensitive link, and accepts moderate effect for walkers and cyclists. Yet paragraphs
51395 .151 rely on 0 .4 % of all traffic increase with no collision pattern. Neither reveals
near misses or trips abandoned because the route feels unsafe.
There is clearly community severance and unreasonable harm to residents' amenity
under VALP Policy B .E .3. MPPF P4 requires development to integrate effectively with
existing community activities, including sports club, and this test applies if HGVs,
beside the Recreation Grand Journe, permitted hours place unreasonable restrictions on its use.
MPPF TR63 requires reasonable futurate scenarios, relevant times and cumulative impacts.
It has already been demonstrated by Box Highways that the roundabout in the middle of Longcran
is over capacity.
Mitigation is not secure.
The applicant proposes school exclusion windows but condition tenders actually not secure
them.
Paragraph 5 .144 says routing is, quote, difficult to monitor and enforce, while paragraph 5 .144
5 .145 calls it important mitigation.
These are not compatible.
MPPF TR64 says you should refuse if either severe cumulative
network harm or unacceptable highway safety
harm remains after mitigation.
The evidence does not safely exclude either.
Please refuse this application.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well within time.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:07:31
Okay, are there any points of clarification?
Okay, so we'll start with Councillor Roberts this time,
then Councillor Gibbon, and then we'll move to Councillor Smith.
So Councillor Roberts.
Thank you.
Just a very quick one.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:07:47
You were mentioning about roads being viewed as over capacity.
Yes.
Could you just clarify which specific?
So specifically, the Bicester Road, which is the most sensitive receptor.
Public Speakers - 1:08:01
In the analysis that was done by Box Highways on two recent planning applications,
it was demonstrated that that role was over capacity in the plan period and the life of this facility,
excluding any new traffic, HGVs, big lorries, whatever, from this application.
So that's excluding this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I had the same thought question as well, Councillor Roberts.
Okay, Councillor Gibbons.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:08:26
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:08:28
I'd just like to get a bit of an idea of what the traffic is like at the moment through
these villages, especially Long Crenden, which I went through with a Councillor, who came
with me yesterday. Do you currently have much of a problem with large vehicles going through
the village and the traffic trying to pass each other? And how difficult do you think
it will be when the number of HGVs looks like they will be doubled?
What effect will that have, do you think, on the residents?
Public Speakers - 1:09:01
Okay, so at the moment there are severe traffic problems on Cheerslie Road and the main road
through Longcrendon.
Whilst it is classified as a B -Class road, which in theory should accommodate HGV and
other traffic, it is actually a very old mediaeval road through a mediaeval village with bends,
narrow roads, houses opening onto the footpath, in some cases no footpath.
And in the middle, there's a pedestrian crossing, there's a shop, there are normal living facilities.
Recreation ground and the under 13 playground is on Cheersley Road.
The only way to it is across Cheersley Road or across the main Bicester Road.
Both of these roads are currently subject to, at peak times, traffic jams and delays,
but subject to outbursts of emotional tension when two large vehicles cannot physically
pass each other because the road is not actually wide enough.
So whilst the B411 adjacent to the site has been stated as yes, the entrance and exit
to the site itself is adequate, and it is because the road there is actually much wider
than the road through the middle of L 'Ancrendon, which runs for about a mile.
Now we have a mixed population.
We have elderly people, we have normal adults, we have children, we have an under 13 playground,
We have an under 19 playground.
We have sports facilities.
We have skate parks.
We have movement, not just during the school period,
but today to get across the Bicester Road,
people take their life in their hands
at the road called the mound, or is it a bend and a hump.
You cannot see traffic coming.
And it's just about possible for two cars
to pass at that particular pinch point.
It is impossible for HDVs.
The other thing which is very, very important
is that the applicant in their mitigation stated they were reducing the number of anticipated HGV movements.
However, they were still maintaining the output of 97 ,000 tonnes, or the throughput,
and the only way to do that is to make these lorries bigger.
So what they've accidentally done is not mitigated it, but introduced a different risk,
and in the view of our parish council, a significant and unaddressed risk,
by the fact that these noise are much bigger and probably much bigger than what we currently have to deal with.
And I hope that answers your question.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:11:23
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:11:25
Thank you. Over to Councillor Feeley. Thank you, Chairman. I'd just like to summarise some what you said because
you talked about the MPPF
under section 6, particularly Power Goal 4, about the severe adverse impact.
And Kim's book was having it.
So I'd just really like to go through that.
Capacity is one thing.
Well, capacity, analysis done by Box Highways
Public Speakers - 1:11:50
on two recent large applications in Longcrendon,
which have not yet determined, indicate that there are a number
of issues, one of which is roundabout being over capacity,
but also with the new Box plan and the target housing
over the period for which the site may be operational,
will introduce a cumulative effect which has not been considered.
The existing situation is that regardless of any increase,
is that those, that roundabout in particular will be over capacity,
but if you ever drive through the middle of Long Crenden or Cheersley Road
or God forbid go towards Shaddington down a very narrow road
where you can get one vehicle up and down,
There are currently constraints in real life
and there is danger to...
Do you get congestion there?
Yes, we get congestion every day, every morning and every evening.
The recent traffic lights on Crendon Hill,
it was cured from Tame the whole way up to Long Crendon in both directions.
So you're getting that now without this digester coming on board.
So how do you see the future?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:13:02
if this application is approved significantly worse
Public Speakers - 1:13:05
and in a dangerous way.
So dangerous highway safety?
Dangerous for residents, pedestrians,
but other vehicle users,
because the nature of the vehicles
being added to the network are,
they're large, and if they're coming from outside
the three kilometre, five kilometre arc,
they could be coming from 50 miles away.
We don't have a lot of drivers in big vehicles that have no idea
of the issues in our local villages.
So local drivers and local farmers tend to know
the bad bends, the bad bit of road, the abbruse camber.
But we still have tractors falling off roundabouts in the middle,
long crendam of the industrial estate.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Pugh.
Who would you like to ask the call?
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:13:56
Sorry, can you just clarify, are you the chairman of the...
No, I am the parish clerk.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:14:01
Oh right, very good, thank you.
On behalf of the council.
Okay, so you're obviously, oi fei, of the whole area when it comes to that.
So, again, I'm going to go to traffic because you've said about the play area right in the middle of the village,
there's churches, there's the shop, but what I just want to dig into is just your traffic calming there,
because if I recall, you've got speed cushions, you haven't got just a couple,
You are about eight as you come in from, to clarify.
And then you mentioned the shop and again, just there is a separate crossing,
but it's also a hunt separate crossing.
It is a race table crossing. Yes. The speed.
So you had obviously there's been issues there. And then when you turn off,
bear with me because when you turn off again, knowing the area quite well,
you turn off on the Cheersley road down to where the MP lives, et cetera.
That is a narrow road.
Does that have an HGV advisory on that?
Or is there any of your roads in that area with an HG advisory?
It's a C -class road that's not restricted.
So HGVs will come that way.
The issue with HGVs in places like Long Crendon
Public Speakers - 1:15:07
is that they don't use HGV sat -nav.
They use Google Maps and other things,
which is designed for cars and domestic traffic.
Quite often, 40 -foot articulated lorries
are coming along roads that are completely unsuitable,
driven by drivers that have no idea what they're doing
because they're following a sat -nav design for cars.
We see no way of resolving that
because that's an issue for the people
that run the lorries.
We also have, on occasions, HS2 traffic
coming through Long Crendon, which is prohibited,
with occasional exceptions.
There is no way to manage or mitigate
the behaviour of the drivers.
So the applicant has said that they will make sure that there are no lorries going past the school,
coming down the Chiltern Road, coming on Shears Road during school arrival and departure times.
There is absolutely no way of implementing that other than wishful thinking.
Okay, one more just to pull back which you had mentioned.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:16:07
You mentioned the industrial site down on Drake's Drive, the Grendon thing.
Could you just clarify, because from my understanding,
that the traffic from there coming off that site
is directed to go left down to the A418
and out onto the M40 that way?
And they're requested not to go through?
Not to come through the village, yes.
Public Speakers - 1:16:39
And that seems to work from the industrial estate point of view
in that there is a very limited amount of traffic that comes through the ancient village
from the industrial estate.
The problem with the location of the bio -gesture, because again the parish council fully supports
green energy and the move to net zero, that's not an issue.
The issue is actually where this thing is.
Between Oakley and Longcrenden, for anybody that knows the roads, but even if you don't,
is that the village of Longcrenden and the village of Oakley are really unsuitable for
these fairly big trucks.
And when the weight limit for trucks went up to 40 tonnes,
there was deterioration in the roads.
Now, that's not a planning issue, that's a highways maintenance issue,
but it is relevant, because these roads were designed for horse cart pedestrians.
They were not designed for 40 -tonne, very large vehicles.
Certainly not on the industrial scale that is being talked about.
And hence I ask that question that they directed it away from them.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Over to you, Councillor Craig for the next question.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:17:38
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:17:41
Thank you, Chair, and I'm grateful for Councillor Roberts who clarified that your claim that the road is oversubscribed
was actually originated from our own Highways Department assessment, which was certainly worth coming back to in the officer's questions.
But I wanted to kind of narrow things down a little bit because quite some time ago now, I observed the difficulty of children getting across the road.
that the road that's opposite the school, Carters Lane,
comes down to Bicester Road, a B road,
and it's a real struggle to get across there.
Can you explain how this,
the increase in HGV traffic could make it more difficult
for school children getting across that B road?
I will, Greg.
Public Speakers - 1:18:31
For the last number of years, Longcrenn Parish Council,
in conjunction with Clive and previous members
and Box Council, we're trying to find a way
to reduce the danger.
And there are a number of issues,
which is there are no funded broad schemes.
It has to come from development.
So we approached Clive Harris to approach ACORN to say,
could we have a contribution to put in a means
for adults, pedestrians to cross the road
at Carter's Lake Bistro, which is identified
as the most significant and dangerous part of this proposal.
It's quite lethal.
You take your life in your hands at the moment,
and a small scheme was designed.
We believe it's a cost in the region of 250 to 500 ,000 pounds.
It is not funded in the box plan.
That danger exists today.
Second thing is that highways have told us
that the statistics prove that this is not a dangerous junction yet.
On a weekly basis, there are crashes on that junction.
They are generally not reported to the police
and they are never recorded if they're non -injury.
It is a dangerous junction.
That's just for vehicles.
You add in an increase of these megalories
on what is effectively a horse and cart and pedestrian road.
I can actually see, and I would suggest to you, that this is severance in its truest term,
in that that road, the 4011 in the middle of Longcrenden, will separate Longcrenden into two parts,
because the only safe crossing is at the square, but the road itself is about a mile long.
Now, whatever decision you make, if you decide to approve this,
I would certainly, the parish council would ask,
as a minimum condition, that that danger is addressed.
And that would actually be a real mitigation,
other than what's been proposed by the applicant.
However, we would rather not see this massive increase
in these megatrucks coming through our ancient village.
Chair May, just to indulge, just to clarify
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:20:52
what you've just said there, that there
is for school children leaving the school, walking down Carters Lane, there is no safe
way to get to the shops or to the other side of that B -road.
Public Speakers - 1:21:09
There is no footpath and there is no crossing. It's a bend with a blind hill that vehicles
can come over at some speed and they're literally 20 yards before. And I have watched mums and
prams running across the road, dragging their children with them, and it's quite pathetic
when you see it because it's so dangerous.
The drivers look shocked when they suddenly come across pedestrians in the middle of what
they sat now tells them is a B road, because in fact it is an old country road.
And this is what you mean by sectioning?
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:21:40
So severance is the ... MPPF talks about severance of communities, and when you're considering
planning you need to try and avoid severance of communities.
a bit like when they built the M40
and you severed farms and communities.
Public Speakers - 1:21:51
This application alone would cause severance
in Longcrendon to a significant extent.
And that's part of the message I'm trying to get across.
Thank you.
I'm conscious of the time,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:22:03
because we've got a lot of more speakers,
but Councillor Johnson -Walden,
you're not actually spoken yet,
so over to you for a question of clarification.
Yeah, my questions really are gonna be helpful
in terms of me taking things forward
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:22:15
as we ask the officers and the applicants some questions.
The mitigation part of it, obviously at this point,
where have there ever been discussions on mitigation
in trying to improve this?
You said there was a plan, but has that gone through
the officers or gone through with the applicant
to try and get this mitigation?
So the mitigation proposed and reported on
Public Speakers - 1:22:39
in the officer's report is in two parts.
One is a reduction from the original plan
for the number of vehicles, which in fact is a mitigation in the number of vehicles,
but it actually brings in new risk, which is unconsidered because the vehicles are bigger,
even though there's less of them.
The second part is to do with restricting movements during commencement and finishing
of school during school periods.
No consideration given to holidays, no consideration given to normal day -to -day life or weekends
or whatever.
and the mitigation proposed is unenforceable,
as we've demonstrated through the issues with HS2,
but just it's actually unenforceable.
Measuring vehicles coming in and out of the site
using the weigh bridge is feasible,
and you can certainly count them,
but where they're gonna park at,
if the site opens at seven o 'clock at half past six,
where are they gonna park?
Our experience is that they park wherever they can,
and that will be on the roads either in or around
Longcranford or any of the other villages.
There is no way to condition or monitor or control that.
And that's, to us, as parish council, is not mitigation.
It's effectively a smokescreen.
And the additional crossing point
you were trying to look at for mitigation,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:23:54
that did you have discussions with the offices as well?
We were informed, as a parish council,
we were informed that that wasn't up for grabs
or discussion at all.
Public Speakers - 1:24:02
There may be something that might be introduced
if permission was granted, but it wasn't up for discussion,
which effectively in the parish council's view
doesn't exist, it's theory.
However, a draught scheme was designed,
a draught scheme was discussed with books, highways,
but due to a lack of funding, it was never progressed.
Danger exists today, and if this application is approved,
the danger will increase significantly, specifically at that point, in addition to the other points
that I've raised.
And the final point is whether there's mitigation or not, it's your understanding that where
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:24:43
you would have two HGV vehicles in certain places meeting each other, that that would
not be possible for them to pass.
Yeah, the only way they can pass at the moment is by driving on the footpath or driving up
the bank.
Public Speakers - 1:24:56
We have photographic evidence of this, but we see it on a daily basis in our normal life.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:25:06
Thank you. I do know Lon Crendon because my sister -in -law used to live there many years ago, so I have crossed the roads frequently with the kids there in the past, so it's not without some knowledge. Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:25:16
Thank you.
Councillor James Smith representing Oakley Parish.
And again once again once you begin you'll have three minutes speaking time.
Over to you Councillor James Smith. Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:25:41
All four parish councils I represent here today strongly object to this
proposal. Firstly in my day job as a planning
solicitor I must make clear that elements of the report
and the evidence based before you are in my opinion flawed and would render any
grants and planning permission liable to legal challenge.
I don't have time to outline here all the issues,
but they include the, as mentioned,
reliance on an unsecured grid connexion,
reliance on unverified carbon neutrality calculations,
and also just referring to the condition
on the grid connexion.
That condition, I think, is also unenforceable as well.
There's also inadequate visual material,
which I think is a breach of the EIA regulations and policy
DP4 of the MPPF, an inadequate assessment of amenity
impacts on our villages arising from the HGV movements.
I'm happy to take questions and explain further on those,
if it would assist.
However, you have the power here today to render these
floors irrelevant.
We fundamentally disagree with officers' judgement on impacts
and compliance with policies, and we hope that you will too.
In particular, as has been outlined,
the proposal introduces scale and type of traffic onto the
rural road network, which is clearly inappropriate and
contrary to policy T5 of the VALP.
It is also contrary to MPPF TR3 and TR6 and realistic cumulative impacts have not been assessed.
Greg's talked about severance, but there will also be other significant adverse impacts on the immunity and quality of life in our villages due to noise, vibration and other impacts from this traffic, contrary to local waste plan policies and again the MPPF.
The TA consideration of these impacts is inadequate.
The real world impacts are self -evident.
HGVs and tractors will be travelling through our villages all day, all year.
In peak daytime hours it equates to a movement of an HGV through Long Crendon every four
and a half minutes.
In Oakley it's six minutes.
In Chiltern it could be every 13 minutes.
As has also been outlined, there will be significant adverse impact on the character and appearance
of the countryside.
HADO group expert assessments reached totally different conclusions to the
landscape officer whose comments minimise the impacts and do not
consider the overall scale of this development. There will be over 30
structures on this site and the five digester tanks are each as tall as this
council building that you are sitting in here today. These are enormous
structures and they have no place in this location. They will be highly
visible from local viewpoints including from the AAL and the public rights of
way running across it. The scheme does not conserve or enhance the natural
beauty or the landscape character of the countryside as required by N2 of the MPBF.
The development is just inappropriate in scale in terms of the local character.
It goes well beyond what is necessary for the purposes of local agriculture and
is therefore contrary to policy valve E9.
DP 41 of the MPBF states that proposals must respond to their context so
they integrate with and enhance with their surroundings.
DP 43 states where this is not the case and
they conflict with design policies, they should be refused.
There is clear and unacceptable harm flowing from this policy.
You've heard it from repeated speakers this morning.
There was clear conflict with the development plan.
We ask that you exercise your judgement
and refuse this application.
That is time, we have three minutes and three seconds.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:28:49
Okay, are there any points of clarification
based on the speakers statement?
So starting with Councillor Greg Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
And there was a lot in there.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:29:06
Again, really difficult to try and keep up
with so many different points.
But you started off really with carbon neutrality.
And presumably you were then referring
to the published quantity of waste compared
to crops that have grown.
Is that, could you explain what you mean by carbon neutrality?
That was a reference to the work that was done
by the HADO group, which as you may well know,
Public Speakers - 1:29:31
is the group representing lots of local objectors.
They've done some analysis of the carbon reduction figures that have been put together.
And in essence, they've highlighted a number of what they consider to be flaws in the data,
particularly that the carbon figures do not take into account carbon from HGV movements.
They do not take into account food miles from food having to be brought into the area
due to manufactured crops being grown.
I don't think they take into account escape of biomethane, which can have an influence on it.
And I think officers do acknowledge in the report that the figures are unverified, which
was the point that I made.
You're being asked to grant planning permission based on benefits that officers accept are
unverified.
And I think they then go on to say, we don't need to verify them.
But I would submit that that's just not correct.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:30:28
Any questions that I've got myself?
because as Councillor Christmas said, you went through at a fantastic pace.
And I'm just trying to remember, I think, I was trying desperately to write these down,
I think you were saying in your conclusion that it failed under T5 of the valve, TR3, TR6,
N2 of the MPPF, E9 of the valve, and that's in addition to whatever else the previous speakers have talked about
in terms of other phases under MPP 4 and 6, I think.
Have I missed any of the policies you quoted?
Yeah, there would also be.
I just want to get to understand,
so everyone understands that there are lots of,
so the public understand,
it's quite a technical application with lots of policies,
both local policies in terms of that being the
Fairdale's Be Old local plan, our new local plan,
and then national government guidance,
so therefore just so that the public
is seeing it on the webcast.
And we're collectively talking lots of acronyms between us
to try and give that sort of,
And we'll go into technical questions with officers
a bit later, but just making sure I've not missed any
of those policies you talked about as where
you think it fails.
Yes, sorry.
I'm sorry I had to go so fast.
The minute you appreciate three minutes is not a lot of time.
Public Speakers - 1:31:38
And just to clarify, I'm also talking
on behalf of Shabbington, Chiltern, and Warming Hall
parishes here this morning.
So normally, the Constitution normally
says it's three minutes for all parishes.
And I said, no, the other parishes all do a join
and a debate, therefore I was saying,
and that I will give additional time for the other parishes
to then put their points forward.
So I agree.
But yeah, because you've got so many points in there,
I just want to clarify to make sure I didn't miss any
of those that you talked about.
I think T5 of the VALP, you've got E9 of the VALP,
BE2 in terms of the design side of things.
And then I would also highlight, I think it's, forgive me,
I don't have all the policies in front of me right now,
but I believe, is it C3?
And possibly S3, but essentially the policies
are effectively predicated on there
being no unacceptable impacts in terms of landscape heritage.
So all of the strategic policies or relevant policies
are effectively predicated and saying
the development is acceptable provided there
is no unacceptable impact in terms of landscape, heritage,
highways, amenity.
and our view is that there are unacceptable impacts
in terms of all of those items,
and therefore it is contrary to all of those
relevant policies.
In terms of the MPPF, there was just T3, T6,
and then the design policies as well,
which stress very clearly the need to comply
with local design policies,
and that they can be a reason for refusal.
I mean, I would argue equally that this is just
not sustainable development.
It is not sustainable development to be importing material from miles and miles away to an industrial -scale
facility in the middle of the countryside just outside of Longcrendon and Oakley.
It's completely contrary to the primary aims of sustainable development.
Thank you for that clarification.
Any other points of clarification from the members?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:33:43
I'm conscious to the public who are sitting here watching this and the people who are
probably watching this live on webcast.
I'll be very indulgent.
Get out my question.
Okay, let me ask a question.
Thank you, it really is a very short question so thank you for indulging me, Chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:34:00
And it really is in your perspective, looking at from the, maybe Oakleys or the other parish
councils' perspective.
You mentioned that this is the building's five buildings, 17 metres tall, taller than this building.
Visually, from how will that, given there's lots of planting around them,
visually, how will they be perceived, five buildings from the other parish councils?
How will that look from your understanding on the local area?
I think it depends which parish you're in.
I mean, obviously they won't be, I wouldn't have thought,
Public Speakers - 1:34:44
directly visible from Oakley itself on a day -to -day basis.
They will be highly visible to those using the public right -of -way network.
They will be highly visible to those travelling up and down the B4011.
And they will be highly visible from some viewpoints sort of in Oakley as you get further up the hill towards Brill
I think for parishes further up the hill they will be very visible and and this I think goes to my points about the
landscape
Visual information that's being provided that the the drawings are
Are such large scale that you really can't get a clear picture of the visual amenity
But I think from Chilton and easy turn and parts of long Crendon
They will be very, very visible, and they will be very, very visible from a much wider distance than that.
I mean, for context, I don't know how many members are familiar.
I think, I don't know how many of you went to the site, but you may have seen that there is a very,
very large dairy farm building further along the B4011, which happens to be owned by the same landowner.
But there we go. Now that building is 11 metres tall, and you can see that from all over the place.
It is very, very visually prominent in the landscape.
Here we have buildings that are 17 and a half metres tall and are then going to
have lightning conductors put on top of them. You know it's going to be visible
for miles and miles around. It's completely out of keeping with the
landscape and you know I think the view of Oakley and all the parishes is
it's very very harmful.
Okay just to double cheque the rest of the members haven't got any other further
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:36:19
questions, clarification. Thank you, Councillor James Smith. If you'd like to
put that to your seats and then we'll now move on to now hear from Ben Hacksworth
who's speaking in objection to the application. And again once you begin Ben
Public Speakers - 1:36:43
you'll have three minutes of speaking time. Over to you. Thank you chair and
Members, I speak for over 1 ,600 residents and their communities in nine neighbouring
villages. Others have addressed policy and inconsistencies in the officer's report.
I will explain what this proposal means to their everyday lives. You are being asked
to accept more than 30 ,000 extra HGV movements each year and to assume uncertain benefits
outweigh acknowledged harms. Let's start with traffic. The site can only
be accessed through Longcrenden, Oakley and on minor roads where opposing HGVs simply
cannot pass. The proposed routes pass schools and recreation grounds. They cross walking
routes and create noise, vibration and pollution where people actually live.
At Cheersley Road, children and families cross to school and playing fields. Towards Tame,
Same HGV mirrors already overhang narrow pavements.
Meanwhile Highways Assessment omits the cumulative impact of 315 new homes allocated to Longkrenden
under the emerging local plan and acknowledged capacity constraints at the mini roundabout.
This is not a traffic model percentage, it is community severance in real life, preventing
people moving safely and without fear through their villages.
Now consider Hornitch Farm. This would introduce an industrial scale waste facility on 15 acres
of open countryside, five digestion tanks, each as high as four double -decker busses and
visible for miles. Planting would take 15 years to mature and still not remove the harm.
A Grade 2 listed farmhouse stands just 220 metres away.
The applicant acknowledges landscape harm, the heritage officer heritage harm and the
EEA requires a permit to control pollution.
But can the plant operate as proposed?
There is no confirmed gas grid connexion or water supply.
The Rainwater Lagoon is less than half the capacity required for a flash flood.
ACORN's plans send excess potentially contaminated runoff towards Hornage Brook, yet the EA says
it is highly unlikely to permit that discharge.
Together, these gaps undermine the operating case and therefore the claimed carbon and
economic benefits.
In conclusion, the new NPPF strengthens support for renewable energy, but that support is
not unconditional.
your choice is between acceptable harm with demonstrated benefits or assumptions.
The harm to road safety, amenity, landscape, heritage and water are unacceptable.
The benefits are not sufficiently proven. Please refuse this application.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:39:50
Exactly three minutes and three seconds.
Well, I don't want to break a trend.
So there we are.
Okay, so I've got my hands already.
So, Councillor Greg Smith, you're first to ask questions of clarification from the statement.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:40:11
Thank you very much, Chair, and most of this grind has been covered in quite a bit of detail,
So that's been quite a useful discussion.
One of the things you mentioned though that struck a chord was the treatment
of wastewater and water in general.
And I wonder if you could expand a little bit.
My understanding is that the plants like this use vast amounts of water.
I wonder if you can, do you have an understanding of where the water comes
from, but can you also explain your, what you meant by the risks of the lagoon not being
sufficient to deal with the water runoff that was, that you've talked about?
So that there are two points there and I'll gladly expand on them.
First in terms of water requirements, this is an industrial scale plant and it requires
industrial levels of water supply.
The mix of feedstock proposed by ACORN contains an average water content of about 58%.
Public Speakers - 1:41:05
my estimate that based on ACORN's proposed mix of feedstocks.
The water content required for anaerobic digestion is 70%.
So there's the difference, 58 % of water coming in,
70 % required to make anaerobic digestion happen.
This means if you multiply that through the 98 ,000 tonnes of feedstock
proposed to be processed by this plant, the plant requires 39 .2 %
million litres of water to operate. Assuming, and I think this is correct, 80 %
of that is from harvested rainwater or recycled digestate. That still leaves 7 .8
million litres of water that needs to be provided externally. To bring that into
layman's speak, that's equivalent to the consumption of 153 average households.
Most recently, Thames Water were not able to supply a development of 97 households in
application PL256024 in Longcrenden at the top of the hill.
Meanwhile now, the case officer's report relies on a 2023, so that's already four or five
years old response from Thames Water that does not address capacity to supply.
Okay, it says yes we've got pipes but it doesn't say you can have 7 .8 million
litres of water. So that I hope addresses your question on water requirements. If
we then turn to, so that's sort of water in, if we now look at water out there are
two key points to make here. One is the River Tame Conservation Trust. They
objects significantly to the amount of water potentially contaminated.
And sorry, by the way, one point that hasn't come up here yet today.
You do really talk about what's being raised without any clarification on your
existing statement.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:43:10
You can't then go off to other tangents.
So stick to what the statement says.
Public Speakers - 1:43:17
So the River Tane Conservation Trusts objected saying, and I quote,
unacceptable risks to water quality in the Hornet Brook,
arising primarily from the site allowing digestate to outflow into the rainwater lagoon
and then to Hornage Brook and that goes on.
But basically River Tame Conservation Trust object on pollution grounds
and then to your question on the rainwater lagoon.
Okay, this is a 15 acre site and if we assume,
I mean it seems like bad memory now,
But if we assume a flash flood of 60 millimetres of rain
over two hours, that's not without precedent in history.
And with the runoff of 48 litres per second
that the applicant has proposed and SUDS have accepted,
then that flash flood would require attenuation on site
of 3 ,000 cubic metres.
And that's assuming the attenuation pond was empty
at the beginning of this deluge.
The planned rainwater lagoon is just 680 metres cubed.
So it will overflow and therefore risk
of contaminated water flowing into flood risk zone three.
Okay. So I just want to, before I move on to Councillor Roberts,
I just want to clarify.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:44:39
You mentioned a planning application reference number
in Long Crendon.
I got PR 25 and then I got lost.
So I just want to drop that down just so I've got
make sure everybody where you said that tens will have said they can't supply
Public Speakers - 1:45:00
just short 97 houses it matches farm references pl25 slash six zero two four
slash OA and there is a sister application which I didn't record the
member the application number read that back so P for Papa alpha Lima forward
forward slash 25 forward slash 6024 forward slash 0a.
Correct.
Thank you.
Over to Councillor Roberts.
Hello.
You mentioned in your presentation the uncertain
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:45:29
benefits and that this was based on some assumptions that were
being made.
I was wondering if you could expand on that,
what those main assumptions are where there's
uncertainty of the benefits.
Public Speakers - 1:45:45
So, as I understand it, the applicant is asking you to give significant weight to the carbon
benefits of this proposal.
And yet, when I look at the analysis of the carbon impact of this industrial scale facility,
I see, number one, they've used a different methodology to assess that carbon impact to
to the one recommended by their own cited experts,
they used something called the consequential model,
and they should have used something
called the attributional model.
And the case officer's report says
that the carbon benefits claimed are unverified.
So my question to the members respectfully
is how can you rely and give significant weight
to a benefit that is unproven?
How does that answer your question?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:46:43
Okay, do any other members have any other points of clarification?
Okay, thank you then.
So if you'll back to your seat.
We'll now move on to hearing from Thomas Horns,
who was speaking on behalf of Andrew Haynes in support of the application.
Again, if you'd like to come forward to the public speaking table,
take your pick of whichever one it will be.
Actually, do you mind just switching off that other one?
The other one is, they've left that other one on, sorry.
So I don't mind, yeah, whichever way around, but.
So again, as the same with the rest of the speakers,
you have three minutes to speak, but I'll maybe allow three minutes
and three like I have with other people.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:47:28
Thank you.
Committee, my name is Thomas Hions.
I'm an auctioneer for Tame Livestock Market
and also a farmer. I'm speaking to you today on behalf of Andrew Haynes, a farmer and contractor
from Four Winds Farm in Mercote who is hoping to supply Hornage Green Power. Andrew very
much wanted to be here to speak today but he is too busy on the farm. He has asked me
as someone else whose work depends on our agricultural economy doing well to make his
support known through the following speech. We strongly urge you to approve Hornage Green
and power. Farms in Buckinghamshire have never had it this tough. All of us are facing unsustainable
pressure from spiralling fuel and fertiliser costs as well as loss of subsidies. Acorn's
plans will provide a vital income to local farms as well as natural fertiliser. AD plants
allow us to rely on home -grown fertiliser instead of importing expensive alternatives
from geopolitical and stable locations. Having a stable income from supplying an AD plant
means we can plan for our futures.
These days, farmers are left with no choice
but to diversify their businesses.
Supplying an AD plant gives us the opportunity
to diversify and keep our land in use for farming.
The character of Buckinghamshire has been built by farmers.
Rolling fields of crops and grazing livestock
have shaped the county we all know.
But this is at risk.
Without viable options to diversify,
farmland gets sold off
or family farms have to sell out to large corporations to survive.
If you approve this application, you'll be giving local farmers a lifeline.
A lifeline that will let local farmers continue working on the land we farm for generations.
If this application is refused, farmers will lose the help we so urgently need and our countryside is put at risk.
However, it is not just character which is at risk.
If local farms struggle, we all struggle.
The rural economy is circular, mechanics, surveyors, tractor drivers, etc.
We need local farms to carry on farming so that these businesses can survive.
That is why it's so important for the plant to be built in this location.
It has to be close to farms that supply it so that we can support a working rural economy.
Benefits can be kept for farmers and for the distance for transporting feedstocks is kept
low.
Local feedstocks mean sustainable transport, a win -win for farmers and their neighbours.
Hornage Green Power sits in an area shaped by farming.
Many feedstock deliveries to the plant will replace farm traffic that already runs alongside local roads.
Hornage Green Power can deliver the help our farmers need without causing any unacceptable traffic distribution on nearby roads.
Committee, please consider this application carefully.
Your local farmers urgently need support.
Hornage Green Power is the answer for our farmers, our rural economy and our countryside.
I strongly urge you to approve this application.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:50:35
Thank you.
So I've got hands already.
So Councillor Feeney, to start over to you first.
Thank you, Chairman.
Could you talk me through this process?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:50:54
So, if someone grows, say, barley or wheat or everything else,
but then if they're growing,
want to sell it into the end of the...
Just, I can't even say the word now.
Digestor.
You get paid for it, yeah?
Correct.
And if you buy, if you get the help from it,
someone else pays for that, they buy it.
Yes.
Now, just go back a stage.
If you go and sell this to them,
what's the difference between growing something
that it's reused for food as opposed for this activity.
What it does, it just offers another buying power
to the market.
Public Speakers - 1:51:42
The buyers at the moment, buying for food production,
have got competition in terms of projects such as this.
I believe the main crop produced for plants like this
would be maize rather than wheat and barley,
which hasn't been touched on today,
maize is often grown as a break crop
in between cereal crops.
If you're growing cereal crops currently,
you can't grow them continuously.
You need to put a break crop in between,
and maize offers a very, very good break crop.
But maize is a food.
Maize is an animal food.
Maize in this country isn't grown for human consumption.
It's an animal food.
Animal food, yeah.
Yeah, and is there not a demand for that?
There is demand for it, but there's probably less demand than there was, say, 30 or 40
years ago because there's less animals in the UK.
So you're saying that if you grow that, being maize or whatever, it's better to send it
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:52:43
to the digester than it is to put up?
What it gives, it gives the farmer the option.
He could sell it to the digester or it could go into animal production, therefore food
production.
It gives the farmer the choice.
why should the farmer have only one choice?
Why shouldn't he be able to sell his food,
Public Speakers - 1:53:00
sell his produce wherever he or she wants?
I'm not debating that.
I'm really just saying if something is produced,
how is it best then moved on and through the chain?
Because it's clearly a cost with this.
It's gotta be taken there,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:53:15
it's gotta be dealt with and then sold on.
That would have to be decided between the plant
Public Speakers - 1:53:20
and the farmer, probably on an individual basis per tonne
or on an acreage hectare basis.
Okay, thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:53:31
Okay, I've got a quick question myself.
You said about it being local farmers
and bucks farmers, et cetera.
Just give me a clarity,
so Buckinghamshire is very Oxfordshire
because Tamey is obviously technically in Oxfordshire,
so it's on the border of each other.
So how closely, based on the feedback you've had
in terms of where Andrew Haines is based
where the other farmer's based.
What is your understanding that local farmers will be,
what sort of proximity do you expect it to be
to this digester?
Five to 10 mile radius.
Oh, that's it.
The farms that have approached me personally.
Yeah, within the object.
Exactly, okay.
So the feedback you've had is it's the local farmers
between five and 10 miles away.
The farmers that have approached me have lived within,
Public Speakers - 1:54:16
or lived slash farmed within five to 10 mile radius
of this plant.
Councillor Smith. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presentation.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:54:30
Very, very informative. And looking at the papers and listening to what you were
saying, by my estimation, something like 50 % of the food stuffs that go
into the the digester are going to be crops grown for the digester, and by my
estimation that's around about 50 % equates to about 47 ,000 tonnes and when
you mentioned maize, again my understanding is that that's you're
talking about 5 ,000 acres that then is dedicated to growing maize just to feed
the digester. Can you say whether that's correct and whether that's a
given that this committee spends a lot of time
angsting over food production that's being taken out of farming,
can you give us your assessment of whether that is a reasonable balance?
I would probably say in between two and five thousand acres,
depending on the size of the yield or the crop of the maize.
Public Speakers - 1:55:36
If it was a year like this, yields would have been low.
Some years the yields could be twice what,
two, three times what they have been this year.
So I would probably put it between two and 5 ,000 acres.
And would you say there's 5 ,000 acres worth of maize production
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:55:54
within the immediate vicinity of this proposed site?
I would say there is a large enough area,
because a large proportion of the land around the site is arable land anyway.
Public Speakers - 1:56:09
Which at the moment is probably more than likely growing cereals.
But farmers growing cereals are having a very tough time at the moment and looking for alternative
crops such as maize.
That's been helpful?
Oh, go on.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:56:24
No, go for it.
As you're there, go for it.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:56:29
The follow -up question really is just, I think it was in Farmers Weekly quite recently that
they were talking about the detrimental effects of maize production on, for wildlife, but
but also for topsoil runoff and the way that that degrades land.
I wonder if you could comment on that given the vast, up to 5 ,000 acres
worth of land dedicated to maize production to feed the biodigester.
With regards to the wildlife situation, I couldn't possibly comment.
Public Speakers - 1:56:59
I'm not an expert on wildlife.
However, with regards to soil erosion runoff, this can be mitigated and
it can be managed in the way that the crop is established, the variety that's used.
There are early varieties which are planted slightly earlier and
therefore harvested earlier, which would mitigate this problem
as you would be theoretically harvesting the crop.
More likely between August and end of September as opposed to the end of
September and November, sorry, November, December.
And is that realistic timescale given the changing climate that we've experienced this
year for instance?
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:57:38
Again, most of the maize now is off the fields.
Public Speakers - 1:57:43
A lot of the maize was actually harvested in August, middle of August until now.
In fact, there's hardly any maize left to be harvested.
So yes, it is completely realistic.
You've only got to drive around and look for yourself and you can see that it's no longer
there.
So 100 % realistic
It's a councillor Robert's father councillor givens. Yeah, it's more on this maze issue
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:58:09
I'm just trying to understand the the market conditions around this. Are you suggesting that?
if there's the digester is a
market for the maze
grown that that would
because that's additional demand,
that would increase the price of maize?
Potentially, yes.
Yeah, and would that then be for those that are applying,
selling maize for food production,
would they be at the same price
or would that be a different price?
They would have to compete at the same price.
The farmer growing it would sell it
to whoever was the highest bidder,
as you would sell it and think of your own.
Yeah, okay.
Whoever was the highest bidder.
Public Speakers - 1:58:53
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:59:00
And if they were not supplying the digester, what would the farmers likely be doing instead?
The majority of them would be growing cereals.
Potentially food, but then why should the farmers grow cheap sustainable food for everybody else?
Public Speakers - 1:59:15
Why shouldn't the farmer grow whatever's best for him or her to grow?
So those alternative crops that they could be growing wouldn't be as profitable for them as maize for the duchess?
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:59:28
Public Speakers - 1:59:31
Currently cereal crops are not, and I can say this, as a farm that grows a lot of cereal crops are not sustainable.
Ok, thank you.
Can I still get this over to you?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:59:41
Thank you Chairman.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:59:44
Just a couple of questions.
Just sort of...
I'm trying to get to the root of why it's so beneficial really to sell to the digester.
More to do with the problems because I do know farmers are having terrible problems at the moment.
Is it is that all the problems mainly due to?
The weather which I think must be causing problems for you
Or is it just to do with that the market and the fact that crops you can't get enough for the crops
That's the first question
The weather is a massive factor
Public Speakers - 2:00:23
the other factor is the fact that farmers are
Expected to produce food cheaply
And unlike anybody else that produces anything we can't decide what we sell our product for
Anyone else in any other business will work out what it's cost them to produce,
put a margin on it, and say to the person buying it,
this is what my product is worth to me, this is what you're gonna have to pay.
Whereas farmers can't do that.
And I think farmers are getting very tired of this.
And we're seeing more and more farmers retiring,
packing up farming because the figures just no longer stack up.
Farmers don't receive the Common Agriculture Policy anymore,
as I'm sure you're well aware.
There is some financial support for farmers,
but it's not that straightforward.
And, yeah, quite honestly, farmers are finding it very difficult.
If food was allowed to go dearer, which I think if food was twice the price it was,
nobody in this room would like it very much, but the farmers would.
But unfortunately, food is capped on a world level, so they say it's sustainable, so people
can afford to buy it.
And therefore, the farmer's stuck in this continuous circle where he or she must produce
the food at a sustainable price for everybody else, but can never progress themselves.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:01:54
Okay, I think, yes, I fully understand how hard it is, and a lot of, quite a few of the
job as well in order to keep the farm going. So I'm very aware of the financial constraints
you have. The other question really is, because you're talking about diversity, can you see
if this digester went ahead? Would it mean that farmers locally would, part of their
crop would be for the digester or would all of their crops be for digester, say in the
year or for some years?
That would be difficult for me to comment on.
Public Speakers - 2:02:29
That would be probably, that would vary from farmer to farmer, I would have thought.
And it would also vary on the deals and relationship they had with the plant.
It's quite, I couldn't possibly comment on that with regards to what people would do.
Okay, so Councillor Gough.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:02:51
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:02:54
Let's get something clear. We're all there to support British farmers and we agree that
they need to diversify as well. But, you know, there's a, we agree this is something that
needs to possibly move forward, maybe, but they keep all talking about maize, but there's
also other products that go into the system like grass, sliders, etc.
Rye.
Sorry?
Rye.
that's required in the farming community. You know, we've had a bad year this year,
a bad year last year, and a lot of that stock is down for other farmers. So while
this is beneficial to some farmers, it's not beneficial to others. It affects them
because, like now... Am I doing it again? I'll leave you alone.
No, no, go for it.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
Just put a point of clarification as being nice.
Sure.
I'm just trying to, you know, because we...
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:03:48
I can answer your question because I know it.
Yeah, and I knew you would.
That's why I was asking it for you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:03:52
So I'm just trying to, you know, like I say, we do support it, but support farmers.
But what about those that this doesn't help in the farming community?
Public Speakers - 2:04:04
Well, everyone says they support farmers, but when it actually comes to doing anything
nobody ever does, everybody, you know, we all say, oh, we support our farmers.
we watch Clarkson's Farm, we do this, we do the other.
In reality, it very rarely happens.
With regards to foodstuffs which are produced locally,
I don't know whether you use the M40,
I'm sure you probably do, but you'll notice waggons going,
particularly going north at the M40,
loaded with straw and hay.
That fodder was produced in this area
and that's leaving the area.
That doesn't need to leave the area,
that's probably going to Wales in the north of England.
That fodder could stay here, it isn't.
I mean, quite frankly, I'm not worried about the farmers in Wales or the north of England.
They can look after themselves.
That, what I'm trying to say is, you're saying about the fodder which is produced for this
plant not going into production in this area.
There's already food sources and fodder, tonnes and thousands of tonnes of it going out of the
area to other parts of the United Kingdom.
But then there's thousands of tonnes coming into the area also.
Not really?
Yes, there is.
because when, you know, come wintertime,
everyone's required signage and hay,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:05:09
that's coming in from Scotland and abroad.
And so I'm not going to go into that.
I'm just saying, yes, it is.
It is in possibly smaller quantities.
Public Speakers - 2:05:19
But we do support British farmers.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:05:23
I'm not saying you don't.
I'm just saying everybody says they do.
Public Speakers - 2:05:27
And in reality, very few people do.
I mean, I think the best way to support British farmers
would be if food was twice the price it is.
Yeah.
Okay, thank you.
No problem.
I think we've strayed off playing there.
It was.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:05:39
So it's fine.
Again, we'll do more of that at another time.
So just to clarify, any other further questions
from the members of clarification?
Okay.
If not, I'd like to thank you Ben.
Thank you Thomas for coming and leading the show.
We will now move on from Thomas
And we're now going to move on to hearing from Alice Lavic, who's
speaking on behalf of the applicants of the application.
Alice was also supported by Anne Beckford, director
of EarthCare Technical, Finn Boye -Q,
sustainability for Acorn Biology, Sophia Thorpe,
head of planning for Acorn Biotechnology,
Rachel Les, head of planning for Qualitas Energy,
and Jeremy Collins, director of GGP.
So if they would like to come forward to the speaker's piece, obviously,
Alastair is obviously the main speaker, but obviously there may well be technical questions based on what his statement says,
but it requires the members to then actually ask those specific questions of the team.
And as again, once the timer starts, Alastair, you'll have three minutes of speaking time.
Over to you, Alastair.
Public Speakers - 2:06:57
My name is Alistair Veitch from Acorn.
I also help run my own family farm not too far from here in Oxfordshire and I'm very
happy to answer any farming questions you might have.
Hornage Green Power will provide renewable biomethane and carbon dioxide, natural fertiliser
and stable income for farmers.
This helps keep local farms financially sustainable and ultimately keeps Buckinghamshire's fields in use for farming.
All of this can be done without causing harm or nuisance to our neighbours, nearby villages and the environment.
We're here today because Buckinghamshire farmers need our help.
I don't need to tell you how much pressure they're under, just look at the extraordinary drought, volatile fertiliser prices and punishing energy costs.
We are proud that our application has received well over 300 letters of support.
Many of these came from local family farms, some of whom are here today.
It just shows how important this proposal is to them.
This plan accords with national and local policies.
This is reflected in the views of your expert officers, not one of whom objects to the proposal.
We'll increase biodiversity. Your ecology officers don't object, and neither does Natural England.
We've carefully designed and screened the plant.
Your landscape, tree protection and design officers don't object.
We've kept development away from Hornage Brook, the lead local flood authority and the Environment Agency don't object.
We've ensured our plans won't cause nuisance. Your Environmental Health Officers and the Environment Agency don't object.
On highways, your officers have consistently had no objections, but we've listened to local concerns and volunteered stricter controls to try and reassure the community.
We've reduced vehicle movements, submitted a robust traffic management plan, well ahead
of schedule and prohibited vehicle movements during school pick -up and drop -off times.
Your highway officers confirm that the plant can operate safely and will not have any unacceptable
impacts on the local network.
Even the most sensitive road in Longcrendon will see an imperceptible increase of 0 .3 %
for the majority of the year and just 0 .4 % at harvest.
Members, you are used to considering applications with traffic impacts measured in the numbers
of vehicles per minute.
For Hornet Green Power, two -way movements are capped at 140 per day during 24 days of
harvest and just 80 per day for the rest of the year.
This will not disrupt local villages.
We are experienced and successful in delivering tight regulation of our operational traffic.
Your officer -recommended conditions are without doubt enforceable.
You will not be strangers to the arguments about the need for countryside protection,
but keeping our farms working requires more than warm words.
It requires a plan.
Stand with your local farmers, support our national energy security and endorse the judgement
of every single one of your dedicated officers and let Buckinghamshire keep its feel for
farmings.
This is your opportunity to act.
I strongly urge you to approve this application.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:10:15
That was three minutes exactly.
Okay, so starting with Councillor Moore, if you want to do the first question.
Cllr David Moore - 2:10:25
Thank you Chairman, I just want to echo Councillor Gough's words, how much respect, not just myself,
that so many members have for farmers and the immense challenges that they face.
but ultimately as a planning committee we have to consider things as the application goes on material considerations without emotion
but looking at the material considerations and therefore I would like to ask a question clarification regarding the the brook and the
Attenuation systems. What are you going to do to ensure that the runoff such as the rainwater and the potential?
Contamination from the water of the site are kept separate. I'd like to just clarify because you touched on the on the brook thing
Can I just divert this question to Jeremy?
Public Speakers - 2:11:03
Hi, yeah, so this site is purposely designed to contain the two systems being clean and potentially contaminated,
and I think it's key to highlight potentially contaminated.
There is runoff from silage clamps which has effluent in.
That is what we call private liquid because it has calorific value to go into the plant,
so it has an element of energy to it.
That is collected in a design bund area, which is to capture that water and then pump it
into the storage tanks inside the main containment bund.
The containment bund is designed to see the guidance, so it's designed to water retaining
structures, so it's a fully sealed system, so there's no chance of water leaking from
there if it's contaminated.
The clean system is only areas which we are 110 % confident that they are 100 % clean, so i .e. run off from roofs, so that's designated into a sealed system.
And basically the covers of the lagoon itself, because we've highlighted that the digester sits below, the cover of the lagoon still catches rainfall, that is pumped off into the clean water lagoon, and the clean water lagoon itself obviously catches rainwater.
water so that is two clear separate systems.
Thank you. Can you confirm then there is a clear separation between the clean
Cllr David Moore - 2:12:26
water and the dirty water? Yes. Full separation? Full separate system.
Just to clarify, based on this design we see there, there are two separate tanks.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:12:37
One is for the clean water and one is for the dirty water. So the natural
Public Speakers - 2:12:47
water and then everything from the hard standing area is collected and pumped into the three
tanks which are there and then stored into those.
So those three tanks fold 400 cubic and with the rainfall modelling which has been done
that could potentially have contaminated liquids that will be pumped into those tanks and stored
and reused in the process.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:13:13
Thank you. So next I had Councillor Johnson -Waters and then Councillor Fealing.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:13:24
Thank you. I've got a couple of other questions but just coming back on the water one, one of the things which was mentioned is if you got one of these flash floods which we get quite frequently whenever it seems to rain at the moment, we either get nothing or it goes mad.
There was a question about capacity of taking all of that water and what the ability of
those tanks would be.
Obviously they are unlikely to be empty as the other gentleman said, so you haven't got
the full capacity available to you.
So what happens if they do fill up over a very quick period?
So there's two different scenarios which we've modelled.
Obviously for the lead local flood authority and government standards,
we've got to look at the one in 100 year with climate change.
So that's covering an extreme event.
We will microsite closer so that we can pick it up on the webcast as well as the,
because obviously there are people.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:14:11
Public Speakers - 2:14:13
So we've got to model the one in 100 year with climate change,
which is part of the lead local flood authorities requirements.
That's been done and the lagoon does have capacity for that storm.
It actually has 1 ,680 metres cubed of storage,
as opposed to some good number
which was highlighted previously.
That does have a restricted discharge rate
into the water course, and the remaining site
goes into the storage tanks, which is those 400 cubes.
And obviously, with it being two separate systems,
and me saying that it can definitely
be two separate systems, it is designed to hold
and store that water above ground as well,
which is permitted in the 1 in 100 year event.
So we've designed for the extreme rainfall events.
We've also looked at average annual rainfall, which is key.
You know, looking at this area, we've looked at different rainfall scenarios
from old data to more recent data, certainly the last couple of years,
and we've modelled that scenario to understand how much rainfall we actually get
averagely over the year as opposed to these freak events
and make sure that we can contain those scenarios at any one time.
Thank you.
I've got a second question, but it's not actually on water.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:15:25
That's obviously one of the key things we're going to have to make a decision on within
the application, is the benefits of this particular site and why it needs to be in this location
to give us those benefits.
So there are two elements.
One the measures in terms of the analysis you've done in terms of the carbon benefits,
and there was again some issue raised in terms of
what measure you'd used in terms of what should have been.
And the other one which has come up is one of the reasons
why this is more, much more positive than the previous
application that came in but was removed,
is that you're gonna get the gas link.
And the gas pipe link has a condition that you can't
continue on if you don't put that in within the 12 months.
and actually presumably start using it by then.
So those things are very important
because if they aren't there,
that actually changes the application quite significantly.
It also increases the amount of traffic movement,
so there's quite a lot of knock -on if these things happen.
So if you could explain those areas in more detail.
Fine. So if we answer those questions in order,
can I pass to Finn to answer the question on the carbon?
Public Speakers - 2:16:41
Hi everyone.
So the emission benefit of the project has been derived from the renewable energy directive
methodology.
So this is the main methodology that's been used across Europe for at least 15 years or
so.
It's also been used in the UK for many of our renewable fuel methodologies.
So it's a robust methodology and used across Europe.
That's my first point.
It uses an attributional LCA approach in response to your point before.
And one of the key benefits really with biomethane is it's
a direct replacement for natural gas.
So natural gas, as we all know, is a fossil fuel.
That carbon would otherwise be stored underground for
potentially millions of years in situ.
Whereas biomethane is produced from biogenic origin from mostly waste and
That's I think a key point here is a lot of the feedstock.
The majority is actually agricultural waste and agricultural residues.
But there are some crops as well.
But that represents carbon that's been absorbed from the atmosphere within
the same year that it would be released.
Another point is that anaerobic digestion also produces digestate.
So that displaces artificial fertilisers.
Again, a big source of carbon emissions.
But it also produces biogenic CO2.
So biogas is, let's say, just for argument's sake,
it's 50 -50 methane and carbon dioxide.
That carbon dioxide can also then be used for other purposes,
such as food and beverage, which otherwise,
that CO2 would have to come from fossil origin.
So there's many products in anaerobic digestion,
which actually has a broad environmental benefit in terms
of GHG emissions.
And that's what this methodology has been based on.
And all of our calculations have also been independently verified
for the actual GHG calculator itself.
Just a quick supplementary on that.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:18:54
So why is it the officers can't confirm that they're confident
with your measures in their report?
I mean, I don't fully understand.
Public Speakers - 2:19:04
I did see the Cheersley CO2 impact report.
And I think one of the main issues that I found with it is that it's assuming that burning natural gas and burning methane from biogenic origin,
those emissions are kind of treated the same.
But one is drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere before it's being released again.
The other is that carbon that's been stored underground for
millions of years,
which leads to a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
And in answer to your second question, yes,
we're very proud to have a gas grid connexion here,
which would take the gas into the national grid.
When we started this project, obviously,
it was a number of years ago, we were talking to National Grid about the process of putting the gas into the grid.
Over that period of time, that process has now been defined.
So we know exactly how long it will take us.
We know that we'll get approval to do it.
We know that we can achieve this.
But the reason we've been given a little bit of extra time before, after commissioning,
is just that that process does take some time.
And so that just allows us the time to do it.
But the process itself is well understood,
it's well defined, and it's just a formality
of going through the process.
But there's no agreement in place at this point in time?
There isn't an agreement, a formal agreement at the moment,
but we have agreed a process with National Grid to do that.
So it's it's purely a defined process that we will go through and we know exactly how long and at what cost that will be
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:21:04
And have the case officers seen these correspondents or these these these discussions
No, they haven't because they're obviously commercially sensitive to Acorn, but we can provide that in due course if that's a requirement
Yeah, thank you
Public Speakers - 2:21:15
Councillor Fieder.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:21:18
Thank you, Chairman.
Did you say you were a farmer?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:21:21
Yes, I am.
Have you got a digester on your farm?
We don't actually have a digester, but we have a digested tank.
Public Speakers - 2:21:29
So we are very close to 7 Trent Green Power.
I farm in Uelm, near Benson.
We have a digester two miles away.
And they provide a digested tank that we use the digested from on the farm.
It's made a huge difference to the farm at home.
It's made a massive difference to the carbon intensity
of the business, the commercial commerciality of the business,
and made a massive difference to the impact
on our profitability of the business.
We saw what the previous site, the tankers,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:22:10
are taking the gas away.
and there's some allocated on this side as well.
So where's that going?
So the gas has got a number of options that it can go to.
Public Speakers - 2:22:22
We have actually, originally we have planned permission
at Newton Longville in Milton Keynes
to actually take the gas to a tanker point there.
Yeah, we know about that one.
Yep, and we've also got an operational facility
at Banbury where we can take the gas.
But we've got a number of companies,
private companies we're talking to that actually want
to use biomethane as a fuel for vehicles, for other uses,
for large amount of heat requirements.
And that really does allow them to decarbonize their business.
So we're talking to a number of companies about that in future.
Do you see that as the next stage of this adventure,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:23:14
to have local distribution of gas,
similar to what we have at the moment with heating oil?
At the moment, we're just looking locally within.
But obviously, Acorn has a number of facilities.
We have the facility at Three Maids
that obviously you came to see.
Public Speakers - 2:23:35
That takes the gas to Portsdown Hill in Portsmouth.
and that's been operational very successfully
for the last two or three years.
So you could be running smaller distribution vehicles
from here?
We've purchased tankers that will take the gas
for these sites, but generally they're articulated lorries.
So they're large lorries?
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:24:09
Sorry, can I ask? Yeah, I would I would also like to say that
Public Speakers - 2:24:11
This plant
Relies on the support it will receive from the government subsidies from the green gas support scheme the GGSS scheme
For this plant to be successfully come to be successful commercially. It needs to benefit from that government support
That support is only available to this plant if it connects into the gas grid.
There's a specific and direct correlation between the plant being located here, so it can export into the grid,
and therefore receive the green gas subsidy that then makes the plant viable.
We wouldn't be here now with this project unless there was a gas grid connexion there.
So this subsidy is purely for your benefit for producing the gas.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:25:04
Is that something that's passed on to the farmers?
Public Speakers - 2:25:11
It's all part of the financial model within the money that goes to the farmers for the
manures and the break crops that we take and also the digestate that goes back to them.
I would say also the Green Gas Support Scheme provides as well the methodology that we use
to calculate the carbon savings so that plants are only eligible to receive that subsidy
from government if they are genuinely carbon neutral or saving carbon.
And the methodology that's used within that support scheme is something called the Red
Eye Methodology.
And that is the methodology that we have used to quantify our own carbon savings within
this project.
And so they are meaningful.
They are real.
They are based on the government's own methodology in determining which low carbon projects receive
the financial subsidy.
So we would not receive this subsidy if we were not low carbon, genuinely low carbon.
We have to prove that as we go through our operation.
I am aware as well that this is a carbon methodology that we use on all of our operational acorn
sites.
and they are vetted and audited by the regulator.
And we've consistently been shown to be low carbon
through that regulatory vetting process.
So I hope that provides some reassurance.
Because clearly at the moment farmers are suffering
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:26:43
from having to buy ingredients to improve their farm.
Is that something you'll be able to help them with in cost?
We're obviously looking to support agriculture generally.
Public Speakers - 2:26:55
We are going to be here for a long time.
This planning commission lasts for 25 years.
We need to work with local agriculture to help make a sustainable future.
If farmers give up, that doesn't help anyone.
It certainly doesn't help us.
We need to work with farmers to allow them a sustainable operation model
that will work for the future.
Okay, thank you.
I've got Councillor Gibbon followed by Councillor Goulton and then Councillor Smith.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:27:23
Councillor Gibbon.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:27:29
Councillor Gibbon, Councillor Roberts, then we'll move to the other side of the chamber to Councillor Goulton and Councillor Smith.
Over to Councillor Gibbon.
Thank you.
Could you just explain a bit about why the digestate is so beneficial to farmers?
I believe it produces fertiliser, I think.
And am I rightly thinking that fertilisers now for
farmers is very expensive to buy?
Public Speakers - 2:27:56
Yeah, so really since the war in Ukraine,
the price of fertiliser has gone up considerably.
So when I talk about the price of fertiliser,
I'm really talking about nitrogen fertiliser.
Originally we had two fertiliser factories in the UK producing
a foot 34 .5 % nitrogen prill, those have both shut down.
So now we're importing everything that we produce.
It's very hot carbon intensive.
It's a chemical fertiliser.
It just literally provides the nutrient that it says on the bag.
So Nitram is 34 .5 % nitrogen, only provides nitrogen.
Farmers also need to buy in phosphate and potash,
which again comes from mining operations, highly carbon sensitive.
The digestate that we produce is a really wonderfully balanced fertiliser.
It gives basically about five kilos of n per tonne,
about three kilos of potash and three kilos of phosphate.
Not only do you get that, you also get magnesium, sulphur,
lots of other trace elements that really make it into a wonderful fertiliser.
And that's what's really improved our own farm.
One, we've saved money.
Two, we actually get a better fertiliser as a result.
But the other real massive benefit that it's made to our farm is organic matter.
Our organic matters at the moment on the home farm, where we've had digestate for
a number of years, are running at 12%.
Organic matters in the local area generally are running at 3 or 4%.
That organic matter allows soils to have the ability to survive against drought.
They reckon for every 1 % organic matter in a soil,
you increase the water retention capacity by one inch of rain.
That is a massive difference.
That's allowed us at home to have a pretty reasonable harvest in comparison to our neighbours that had a pretty tough one
And I think it all comes down to the digestate. So I think it's a massive benefit
Okay, you know to council Roberts
Yeah, I may I've got three main areas
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:30:18
To cover the first one. I noticed on the plant. There's no
There doesn't appear to be a wheel washing
facility so for traffic entering the site and leaving the site,
there's potential for contaminating the local roads.
So.
But there will be a wheel washing facility.
There will be wheel washing facility.
Okay. I didn't see that in the plans.
Is that?
It's quite small but it is.
It is.
If we can, I don't know if there's a way of including
that in the conditions.
It has part of the conditions if approved.
It has part of the conditions.
Okay.
It is actually on the approved plan.
It is on there.
Okay.
If we can cheque on that, Chairman.
The second point, you've covered a couple of points recently
in comments about, first of all,
about gas connexion being required, et cetera.
So what's the fallback position for you
if that gas connexion does not materialise?
Because then you wouldn't meet the condition
that's built into the plan.
We're very confident that we can achieve that gas connexion.
Public Speakers - 2:31:22
I understand your confidence.
What's the fallback position if it doesn't materialise?
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:31:27
Or for instance, you also mentioned
about the green gas subsidy.
If that is changed or withdrawn, then your viability
will come into question.
We can remove the gas, obviously,
Public Speakers - 2:31:41
by tanker, as we originally looked
to do with the application.
So we can take it to Banbury and that's a fully sustainable operational route that will meet the requirements.
Obviously we do have a condition in place.
We're so confident that we can get the gas connexion that we're happy for it and we are happy for it to be in condition.
Okay, I might need to come back to that in the...
Yeah, you know, I was saying thought process, Councillor Roberts.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:32:12
Yes, sorry. Can I, can Sophia just answer?
Hello, and also the process our engineers have been going through in relation to the grid connexion
Public Speakers - 2:32:21
has got as far as it can do in the absence of having a planning permission.
So once we've gone through the process and have the decision notice in hand,
that's something that we can then advance to formalise. So it's a bit of a chicken and an egg in that scenario.
So we've basically fulfilled all of the
the pre -consent requirements that we can do up to now,
but then we just need the planning commission
to be able to finalise that
and then move into the next phase.
So as Alistair said, we don't have any concerns
that we won't be able to fulfil the obligations
set within the planning condition.
And the year parameter is just so that we can go
through the construction process,
start to commission the facility,
while it's also facilitating the grid connexion
and be able to do some of the commissioning off -take by HGV,
just as we ramp up production in the first year or so.
So it's an organic process, therefore we go through construction.
We simultaneously start to commission, but there is a commissioning phase
that does have to happen simultaneously with construction.
So the year -long period is just to enable all of the construction phases
to be concluded before we are fully seeded as we talk about it in the industry and fully
then therefore into operation.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:33:50
Could I quickly comment? Could you just clarify just for members what commissioning means?
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 2:33:53
Because I think it's a technical word used in the anaerobic digester world, but I'm not
sure. It might be useful just before the next question comes in.
So as you just mentioned, so the commissioning stages,
Public Speakers - 2:34:05
as we're going through construction,
we'll normally then have a period of around six months
or so where we start to feed the mix of feedstocks
into the digester hoppers.
So this is similar to what you would do at home
in your compost bin, that you start
to add different components.
We're stirring them in the digester to start
to create the environment for all of the processes to break down what's in there.
We're feeding, as I say, that's normally about a six -month process.
And during that process, we start to create biomethane.
So at the end of the commissioning stage,
that's when all of the construction will be completed.
The commissioning, final commissioning, will also be concluded.
We'll hand over from our construction team
and go into full operation.
And over the next year or so is as we ramp up the daily off take of biomethane.
Okay.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:35:11
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:35:13
My last point is HGV covers quite a wide variety of types of vehicles.
So could you clarify in the figures that you've presented,
what sorts of vehicles are we actually talking about?
what in practise are they, the types of vehicles, are they articulated lorries, are they small trucks,
are they farm vehicles, trailers, what do they actually physically look like?
Public Speakers - 2:35:44
Within the condition there's actually a definition which is HUE means any vehicle exceeding 3 .5 tonnes of unladen weight.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:35:53
Yes, but can you explain what kinds of vehicles that could cover a whole range of different types of vehicles?
To be fair, the whole range of vehicles.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:36:01
Well I think what Councillor Robertson and I were coming from is that what we're looking for is what's the percentage of small van, tractor versus trailer versus HGV, as in the big articulated rolls you'd see on the road and the 40 tonne truck itself.
So what I'm saying is the dynamic of.
What's the breakdown of?
The breakdown of between those three types of categories
within the HTV plus three tonnes, or three and a half tonnes,
what does it look like on the roads
for the residents to understand what's likely to come out
and if this gets permitted, what's likely to come at them
so they understand what's likely to come towards them.
Okay.
So,
talking slightly off the top of my head here
Public Speakers - 2:36:34
because we haven't actually worked that one out, I'm afraid.
But what I would say is that about 50 %
of the vehicle movements I would expect to be HGV,
so that's articulated lorries.
I would expect about 40 % to be tractors and trailers,
so that's a 14 tonne payload that generally
a tractor and trailer would take.
And then I would expect about 10 % to be those
sort of large vans, small lorries, rigid lorries.
The reason for the question is it's quite important,
particularly for those who are listening in, to understand what is the practical reality
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:37:18
of what's being proposed. If this were to go ahead, what would they see driving down their
streets? And I think that's important to understand, which is why I asked the question.
The other thing is, where are those vehicles, where are you expecting those vehicles to come
from? What are the origins and geographic distribution of where you think those vehicles
kind of come from.
So in terms of the number of HGVs and getting an idea about
Public Speakers - 2:37:45
the quantum of those, I would just draw your attention to the
planning conditions in terms of it would be allowing a capped
number of HGV movements of 142 way movements per day for just
24 days of the year.
So as a worst case, that would be the number of HGVs on the
coming to the plant for 24 days of the year.
And then outside of those peak harvest periods,
the condition allows for only 80 two -way movements of HDVs
for 341 days of the year.
So in terms of having some sort of certainty on the number
and type of HDVs visiting the site,
the planning permission prescribes it
to those levels beyond which we can't go.
In terms of the sources of materials coming into the plant,
we worked with offices to offer up a planning condition
that would look to ensure that 80 % of the feedstock coming
into this plant was within a 20 kilometre radius,
and that 35 % would be within a five kilometre radius
Again, just to give the assurance to the local community
and to yourselves that this is a, sorry, a local facility
for local waste and agricultural products.
So I'd just like to add that obviously we have a limit
of 98 ,000 tonnes of feedstock coming into the site.
But we also have a track contiguous with the site so that there'll be some material of that 98 ,000 tonnes
Comes from farm actually attached to the site that actually doesn't go on any public highway at all
So we're talking about
Around 10 % of the feedstock of the site will actually come from
500 acre block next door to the site that doesn't go on any highway at all
That's another sort of locational reason why we're here in that we have access to the crops coming in from those fields immediately around the plant that don't need to go on the public highway.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:40:15
Okay. I think for me what I'm hearing is that today we don't have any idea of how many of those vehicles would be coming through Longcrenden, how many of them would be coming through Oakley and what the distribution would be.
We have done a full assessment of that and that was included in the application.
So those...
Public Speakers - 2:40:35
You'll pick it up with the technical, with the technicals then with the IOWA team?
I'll come back to that.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:40:37
Just to clarify, I've got Councillor Feeley, I think Councillor Waters and Councillor Beaman already had their question.
Because I'm conscious of Councillor Gough has been really patient over there.
I know you're always patient in Casa God, but you gave little conflicts of that.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:41:00
Thanks Janet. Can I just go on the stage? You talked about farmers selling me a product into you.
Your profit, where does the profit go?
Public Speakers - 2:41:13
We're a private company, so we are owned by investors and obviously they will take a return.
But obviously, some of that profit,
we've got a community benefit fund in place.
So we will work with local people and return some of the profit to the plant
to sustainable projects that happen.
How that works is we set up a local chair.
It might be, for other sites, it's been a chair of the local parish council or
a notable person.
We put together a board of people who come together who want to work with us
We give 20 ,000 pounds a year to that board and then they invite projects from the local community to come forwards
And at that point then each year we give out those monies into the project and that happens for every acorn
Site that we operate and has nothing to do with the planning process
So now that was the point I was coming on to but you've answered it.
Well could I just clarify that that Community Benefit Fund isn't a material planning consideration.
It shouldn't be something that is taken into account in whether or not you determine to
approve or refuse the application. It's just something that the business does in terms of
being a good neighbour that's all. Okay.
Councillor Egan, you're done?
Good? Okay, Councillor, go on and follow by Councillor Smith.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:42:43
I'll follow Councillor Wood.
No, no, Dave, no, no, no.
Thank you very much. Would you like to go first, actually?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:42:50
Um, that's very kind of you, thank you very, very much.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:42:55
Um, I need to get my thoughts together now.
Um, I mean, there is no doubt that this is fantastic technology that is really genuinely needed in this country.
The concerns in my mind are about scale and geography, really.
And I wonder if you can help me with a genuine kind of concern I've got about a contradiction, really, within our own strategy.
And that's that a site of this scale is likely to completely destroy our strategy to develop the sort of bi -anaerobic digester that you have on your farm
that we should be promoting for on -farm digesters
who can have a sealed loop of being able to genuinely deal with waste
rather than growing crops specifically for waste,
where that fertiliser, as you say, is extremely useful.
Just to clarify, I'm not sure I've seen that strategy.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:43:50
I've seen it articulated generally as a name and an aspiration,
but I'm not sure I've definitely seen it definitely as a definitive strategy.
It's definitely a direction of travel and maybe I should come back to that in technical.
But I don't want to be misleading the public who are watching on the webcast that that's a committed policy and the rest of it.
I think that's our general aspiration.
I'll be shocked if it's not.
But, you know, I'm pretty sure...
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:44:11
Let's put it that way. Shocked if we're not supporting our farmers in that way within this county.
But I don't think we've got a physical policy we can hang our hat on today.
Because I don't think obviously we need New York plan coming through.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:44:19
It's actually there yet.
So I think just sort of want to be aware that, you know,
that is a clear aspiration for us collectively as a council,
but I don't think they're there as of today.
That's a very good point well made,
but the question really remains,
and that's that a site of this size,
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:44:33
biggest in the country, is likely to mean,
certainly in what far bigger than anything else
anywhere near Buckinghamshire,
is likely to mean that the onsite, on farm,
biodigesters will become impossible.
It just won't be viable for farmers to have their own biodigesters because of
everything's gonna be hoovered up through this enormous site.
Is that correct?
Let me just clarify.
One, the site that you went to see at three maids
is exactly the same output as this one.
It's exactly the same.
Public Speakers - 2:45:09
So it's 1 ,250 metres.
I'm trying to count the domes.
Was it three at that site?
Three.
That note there are five there are five digester tanks. They're just slightly slightly different layouts
It's slightly different technology, but it is effectively a twelve hundred and fifty metre cube design and this a twelve hundred
and fifty metre cube design and I think that comes to the heart of it, so
We certainly wouldn't be
Upsetting other farmers doing it
Certainly where you came to three maids
They're our site, but only sort of four miles up the road.
There's another site equally as large as ours,
has very little impact on each other.
So I really don't think that we will have a negative impact
on other farmers wanting to put in place digesters.
I would also say that your officers
have carefully considered the applicable
and adopted policies, waste policies,
that apply to your area and they have set out their reasoning within their report as
to why they believe that our project is not in conflict with those policies and is in
fact supported by those policies.
Thank you that.
Can I have a follow up just on geography?
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:46:31
Simply it was a lovely picture that you showed of your existing site.
Right next to the A34, just next to the motorway.
Right next to the motorway.
A34 and the A32.
So why on earth would you want to put one right
in the middle of the countryside, nowhere
near any sort of, you know.
Thank you.
No thanks for anything, sir.
Thank you.
It's because we're close to our customers.
Public Speakers - 2:47:01
You know, we're working with the local farming community.
We've got 500 acres next door and potentially more land
that can come in straight off the farm track network
that doesn't have to hit the highway.
So my calculation's about 5 ,000 acres for maize production.
Well, I'm sorry.
That was wrong, that number.
So actually, the total amount of silage we need
is about 1 ,000 hectares worth.
And the amount of maize silage we need actually
is about 200 hectares worth.
So it's actually quite a bit smaller
than the previous speaker.
in public listening, just remind us what that means in acres,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:47:39
because most people understand acres rather than hectares.
I know it's 2 .2, which is a normal calculation,
but just explain to the public out there what that's
meaning in acres, because people understand acres better.
So in acres, that's 2 ,400 acres approximately,
Public Speakers - 2:47:54
of which for maize, we actually only have 7 ,000 tonnes
in the feedstock mix.
So it's about 350, 400 acres worth of maize.
So it's not actually a vast quantity of maize
within the feedstock mix.
I think the other point I would make there in terms
of your comparison to the three maize facilities
that that does not have access to the gas grid.
This is one of the key reasons as well,
whilst we're located here.
So it's obviously accessibility to the feedstock.
It's accessibility for our digestate to go back to farmers.
It's accessibility to the gas grid itself,
just metres from where the plant is producing the gas.
And from a highway point of view, I know there's a lot of local concern
around the highways and the impacts that that will have.
But we have assessed it not just on a desktop -generated basis.
We have assessed it in a lot of detail, a lot of rigour.
And your highway officers have consistently found,
on the four years where they've been consulted on the project,
that even with our original higher levels of HGV movements,
it was found to be acceptable from a road safety and capacity
point of view.
We listened to those local concerns.
It wasn't concerns from the highway authority
that led us to reduce our vehicle
movements from nearly 200 down to 140.
That was in response to the local concerns.
And the impact assessment work that we've done
looked at 33 different links.
That's information collected out there, not from a death study,
but actually collected at these junctions
around where the routes that the HGV could be using.
and only on, well none of those links exceed the 10 % sort of impact level that
is used by the Highway Authority. They're all below 10%. Only three of those
impacts that were assessed were at 7 .3%, 6 .3 % and 4 .4%.
Everything else, the remaining 30 links were below 4%. So I think it's really
important to whilst listening to the local concerns to also understand some
perspective in terms of the actual measured impact that has been done and
evidence -based and has been scrutinised extensively by your highway officers
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:50:39
Councillor Gormley and I've got a question myself but Councillor Gormley. I'm really
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:50:44
frustrated now because he asked some questions that I was going to ask I'm a
bit concerned that people don't realise that in the planning committee, because I'm a little
bit offended actually, that people might think we're not supporting British farmers. It was
some of the comments that have been made. But we have to look at a whole generic issue
of what we're doing. So please, let's make sure we stay on the level. Because when I
came to your premises, I was extremely supportive. I found it amazing what you showed us. And
it was good.
And I'm going to say that.
And I was also very supportive that the after product went
back out to the farming community
to help weeds for quite a while about fertilisers.
And it was good to hear that.
Again, we are lucky in the area.
We've got Westcott.
We've got Aston Clinton with Digest Tanks
that many of the farmers use, which is great.
But what I'd like just to get back to is,
So, one of the issues is traffic.
That's been a big issue.
Where you're situated at your plant that we came to was not in the same sort of criteria
as this one because it was off the major roads.
But like you say, it was on that gas link.
With the gas link that's there, where does it go to?
Because I'm quite intrigued.
Could it have been positioned somewhere else?
Like when you look down, I don't know where the grid is, but does the grid run down to
the A41A, down further towards Tame, or does it run over to the M40?
I don't know.
So was there another opportunity that you could have gone that direction?
Because those farms could still supply there.
So where does the grid run is one question.
And then the other question is, when we first saw this site,
before this flood alleviation thing coming again,
we were told, and again, the majority of delivery would come in from the farms via the farm.
But now it turns out, no it won't be.
So next is only one access coming into the site from the farm.
So how will the other farmers allegedly jump onto the land rather than go on the road?
That's what we were given the impression about.
Always an opportunity on that one.
And then my last question is, is it seems to be condensed again
that a lot of the deliveries will come in during harvest.
I understand that, but what I don't,
why has it not been considered that some of the product
that is produced is left to be stored
on the farms that produce it,
so the traffic management could be spread over a period,
because that could work too.
So I'm just trying to understand why is it all going to get
to the, because it's harvest time.
They all store it now, so why couldn't that be divided down?
Just some questions.
Right, so to answer the first question on the gas grid.
Public Speakers - 2:54:03
So if you look at the plan up there, the gas grid actually runs to the south of the site,
running east to west.
So it literally runs across the site.
There's a gas compound slightly to the north,
but just by the 4 -0 road.
And then it runs basically, it's the NTS,
it's the National Transmission Gas Grid,
and runs basically from the north
to the south of the country from there.
I would just be intrigued to see if it was near one
of those major roads, but you've covered that for me.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:54:46
I think in terms of the access points into the site,
I can't comment on what you were briefed on before
because we weren't part of that briefing.
Public Speakers - 2:54:53
What I can say is that what we've always,
well what the application has become is a proposal
with two access points into it.
One from the B4011, which the vast majority
of vehicles will use.
And about 10 % of the feedstock going into the plant will come in off the surrounding farmland,
utilising that farm field access which sits just south of the main access.
And that, since we proposed that as a way of reducing,
when we originally put the application in there wasn't that farm access going directly into the site.
So this was one of the things that we responded to in terms of local concerns.
how else can we reduce the number of vehicles on the road?
So by amending the application and putting that field access in,
we reduced the vehicles on the road by 10%.
And that has been our approach ever since we
modified the proposals.
When we originally, going on to your last point,
is on the harvest period, we've restricted ourselves
only 24 days at the peak movements of 140.
The rest of the year, 341 days, we'll only have 80 movements.
So some of the material that the farmers are harvesting, some of that straw,
some of that manure, will come in on a regular basis throughout the year.
It's just there will be some local farms within the very local
area that will bring in within that harvest peak.
So that's the reason for it.
So not everyone will come in.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:56:48
I'm just trying to work out why not divide the traffic
accumulation down if you spread it out?
Because the impact on the area is going to be quite heavy.
So do you see what I'm saying?
If you just divide it down a bit.
Essentially that's what we are doing.
So we've reduced the number of peak harvest days as you've
Public Speakers - 2:57:10
Well, we've offered to restrict the number of peak harvest days down to 24.
That means that we blend across the shoulders, essentially, so that instead of having a more
intensive harvest peak where everything comes into the site simultaneously, there will be
some off -site storage, as mentioned by Alastair.
And we're also, through this methodology as well, looking at spreading the movements out
of digest -state export.
So instead of that being in smaller kind of peak periods,
that could be more campaign spreading and then storing on farm,
such as what Alistair mentioned he has at his farm.
So that enables the farmer, therefore, to be able to store
and have the certainty of the digestate on their own farm
so that they can use it when conditions are appropriate.
if we didn't have that, then we would store more within the facility for longer
and then have more, a more intensive shorter period of digestate being exported.
So it's through that combination of different measures that we've been able to commit
to the overall reduction of HGV movements.
But importantly, and Rachel's already touched on this, so I won't label the point,
But all of our methodology, all of our reporting,
all considered the worst case scenario.
So the real world experience of HGVs on the roads
will actually be less than what we've tested
because we've been able to look at all of these other ways
and means to spread, kind of spread the HGV loads
across the year to flatten the peaks.
So I think just to on that point was just to say that we have looked to minimise our
traffic impacts but we also work closely with the highway authority to understand what would
be acceptable to them because clearly that's very important and if they are advising us
that what we are proposing is acceptable and well within safety and capacity tolerances
then that to us is also an acceptable position to take as well.
Thank you very much for those.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:59:31
So again, because of climate change, etc.,
so you're relying on the local farms in the area.
But say the yield was down by 50 % one year,
you would have to go further afield to bring that product in.
How have you accounted for that?
We've got quite a variety of products that we bring in if you look at the feedstock mix.
Public Speakers - 2:59:52
So that's one of the beauties of having a diverse feedstock.
If we look at this year that's just happened, obviously we've had a terrible drought, had
massive impact.
But actually, we took in whole crop rye.
So actually, we got 20 % bigger yield than we were expecting,
actually more than we were expecting, but actually that did really well.
The maize has been slightly down, probably 10%, 20 % down.
But that's a swing around with that.
So it doesn't all happen in the same year, you do have variations.
And we can take in manures.
So I mean, we haven't really talked about manures within this, but
that's one of the major impact reasons for being here.
There are a lot of livestock farmers in the area that produce manures.
At the moment, those manures are spread to ground.
They tend to be quite smelly.
They cause a nuisance.
Also, they haven't had the carbon taken out of them.
So what we can do is we can take those manures, we can decarbonize it,
we can pay the farmers for those manures.
We can give them back digestate if they want that to replace the nutrients that we've taken away.
So from their point of view, and that's a major reason for being here, is that it's such a heavily livestocked region.
And it works really well for us.
So that's a major impact for looking at this area in the first place.
And the home farm we're on is a large dairy farm.
They've mentioned it already.
We're taking 11 ,500 cubic metres of slurry from that farm.
Doesn't have to go through a single village or
conurbation to get to the site.
Again, it's just a major reason.
And that really helps that farm decarbonize,
helps them gain another income source.
But also means that when they sell their product to supermarkets or
whoever it may be,
they're actually showing a really good carbon credit as a result.
I don't think we're judging the benefit of the farming community.
It's the bigger picture of what's going on around. Thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:02:01
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:02:03
Okay, so Councillor Moore is last speaking. I've only got one question left for myself.
And at that point we will adjourn for lunch.
And I'll talk about that in a sec, once we've done the last two questions.
Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate people are thirsty and hungry, so I'll try and keep this short.
Cllr David Moore - 3:02:17
but this is regarding condition four.
So you chose this location slap bang in the middle
of the countryside because of the gas connexion.
Is that correct?
And other considerations.
And other considerations.
And other things, but that was private.
Okay. So how come you need 12 months as per condition four
of the report to operate up to 12 months before the connexion
is installed?
It's just a process that we, as Sophia mentioned,
we have to have planning permission before we can actually put
Public Speakers - 3:02:45
in a formal application to gain the connexion.
And that process just takes some time.
But the plant can operate in those 12 months?
The plant can operate, yes.
Which means the full HTV movements?
It means that the biomethane that we produce,
and obviously that ramps up through the commissioning period
as again, Sophia mentioned.
But that only equates to two
and a half trips per day for the site.
So how, why does it take 12 months?
What's the kind of evidence reasoning that you need?
Cllr David Moore - 3:03:20
But it just gives us, we think it should take less,
but we've given ourselves a bit of leeway to achieve that,
to make sure.
Obviously what we need to make sure is that the plant can
operate sustainably for that initial period.
And so we've just given ourselves a little bit of leeway
to allow that to happen.
And what happens if it gets past a 12 -month period?
Because I understand condition four doesn't say that you have
to cease operations.
If you don't, correct me if I'm wrong, officers.
You can continue operating after the 12 months.
If you.
It would obviously then be at the discretion
of your officers and the council.
Public Speakers - 3:03:56
But we do have the condition is very precise in the obligation.
And as we've touched on before, the process we are beholden
to a connexion by a statutory consultee essentially.
I'm sure we're all familiar with the variations on that.
So we will straight away on the benefit of having
a full planning permission, be able to commit
to go into that process.
And we would hope to have that within one to two years.
That will be obviously working simultaneously
with dealing with pre -commencement conditions,
commencing, commissioning.
So we don't see there being any lag.
However, because we are working with a third party,
we've just agreed with the officers
to give us a little bit of contingency.
So is that National Grid, the consortee?
Yes.
Cllr David Moore - 3:04:52
And have they said that this is deliverable
within 12 months, this connexion?
Has National Grid said that?
No.
So they said it's not,
they said that you won't be able
to be delivered in 12 months?
Public Speakers - 3:05:03
Not from, that's, you're talking about from first operation.
That's not now.
First operation will be in say 18 months time from now.
So there's probably two to two and a half years
before first operation from now.
Assuming we got permission, this is the section 106 deal.
Assuming we got the decision noticing say six weeks time,
we would immediately kick off that connexion process.
So that would give us say two years -ish, two and a half years from now to facilitate that
connexion and have it ready.
I'm going to leave the rest of my questions to the officers section.
Thank you.
I know where you're going, Councillor Hall.
Cllr David Moore - 3:05:42
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:05:44
So my final question is about the HDB movements.
The bit I'm still struggling to understand is you've got that piece on the right hand
side that shows you're going to have a grid connexion, yet we still got 142 movements
at peak and 80 movements a day non -peak.
My understanding of the three modes is the vast bulk of it is going methane international
grid.
By other property is so it's CO2 which has to go off in a truck and or some sort of HGV.
And in terms of, if I remember rightly, I think it was, so like 90 % is methane 10 % CO2
roughly speaking, give or take.
Therefore, I still don't understand
why we need those peak number of movements.
Because I know you've got having input, yes.
But apart from that, operationally,
if you're connected to grid,
you don't need these number of movements.
So I'm not convinced, as you stand today,
the numbers you've given me are correct,
or are justifiable.
Because if you're going into the ground,
if you are going to a connected grid,
which is a coincidence,
you've just told me you're gonna go and do.
Therefore, 142 peak and 80 per day
doesn't add up.
Because I've seen the operation, Mays operation,
the CO2 goes into a 40 tonne articulated lorry
once or twice a day, all right?
We saw it live, it was relatively benign,
it was relatively low level stuff, right?
It wasn't, and if you're then now saying to me,
it's just gonna be a CO2 tank that's coming off in effect,
plus a bit of input coming in, the numbers don't add up.
And therefore, to me, you've gotta justify to me properly
why those numbers add up,
because I still do not understand,
if you're in National Grid, where it adds up.
Genuinely, it does not make sense.
So in terms of the number of vehicle movements coming in
and going out of the site, that is simply
Public Speakers - 3:07:35
to capture the quantum of feedstock and digestate
going in and out of a plant of this size.
The same sort of three modes, which we went and saw live,
saw the feedstock there.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:07:51
we saw three movements in three hours, right?
So I don't, the quantum three mates told me
it's five canisters, digest eight pieces there,
the same, so in effect three mates is a pretty much
different design, but same size, right?
So we went there, saw it live, saw it operational,
but I didn't see the vehicle movements that were quoted
in this application request, so therefore I can't see
if you've got three mains already the same size as this,
in effect, same size, 98 ,000 tonnes, et cetera,
I still don't understand the vehicle movements,
why you're requesting such a high set of vehicle movements,
and missing three mains,
which has to physically ship it all off site anyway,
which is gonna be more, definitely higher
than if you're connected to the grid.
So that's why I don't understand the numbers.
So just very briefly, obviously, this is,
Public Speakers - 3:08:41
a movement is in and the second one is out.
So if we think back to when we were on site at Three Maids,
we had numerous feedstock deliveries coming in.
I think there was probably six whilst we were there.
So that's 12 movements.
In addition to that, we saw two biomethane caps come in,
one go back out, so that was three.
And then there was the remainder sitting,
waiting on the apron, if you recall.
So the biomethane export and CO2 export,
if we weren't using the, if we weren't able to connect to the grid, you might say
that that would be between 10 and 12 movements per day. So five Hgbs in and
then returning back out. Obviously working with a hybrid model we'll have a
number of those or potentially all of them go in the biomethane going direct
into the grid but we'll still have the CO2. So the CO2 might be four movements
might be six movements depending on the capacity.
The capacities, as we've touched on before,
are in the main to account for feedstock coming in.
Every HUV coming in goes out, so that's two.
And then we've got digestive going out as well.
So because of the fact that we have blended the season
to reduce the peak, we're already looking at
kind of blending that across the shoulder months
and across the year.
So these are kind of worst case scenario.
We're not saying here that we will categorically do this many movements.
And we've also touched on the fact that the real life traffic figures are likely
not to be perceived to be what they are anyway because we're offsetting some of
the existing local agricultural movements that are already on the network.
So these are a worst case tested scenario.
I think the other point we would make is that at Three Maids,
the number of vehicle movements allowed there was what we
originally applied for here, was 194.
So that is what is consented at Three Maids.
So whilst you didn't, whilst you were there on that particular
day for a three -hour period, that is only a very minor small
snapshot in time.
So in terms of you trying to make sense of the figures,
I'd suggest not just referencing that personal experience
in that plant at that time.
Because, yeah, there will be times when it's busier
and there will be times where it's not as busy.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:11:25
But in terms of having seen it live in operation
and it's the same size facility, that's why I raised the question.
Okay. Right.
I don't think members have got any other questions.
No? Okay.
So I'm conscious that that is now the end of the public speaking.
And the consciousness now is 10 past one.
We've just gone 10 past one.
We've now had over three hours.
I would normally have said a comfort break, but I think at this point,
everyone probably does need a bit of food and drink and the rest of it.
So I'm going to suggest we have a half hour break to allow both ourselves,
the applicants, the objectors, the residents and the public who are here,
actually the office itself, to actually grab a coffee, grab a sandwich,
get some sustenance, and then go back to technical questions afterwards,
and then we'll go on to the debate at that point.
Thank you very much. We'll see you back here at...
course two.

4 CM/0022/22 - Land To South East Of Hornage Farm, Bicester Road, Chilton, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9SE

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:12:19
So let's just welcome back both the members of the public
in the audience, both the supporters and objectors,
also the councillors themselves, and also the officers as well.
We're now back in session.
So I've had a well -earned comfort break and a chance
for a quick coffee and sandwich.
So we now have ended the public speaking elements of it.
We will now, the public speakers are all welcome to remain in the meeting until a decision has been made on the application.
And we'll now go to technical questions from the members to the officers.
And if the members would like to raise their hands, I'll then take you in order.
So, Councillor Phelan will first, actually no, Councillor Gaughan, sorry, yes, Councillor Gaughan was really, really, before that he was really, really good.
So Councillor, come over to you first. And then goes Councillor Beale, Councillor Walters,
Councillor Gibbons and then Councillor Roberts. And then we run into Councillor Beale.
So the only technical, I only have one and that's to refer back to the presentation from
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:13:42
Adam earlier on. When you showed us the site up at the other site previously, you showed
as the domes and the sheds.
But you said, and this is what I just want clarified,
one of the sheds was for the chicken muck that turned up.
That was put in there.
It was driven in, locked up, keep smelling.
But you said the other one was for silage.
That's not correct.
I just want it clarified because that was the process.
No, silage is in the clamps.
No, no, no, no, you said that building.
Apologies if I -
I just wanted to clarify, I don't need to pollinate,
but that's as far as I was concerned,
that was the unit where the straw and it was all mixed up
and then it went into the, I just wanted to clarify.
Yeah, and would that be like a similar system here?
Yes.
Yeah, yeah, that's all I've got.
So we're then gonna go around that way
and then end up with Councillor Smith.
So over to Councillor Fee.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:14:41
Thank you, Chairman.
I don't mind going behind Councillor, go on.
Got the point if I could.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:14:49
It talks about 106 agreement and during the debate they talked about 106 agreement to
cover some of the landscaping.
Why is that a 106 arrangement, whereas it should be a part of the development and what
else is you are you looking at for 106 agreement?
And the second point is why is there no PV on any of the buildings?
And the three maids, there was none at all.
On the first question, on section 106, the reason why we need the section 106 for some
of the landscaping is that some of it is outside the red edge.
And because it's outside the red edge, we can't use conditions.
We have to look at other measures to control it.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:15:34
The applicant hasn't put it in a blue edge, but they've agreed, they've got an agreement
I believe with the landowner so we can do it through a section 106.
So the section 106 principally is making sure that landscaping...
How can they do that if they don't own it?
Well, someone will have to sign the section 106 that owns it.
So the recommendation is prior to the completion of a section 106.
So if the section 106 isn't completed, then we wouldn't then progress on to that issue
and approval.
I don't know if Catherine can come in at this point.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:16:12
They may have a lease over the land that allows them to maintain it in a particular way and
if it's a lease of seven years or more then that would be sufficient for entering into
a Section 106 agreement. Obviously normally we'd want the land owner, the freehold owner,
to enter into it as well but I don't know the details in this case I'm afraid.
If that lease is not agreed then this application, if it's granted, falls.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:16:31
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:16:36
If the, any grant today would be a recommendation to defer and delegate to the director subject
to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement.
So if that Section 106 agreement can't be completed for whatever reason, then there
would be a, it's also delegated under the authority that it would be refused for reasons
of, that are appropriate.
So the Section 106 would secure more than the provision of those,
the landscaping in those areas.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:17:03
It would then secure its long term management.
And then tied up with that, it would secure BNG.
But we're aware of the discussions around the gas connexion and
condition four.
If members wanted a stronger mechanism linked to cessation,
one option would be to move that into the Section 106.
So we could use the Section 106 as a stronger mechanism
to require them to connect into the gas grid.
So we could amend and add that in as an extra requirement.
And I've forgotten your second question.
I've already written.
It's not for us the redesign or the proposal.
The pros of it is as well is before us.
It doesn't have them on the buildings, but it does have other forms of renewable energy
generation.
It has two CHP plants, which take the biogas and convert it into electricity and heating,
for example.
So it does have forms of renewable energy technology on the site, and the policies actually
they generally always require major developments that developers explore CHP.
So it's quite unusual to actually present a major case that actually has CHP, which
this one does.
Yeah, but we've been pushing everybody for PV on roofs.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:18:32
Every application we get now, we try and insist upon that.
There's no policy basis that says the application has to have PV.
If it doesn't, it's not acceptable.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:18:41
This policy requires renewable energy, and it meets that by providing two CHP plants.
I think definitely it's an aspiration for PV, but I think, as the officer has explained,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:18:57
because we've got the CHP, which means it is self -funding or whatever, in terms of the
gas electricity, et cetera, that it generates, I think that's deemed to be the renewable
energy, from what I understood.
Okay, so...
Councillor Gough.
Yeah, sorry to interrupt, Chairman.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:19:13
I did say at two o 'clock, regretfully, I've got to go and chair a meeting with HS2 and
and network rail, enjoyable.
But I'll be back as soon as I can.
I know that I won't be able to continue.
That's irritating, but I apologise.
Understood, totally.
Yes, you represented the council with HS2
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:19:31
and with network rail.
OK, so going on to Councillor Johnson -Walters.
Thank you.
I've got a few questions.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:19:42
If I start with the question that
seem to be raised in terms of one of the reasons we're making decision, planning decision at
the moment on this is the carbon benefits to this particular site and why it would be
used.
But there seemed to be some question in terms of the officer's level of confidence in what
had been provided.
Can you explain what that is because it is crucial in terms of any decisions that we
make.
So that's my first question.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:20:22
Okay, so in terms of the report, it sort of sets out on page 64 going on to 65.
Effectively, we haven't independently verified the carbon assessment put in by the applicant,
but the key, the sort of the main issue really is, is that in terms of like planning policies
and how we determine application, the government is giving strong support to renewable energy
development.
The new MPPF talks about substantial weight.
So there's not a policy requirement that says they need to demonstrate zero carbon, like
they're doing zero carbon.
So we haven't tested it ourselves, but the policy environment, you've got policy C3,
It supports renewable energy generation, seeks to minimise energy use, water efficiency.
We have policy 23 of the Minerals and Vout Plan, which again looks to minimise greenhouse
gas emissions and the efficient use of resources.
And at a national level, policy CC2 supports development proposals that contribute towards
climate change mitigation and the transition to net zero.
And the government in national policy has identified
biomethane as a component
to moving towards zero carbon and addressing climate change impacts. So at a national level it's already been established.
I get the policies. I'm wanting the evidence to back the policies that this is actually what this will do is what I'm actually asking.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:21:56
Because the policies I think are clear if this basically
is going to deliver that?
What's the measurement of that?
And are we comfortable with what actually is being
provided by the applicant,
or have we just not done any work on it?
I mean, essentially, because the government supports it,
there's no need to look at the detailed breakdown
of carbon reduction.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:22:23
At a national level, these are supported as renewable energy,
low carbon technology.
Sorry, so the technology itself, that ticks the box,
and that's where we go with that.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:22:37
So any measurement is not important to the planning
authority?
It's not a decisive factor in this application.
OK.
I'm now going on to highways, so it's probably going
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:22:49
to give you a bit of a rest, Adam.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:22:53
Obviously, what's come up with a lot of the discussion
here has been highways and the analysis of the movement of traffic.
And I know the applicant has been working with highways to try and reduce that.
And there haven't been any objections coming from highways.
And they've tried to mitigate by bringing the numbers down.
But from what we're hearing and knowledge of the various routes, as part of your analysis,
is have you been looking at areas where it is,
the traffic is, particularly if it was two HGVs head on,
they actually wouldn't have to stop
or pull to the side of the road
to actually let each other pass.
Are there pinch points?
Right near the access point, no, there's not a problem there
but through places like Larkhandon,
it is tight, definitely tight,
and the other villages, it's tight.
They were areas particularly of concern
So I'd like to have a little bit more information on that and also trying to control traffic
going past schools and the level of comfort we'd have that that could be done.
But obviously in the villages it's not just at school time because actually then throughout
the day you've got children going to the parks and things like that.
So that becomes an important measure to take into account in terms of road safety.
So I'd like a little bit more understanding of one, the work you've done, and two, the
level of confidence you've had that we're not going to create some accident black spots.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I think it's worth thinking about some of the numbers.
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 3:24:41
The applicant has, as part of these planning applications, submitted an operational traffic
management plan. And within that there are some number, there are some details
setting out some of the potential locations of the farms where the digest
the material is coming from and and then the HGV is going back to. And for example
so let's look at Cheersley Road which was brought up as a location where...
So Andrew, can I suggest I saw a graphic up earlier on that talked about two -way
movements and stuff like that up on screen.
Does that help explain and articulate your,
yes, talk us through based on the distribution of what you see based on the
viewpoints.
Repeat myself again. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so yeah,
you asked about, for example,
what work has been done and locations where their issues have been raised.
So let's look at Cheersley road, for example. Um,
It's been mentioned that there's parked cars and that children are crossing from the footway to get to the playground.
But during the majority of the year, so let's say that it says August to June, to the ten months,
it's talking about there being a potential for ten HGV movements going in total,
so five going up down, up in one direction, five in the opposite direction, across that day.
and that's not a high amount of HGV traffic that would sort of register concern from the Highway Authority point of view.
It has been mentioned as, I think it's part of the second question, is that...
For the help of the public who are watching and listening and putting on the webcast metric,
could you just on that map show us where Shearsley Road is?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:26:30
So myself and Council Gipps, we travelled all these roads yesterday,
but just so they could explain...
Adam's got control, yeah.
Okay, fantastic. I'm glad we could just show you, so you probably don't understand.
It's where that number 10 is there, coming into Longbrenner. That's Yearly Road, okay?
That's a train of thought.
So that's an example.
Of each way, isn't it?
That's...
So that's potential. Like, that's total 10 HGV movements of traffic across the nine -hour working day.
I think it's been mentioned that it's about seven o 'clock in the morning till six at night
are the working hours.
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 3:27:13
If you then take away a couple of the hours, it's been mentioned about avoiding the morning
peak period and that morning school drop -off period and then the afternoon as well to help
alleviate those concerns with pedestrian movements.
Those numbers as well, obviously, they are slightly higher during figure five, which is the numbers for that peak harvest period.
But even then, for example, Chesley Road, 20 movements spread across that day for that monthly period.
period. And then we'll also have to consider that the applicants explained that there's
a cap on those numbers and yes, we have considered that worst case scenario, but the likelihood
is it will be lower than that, those numbers. They've got the field access, which is potentially
taking away 10 % of those sorts of numbers. Okay, I'll leave you to look at the, there
are other numbers and other routes and other roads with different numbers on.
And then there's obviously existing agricultural traffic that takes place on the network, some
of which will be discounted and replaced by these numbers.
And that has not been taken as counting these numbers, but as a consideration.
I hope that helps.
Okay.
And in terms of ensuring that the traffic doesn't go past schools during school time,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:28:50
and that's conditioned, but how is that actually dealt with?
That might be a question for the Planning Officer if I may.
For that one, we listed it, if you look at it, I think it's Condition 10, if we turn to it, which is...
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:29:05
Condition 10, which is the operational traffic management plan.
So that's part E of that.
One of the measures is to minimise HGB movement through settlements
and past schools during school drop -off and pick -up periods.
So we would then look to get the operational traffic management plan.
It's a condition. It's submit details in.
It includes a complaint mechanism, item J further down the list.
So that's the best mechanism to control those sorts of movements.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:29:53
The question you didn't answer was, there's a lot of talk about points where it is almost impossible for two wide vehicles to pass each other simultaneously without one pulling over.
Have you identified those spots and the difficulties that causes the traffic?
I will raise this in terms of experience of highways signing off something which was meant to be okay in Penn and
The developer luckily is helping us out by actually stopping two -way traffic while the development is going on
Because it is impossible to get past the village with a bus and a lorry on a particular pinch point
So I am nervous when some of these things are signed off
And that's okay for something's gonna go on for 12 months. Not something that's gonna go for 25 years
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think it's been mentioned that there's a couple of locations,
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 3:30:43
Cheersley Road, for example, and just north of Carters Lane, where it's been mentioned
that there are some difficulties with HDVs passing, but in terms of site visits and how
HDVs can wait for another site, another HDV to pass, these are roads that are currently
used by HGV traffic. I know it's been said the numbers are increasing but the
survey data shows that the roads are being used by HGV's at the
moment so behaviour of waiting to pass another one and the lack of collisions
that occur at the moment it wouldn't be possible really from a highway point of
view really to sustain an objection on the grounds of the extra use of the
public highway by these additional HGV uses and I've explained a bit about the
numbers, but I'm comfortable in the recommendation being made.
Thank you. I just know that when there's a standoff between two vehicles, it's not quite
as amicable as you might have suggested.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:31:49
Okay, so that was E. Okay, so it was Councillor Gibbons.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:31:54
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:32:01
Mine's also to do with highways because that diagram there, that's I'm assuming that's
just the traffic from the digester, yes, that you're showing there?
Yes, I believe those numbers are based on the ins and outs, but as I understand, there's
a cap on the amount of HGVs that go in and out. I think it's been mentioned about 40
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 3:32:25
in and 40 out, so a quick bit of maths. Those numbers are sort of correlating to that maximum
limit.
So what I'd just like to push this a little bit further. From the traffic survey I had
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:32:40
to look at, there's already currently 70, I think,
two HGV's going through Long Pending a day on the B0411.
So that would mean there's going to be 130 then a day.
So you're talking about one large lorry every five minutes
going through a very, very small narrow road with parked cars.
It's not that easy for a car to get through, let alone
with all the cars parked halfway on the road,
halfway on the pavement, it really is quite dangerous.
And this is with you having one, it will be,
worst case scenario, one big lorry,
massive lorry every five minutes through that tiny road.
And it's just, I'm very,
I just like to sort of try to justify your decision
because looking at, you've got T5 of the valve saying,
there needs to be appropriate mitigation
for an accessible and acceptable traffic impacts,
which in my mind, one huge lorry through a tiny village every five minutes is.
And then you've also got TR6 of the MPPF saying the application should be refused
if severe adverse impact on transport network safety,
which people have been talking about a lot.
And I just sort of feel you haven't really in my mind convinced me that your sort of,
I'd just like to justify your non -objection comment, please.
So I think in terms of the numbers, you said 130 is HGV
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 3:34:14
every five minutes.
I'm not sure.
What the council was saying was there's already 70 HGV's a day
already going through Long Friend and already,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:34:25
as of base data already, there's been an additional 60,
if not more, because you've got 142 movements theoretically
at the peak.
Therefore, doing a bit of quick math, so I did the same math as well.
Roughly, it gives you about 130 movements a day,
HTVs to be longer than per day, which is roughly about one to five minutes in that
11 hour period, even if you use the 11 hour period, not rather than a nine hour period.
I just didn't say math.
Yeah, so we do, yes, we just average it out.
But the point being is, it's about one to five minutes.
Okay.
And it says the highway safety, the point that Council Givens is making to you is,
the highway safety, you've not answered that question.
You just said, okay, number one is acceptable.
But having seen the number of pinch points,
because we drove around the whole area yesterday,
having seen lots of park cars everywhere itself,
you haven't answered justifiably in her mind
whether or not there's the highway safety bit.
And I still remain to be convinced by you
as well about the highway safety piece.
You might notionally go, OK, it's OK.
Traffic movement numbers, but if there's a highway safety,
which is what the second part of the question was about,
you haven't answered that question.
I think if you look at the, this is the day -to -day movements.
David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning - 3:35:36
So what we're talking about, I think your concerns are over the minor roads and
those two points on the B4, 0 and 1.
We did Chilthill and we did all the minor roads and we did Longcran.
So we actually, really because of the way that Sat -and -Aub took us, and
it was the Sat -and -Aub that took us that way.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:35:51
We came to the middle of Chilthill and down the back road.
And we then came via Oakley, then we then went back out via Longcran, and
then by Shearsley Road.
So we actually, because of the way the sat nav sent you,
we ended up doing all the roads by default, if that makes sense.
So therefore, and we did see numbers of pinch points.
There were numbers of parked cars on the pavements,
which meant you wouldn't get one car through,
let alone two cars, let alone two HTVs.
So therefore, road safety -wise,
it didn't feel safe to us driving around yesterday.
There were a number of specific points and areas within that map you show,
where highway safety, you don't see the address
to highway safety issue at certain pinch points
within that map area.
So I think Andrew's point was about the number
of vehicles going along these minor points
where the pinch points are a far reduced.
David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning - 3:36:40
I think we're not looking at all of these vehicles
going on along every route.
And I think that's the major point that we need
to need to understand that these are minor routes
that are gonna be used by very sporadically.
I think that's the point that we have to address is that the likelihood of having an issue of meeting an oncoming vehicle
Of only meeting an oncoming HTV at that point is minimal and that's what we have to look at
In the in the air we drove around we saw 15 different tractors and trailers going different ways and the rest of it. So
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:37:13
Real life or experience says different so thank you desktop on me
Do real world life because we randomly just did it and we went Wow as the next chapter and rally went past us
literally every couple of minutes,
and that was existing traffic.
So don't do me a desktop exercise,
do me real world life.
Cause we experienced it yesterday together in the car
going, wow, okay.
We were surprised and shocked by the sheer volume
of the existing track to trailer and HGV stuff
already using it.
And he's already mentioned he's been out on site many times.
Well, so we have a lot of experience from yesterday
that tells you it's different.
David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning - 3:37:48
So you still need to justify
by the road safety pinch points,
because I'm still not being convinced.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:37:52
Okay, Andrew himself has been out on site,
he's mentioned that before.
We've looked at the collision data,
David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning - 3:37:58
there's nothing to suggest there's a pattern
linked to large vehicles meeting each other
at these pinch points that we could use as evidence
to show an unacceptable highway's impact.
And that's what we have to show.
Okay, we'll go on to Council Robbers.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:38:19
It's also on the same point, although I have some other questions as well.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:38:25
On the highways issue, I'll admit I'm not particularly familiar with this area, so I
took a drive around to have a look.
I went up through Long Crenden, drove up to Oakley, Chiltern, Brill, Easington, drove
around those roads just to get a feel for it.
The main road through Longcrenden and the main road through Oakley, the B4011,
they were having to manoeuvre around parked cars in the centre on a quiet day.
There were vehicles manoeuvring around the parked vehicles.
So that's what I have in my mind.
That's based on the numbers that are today.
these numbers are incremental on top of that.
So if those pinch points are coping with that today
and not resulting in collisions,
what's been modelled about what that would look like
with the additional incremental traffic?
What modelling and assessments have you done
about those particular road safety aspects
in those villages and about how that would be
actually experienced in those villages,
rather than just the sheer traffic numbers on the roads.
There's been quite a bit of mention about,
the applicant has done 30 or so traffic surveys
of the current traffic,
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 3:39:57
and set out percentage increases in HGVs.
So that's an assessment that's been done.
This sort of application is about HDVs spread across the day so that we don't, as a highway authority, expect the applicant to have to go and look at individual junctions and do modelling assessments as has been mentioned with the mini roundabout for example.
From a safety point of view, the applicant has obtained road safety data from the council,
looked at that road safety data, a study area, plotted the fact that there are some collisions
obviously but there aren't clusters of particular collisions at certain locations or clusters
of collisions related to HGVs.
If there were, then we might be saying there is a highway safety problem of increasing that number,
but as there isn't, it's difficult to argue that there is a demonstrable, demonstrable highway safety harm
from HDVs using a classified B road and may have to wait behind parked cars as well.
Sorry, that was a long -winded answer. I know you're trying to get it.
assessment or data collection in those villages of the real experience of pedestrians crossing
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:41:22
when vehicles are approaching, vehicles being delayed, having to go around parked vehicles.
I'm not hearing that anybody has done any evidence gathering of that kind of behaviour
and impact in those villages to see what it's like today and then model what it would be
like with the incremental load.
So I'm not hearing that evidence of that kind
of assessment having been made.
Obviously we do site visits.
There's been a lot of evidence provided by local objectors.
That's been, they went out
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 3:41:58
and helpfully pointed various locations of overgrown hedges
and narrow footways and I personally went out and looked
at those locations and try to look at that
in the context of collisions as well,
to try and see what if in the event of this
going to an appeal, which is what we have to almost look
at that worst case scenario, what I would be asked
to demonstrate the problem.
We don't really sort of like, it's quite difficult
to do a site visit and observe and collect data
and then model that, I think, unless.
I don't know, in my mind, that's what I thought happened.
We model traffic flows, obviously,
but not necessarily observations of the impact.
Another point on that, I did mention
I've got some other things.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:42:53
On the traffic flows themselves, my understanding
is that this is not based on an actual distribution of where
the vehicles are coming from, but rather some assumptions
and for modelling premises that would be used,
that have been made for the modelling,
rather than it having been based on actual data
of contracts or actual locations
of the sources of the vehicles.
So for all we know, all of those vehicles
could come through Long Crendon,
or all of them could come through Oakley.
It's just that for the purposes of modelling
in the transport assessment, they've made an assumption
that it would be 50 -50.
Is that not correct?
I think that's a reasonable assumption to make.
David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning - 3:43:48
They have this condition where they have to have 35 %
within the local, within five kilometres, I think,
and it's a reasonable assumption to have that spread out.
Yeah.
I mean, we have to take that on face value
if that's what we've been provided
and that's what we've looked at.
Yeah, I'm just building off what the applicant said earlier,
that this is an assumed flow.
It's not based on evidence
of where the vehicles are actually going to come from.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:44:11
So they could be coming from different routes.
The distribution could well be different
from what's shown on this model.
Absolutely, but it shows a reasonable assumption
of the likely impact.
Yeah.
And it's likely to be spread
out along the local area throughout the day,
rather than in clusters.
Yeah, okay.
The last point I wanted to mention, there's been mention about the transport, the management
plan that's included in there.
So my question really is around the compliance monitoring for that.
I'm familiar in my own ward with HS2.
There was compliance monitoring that goes on to make sure
that the traffic flows are complying with the conditions
that have been set.
But I'm not sure I'm seeing that in this case,
that there's some compliance monitoring mechanism
for checking that.
It's more like a self -policing mechanism,
is the way I'm seeing it.
The conditions are set, but there's
no actual proactive compliance checking.
I understood that correctly.
If I can, condition 10 on page 79 is, as I mentioned earlier,
the operational traffic management plan.
And it's probably worth highlighting as well, at point B,
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:45:36
that does include HGV routing arrangements.
So there is scope within when they put it in to influence the routing.
The traffic does come as part of it when it comes in.
In terms of, obviously, they've submitted a plan to us.
The plan itself includes, at J, its own procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding
to complaints.
But if there's concerns that the management plan is being breached, then there's obviously
the council can also get involved at that point if it's reported to the council.
But you wouldn't normally, the resources involved, the council wouldn't normally
monitor it as an ongoing process.
Like most things, you rely on enforcement measures to do that.
I'm relating it to what I understand from the HS2 situation where they do this and they
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:46:33
have an undertaking that's related to that and there is provision for the resources to
monitor the, proactively monitor the compliance.
So I'm kind of wondering whether that is a possibility in this case and whether something
like that could be secured via Section 106 agreement or something to fund compliance
monitoring.
I think that, as Catherine wants to come out, I think the level of movements are quite low
on this relative.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:46:59
I know the local concerns and I hear that, but it's not a level of activity that would
worry them.
I don't know if Catherine wants to add anything from the legal?
I was going to say, Catherine obviously has got the experience of HS2.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:47:16
The difference with HS2 is that all their vehicles have trackers on.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:47:19
They also have monitors so they knew each driver that gets in pushes a card in, they
know who's driving it, they know when they're down with, which is a construction part of
it.
What we're talking about here is something totally different.
It could be any tractor, any trailer coming along, you have no idea where it's come from,
who it is, when it was.
So I think it's just totally different set of operations and it's almost impossible to monitor.
That's interesting, can you explain a bit more?
It is different but we do have the advantage because of the way it's regulated so strongly at Arroway Digest.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:47:53
Every facility, when it gets to the site, every vehicle does get logged, gets weighed, its source of origin gets logged.
So there's a reasonable picture and the developer will have contracts and arrangements with people.
So it is a reasonable mechanism to control.
I think my point with that is that if that information gets
logged, what happens with it?
Who cheques it?
Who looks at it?
There's no monitoring mechanism, as far as I can see.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:48:20
I suppose your question is about if they are coming
from 100 miles away, and in effect, they're
in breach of what the condition said.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:48:28
They had to be within 25 kilometres and 20 kilometres.
What happens?
And how do we enforce that?
Catherine, if you could explain how that might work in practise.
If I could quickly comment as well.
Sorry, Catherine.
There are other conditions like, for example, condition eight requires a written record
of all HG movements to and from the site to be maintained at all times, including the
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:48:49
date, number of arrivals and departures.
And it requires it to be maintained for two years and provided to the LPA within 14 days
of requests.
So we have put conditions in that would seem to make the records have to be kept and that
They also have to be provided to us effectively if we receive concerns.
We can then approach them, ask for the records, and then we can interrogate them.
But if you want to come in, Catherine, apologies.
Yes, I just think you need to take the suite of conditions as a whole.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:49:19
And I think this is an incredibly strong suite of conditions.
Obviously, it's not the same as you get with HS2, but I think with respect,
that's a far different scale of development across the county.
So, you know, it's a major construction project,
so I've lost many, many years.
So I think, you know, there is obviously a difference
and an emphasis there.
But you have got monitoring and records being maintained
and being available for inspection,
both in terms of the highway movements in Condition 8,
in the hours restrictions in Condition 9,
and in the operational traffic management plan,
You've got route arrangements.
You've got vehicle scheduling procedures,
including measures to minimise conflicts between vehicles
travelling to and from the site, measures
to minimise the impact of HV movements on local communities
and sensitive receptors, measures
to minimise movements through settlements and past schools,
driver induction, wheel washing, which
Ando mentioned before.
And then coupled with that, you've
procedure for receiving, investigating, and responding to complaints in J, but also in K,
arrangements for monitoring, which is what you were saying, reviewing and updating the
operational traffic management plan. Now, that's all in a plan that will be approved by the council.
If that's breached, that's a breach of condition, and therefore we can take enforcement action
against it in the normal way. And actually, because of all these procedures for monitoring
and recording the information, coupled with the way bridge so that we know exactly what
weight of vehicles are going in and out on a daily basis, that gives us an incredible
amount of information with which to take any enforcement action, whereas normally we wouldn't
have that sort of level of information. We would be standing and counting lorries going
in and coming out. So I think this is actually a very strong suite of conditions.
Yeah, I think it's very comprehensive set of
conditions there
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:51:29
My point is it's it's it feels a bit passive and for the reassurance of the local residents
I would be looking for a more proactive
Monitoring to make sure that those conditions are being met while the plant is operating
And that would be more reassuring to the residents
I think I get where Caswell was going.
I was monitoring by the contractor, not by an external.
Well, no, it's how it will be monitored,
and then we will review that, because that
will be part of the plan.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:52:00
So we will then review that plan.
So if there's any complaints or any thought
that they are breaching that, we can then
look at the monitoring that's taken place and step in.
So it's reliant on people complaining.
Such as councillors and members of the public.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:52:20
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 3:52:22
I mean, I think it goes back to the real life scenario, doesn't it?
People will complain if there are, if people observe lorries going through Long Crandon at school, dropping off time for example.
There will quite rightly be complaints and that's when this comes into its own.
Okay.
Of course you had a lot of opportunity, so please can you wrap it up?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:52:48
Because I've got Councillor Maugham and Councillor Smith have been really patient.
I've got one final point, which is about, this is a time limited permission.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:52:57
So my question is, what happens at the end of the period in terms of removing and restoring the site?
And also then in relation to the fallback, if anything happens in the meantime,
like for instance there was a problem with the gas connector or
the subsidy regime was changed and the site did no longer remain viable.
So what are the conditions in there that would address that point?
restoration of the site.
Thank you. If you turn to page 76, condition 2,
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:53:44
that's the condition that deals with the temporary permission and the restoration.
And on the third bullet point, it goes on to say,
within six months of the anaerobic digester facility ceasing operations
for a continuous period of six months, effectively, if it was to finish early,
it then requires the restoration scheme to come in and be implemented.
So there's like a long stop date in it for the 25 years to catch it at the 25 year end.
But there's also a short of, if it was to cease to operate for a period of time,
it would then kick in and they'd have to restore it on that basis.
So there are those two.
And then as I mentioned at the start earlier,
there's potential on the grid gas connexion.
we could move that effective condition into Section 106,
because that will give us stronger powers
to effectively make the developer
cessation the use if they don't get the grid connexion in.
Yeah, okay. That's great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Councillor Roberts.
Okay, so Councillor Moore was initially going to be the next speaker,
but Councillor John Waters,
were you jumping in about that particular point, or...?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:54:52
Yeah, I was just going to quickly come back,
I can see where Councillor Roberts is coming from because there's quite a lot in here which
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:55:01
is about monitoring things and making sure that the maze or whatever is coming from particular
distances, the amounts which are coming, the traffic movements, the various things.
There's a lot of things saying, you know, the, and what we're almost forcing it down
to some extent, which we always do, it's, yeah, well, people will complain, it'll go
to enforcement, rather than actually having a document that actually is saying in there,
once every 12 months, those documents will be supplied to the local planning authority.
That would be better, because then they will either know they have breached, and the evidence
is there, and so the enforcement.
If it comes to enforcement, they'll close it straight away because they'll say it's
fine.
Or not.
And I know we don't tend to do that, but there's obviously no reason if they're collecting
the data, they can't actually supply it.
Who they supply it to is a different matter.
But just to have that in there so it's supplied and then it's automatic, yes, you tick the
box.
Or we've got the document if anybody raises the question, rather than somebody having
to go out, cheque it, and do whatever else.
That way we know once a year we get the information to know the annual, they give an annual term.
And I think that would be better that everybody knows rather than we're letting it slip.
And then we spend enforcement chasing for 12 months, two years, three years before we
actually get anything to actually happen, which could well be the case when we go to
court.
So it would be better if we had the information.
We could alter the condition for the conditions that are like recording vehicle movements and those sort of things.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 3:56:45
We could alter those conditions to require the submission within 12 months.
Every 12 months. And basically an annual return.
So for like...
8, 9, 10, or whichever.
You could do 8 definitely, you could do 9 maybe, you could do 7, the feedstock radius, 7, 8, 9.
Okay.
I'll let you know.
And 10.
Okay.
And 10 as well.
So the Operational Traffic Management Plan,
an update on an annual report
on the Operational Traffic Management Plan.
Yeah, so seven, eight, nine, 10,
we could require, I better write this down as well.
Annual return.
Seven to 10 annual return.
Yeah, and we can obviously agree the wording with the chair.
I think this is only for this stage hypothetical if we were going to approve the application
that the members were keen to have potential adjustments to the conditions on that basis
if it was going to be approved at that point.
I think Chris you're going to point out about highways because I know you and I have a lot of discussions about highways
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:58:04
and with highway officers about highways,
about what the standard bar is for highway refusals.
Yeah, thank you, Chen.
I just wanted to remind the committee
that the bar for highway refusals is extremely high.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 3:58:19
You have to have real evidence
to be able to demonstrate harm,
and you need to demonstrate harm.
You can't just demonstrate an inadequacy
within the highway network, for instance, a pinch point.
That's not enough.
it has to be there's a pinch point,
and the consequence of that pinch point
is an accident record or something like that.
And your highways officers have already
said that when they've looked at the data that's
collected on accidents, personal injury accidents
and what have you, that there isn't a pattern
in that collision data.
And that would mean that any case we would try to make
would be severely weakened because the pattern isn't there,
the evidence isn't there,
and we have to go where evidence takes us.
It's not about imagining what might happen,
it's about being able to demonstrate
something actually will happen.
And that's why the bar is higher,
and that's why we advise you at so many meetings
that the highway area is perhaps not the one to go down.
You know, if you want to refuse applications,
it's very difficult to gather the evidence to make that statement.
So thank you for that clarification Chris.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:59:43
So I've got Councillor Moore and Councillor Smith and I've got another question myself about the highways,
but I'll let the first two councillors go with their questions and I'll come at the end.
Thank you Chairman.
To move on from my questions to the applicant regarding condition 4,
Cllr David Moore - 3:59:55
We heard that this location, slap back in the middle,
the countryside's a good connector location.
So how come Condition 4 basically allows it to operate
up to 12 months without the connexion when National Grid,
as we've just heard from the applicant,
haven't guaranteed that timetable is deliverable?
So I'm worried about deliverability of Condition 4.
I've had a bit of a learning curve on this condition as well myself because when I first
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:00:32
started looking at anaerobic digesters, I assumed day one the facility would open and
it would pump out enough gas to go straight into the grid to work.
And that's why I suggested that the applicant try to explain, they use the term commissioning.
And when they say commissioning, what they mean is the digesters, the big tanks, they
have to like warm up, get started,
and it takes them months and months to actually generate
enough gas for the grid connexion to work.
So the reason for the delay in the condition
was to give enough time for there to be enough gas
for the grid connexion actually to be functional and to work.
But I've heard what members have said earlier,
the concerns about is there a strong cessation,
or is it just a breach?
What's the impact?
What we could do is move that into the section 106,
And then we can then require as part of Section 106 that if they don't get the connexion
because it's a locational justification, that's why it's there in the opinion of the LPA.
One of the reasons to justify it is because it's near the gas grid.
If they don't do that, then Section 106 can require the use to cease.
And then effectively if they don't resolve it, well then you put your vest down the restoration
route eventually.
But hopefully you wouldn't get there.
So we could, the recommendation if members were minded to approve could change condition four from a condition into a stronger section 106 requirement for the gas grid connexion.
And we can we can work that up as part of the section 106.
Could you be a bit more imaginative in terms of the existing condition, as you just says, unless you've got connexion with the grid, you can't be operational.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:02:09
So basically they have to connect with day one and then they start their operations thereafter,
even the commissioning and the rest of it on the condition.
But then it's backed up by the 106 that specifically says, in words of one syllable,
that's what has to happen in practise.
So I was wondering that question.
No, I think we have to be practical.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 4:02:34
And if the gas, the grid company isn't going to agree to that connexion until the commissioning
has taken place, we have to allow the developer a time to develop that and get to that position.
So I think it is reasonable to allow this 12 month period. But I think that if it's
in the Section 106 agreement so that we say that if after a period of 12 months they haven't
achieved that connexion, use shall cease until they have done so, I think then that
is satisfactory.
I think the castle more I come from, we don't want satisfactory, we want exemplars, we want
it to be belt braces that there's no wiggle room in any way shape or form.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:03:11
Well I don't think you can reasonably expect them to have a connexion if they won't get
that connexion because the grid will not permit a connexion until they've generated
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 4:03:20
enough gas to sustain that.
It's chicken and egg isn't it?
I mean, it's like you were told before, they can't get to that position now,
and they can't get that connexion agreed until they've got their planning permission.
If you're saying they can't have their planning permission until they've got the connection...
Well, in that case, why aren't there any consequences if they go past the 12 months?
Well, that's why I'm saying that then it should cease.
So, in terms of 106, would it actually be much more teeth to go...
So you think the S106 will be more robust than amending condition four?
Yes, I do.
Cllr David Moore - 4:04:03
And we can put explicit requirement in the section 106 to cease.
And we can do it that way.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:04:09
Thanks for that clarification.
Thank you.
I now move on to HGV figures.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:04:16
Cllr David Moore - 4:04:18
So I know we've covered this quite a bit already.
But is there like one reconciled calculation showing how the movement limits accommodate
the 98 ,000 tonnes of feedstock, 116 ,900 tonnes of digestate, and 13 ,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide?
And is there like a what?
Because there's so many figures in the report.
Is there one reconciled figure showing how that is accommodated?
So many movements for the gas coming out.
There must be a calculation as well.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:05:00
When you add those numbers together, it should give you a sort of minimum number of movements
you could get away with versus what they've asked for, if that makes sense.
So theoretically, you only might need 40 movements a day, well, 80 movements a day.
Is there a reconciled number that gives you that number?
I can't see it, and I don't think our symbols can be there.
And I'll just add to that, Chairman.
Are tractors counted as HDVs, for example?
Empty return journeys, are they included?
Cllr David Moore - 4:05:29
But there's no calculation of what is being brought in
by which lorry, if that's what you're asking.
It's just that's the number of lorries they're allowed.
David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning - 4:05:36
I think that it didn't be heard in the earlier one
that they said anywhere three and a half tonnes
was deemed to be an HDV.
So tractor trailer would be an HDV,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:05:43
and HDV, it didn't matter what you had,
They're all HDV because they're all roughly not done, I think.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah.
But essentially, we've got the worst case scenario controlled
by conditions.
So we've got the scenario they modelled of movements,
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:05:58
the most that there could be, is those maximum 140
for the three and a bit weeks of harvest,
and then the lower number, the 82 way for the.
And does that calculation take into account the reduced
capacity of the lagoon.
Cllr David Moore - 4:06:17
As I understand that, that's been reduced to 10 ,000 metres.
Yeah, well, they're capped, so they can't do any more.
So it effectively stops the movements
on the highway network.
So that's the highway network movements.
They've obviously got the field access, where they don't
go on the highway network.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:06:30
But it's like they've got a ceiling,
and they can't go above that.
And if we've got this reporting as well that comes in annually,
it will be on public record, and it can be checked then.
I mean, if it's any help, we do this on mineral sites all the time.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 4:06:51
Every vehicle on a mineral site comes in, loads up or unloads and goes out, and we have
the data.
So if we want to call up that data, we can do.
So we can see every day how many vehicles, and then normally HDVs, are entering the site
and leaving the site.
Cllr David Moore - 4:07:15
My final question is why are the bimethane and carbon dioxide tankers exempt from the
restrictions in condition 9?
The fact they can be used at night.
It would have probably been a better question to the applicant than me, but it's to do with
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:07:29
if they need to be, I think there's more flexibility, so they might be full and need to be tankered off.
So because you're generating gas, it's building up.
It's a way of taking it off site, isn't it?
Is that a commercial decision from the applicant,
or is that an actual technical necessity?
My understanding from discussions with the applicant
is that it's a technical requirement
to take it off when it's needed.
And the level of movements are very low.
I think it's in the right frame for Bioleith.
It's a very low number as well.
Also, the core large generated number, larger number,
is from the feedstock and the digestate.
But this is more of a technical requirement.
Considering that this could mean they could be going down,
banging down country lanes at 3 AM,
surely it could be restricted to emergencies, grid outages,
Cllr David Moore - 4:08:18
things like that, rather than just a blanket, well,
you can use these lorries at night
because they're containing a certain chemical.
So when they're actually emergencies.
It's a low level number of vehicles.
And again, we've got the operational traffic management
plan.
we can look at routing of those vehicles. They don't need, they're not the sort of
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:08:36
vehicles are they that are going to be going there. They can stick to B roads
and those sorts of roads so we can look at that as part of the operational
traffic management plan. And are they in the noise assessment? Are these considered
Cllr David Moore - 4:08:49
in the noise assessment? Yes. Okay. Councillor Smith, you've been very patient. Thank you,
Chair. Thank you for that and yes we covered a lot of grounds and so there
isn't an awful lot left to say but there are just a couple of questions that are
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:09:01
very quick, I think, issues that would be good to get an answer to.
And the first one really was about the word that the parish council used,
which is severance, and the weight that that carries within the MPPF, the new MPPF.
Can you confirm whether we as a council have previously described the B41...
What is it?
It would be 4011 as oversubscribed.
So it's already overfull.
Now, that was a claim that was repeated.
So I'd like to know whether that's actually been our
position in the past.
We already described it as a barrier too much within,
through Long Crenden.
While you're thinking about that,
shall I go on and do the others quickly,
and then we can get it wrapped up nice and quick?
highways ones are coming on on that. It was about over capacity on the BL411
but also about a long -crendum roundabout where you go into into the big roundabout
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:10:02
that there was a particular application PL2560240A was quoted to me because I
went back and asked that the right question where they said in there are
multiple applications not that what that plus another one where the highways team
have said to us, we're already over capacity.
For HTVs, it's already twofold.
Yeah, if I can just explain.
So there's two live planning applications
for residential developments in and around Long Cremden.
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 4:10:31
As part of both of those transport assessments
for those applications, the developer
has undertaken a junction assessment of that mini
roundabout and identified that there
is an existing capacity issue and that those two different housing developments will add
to that. But what you have to consider is that development of 97 dwellings, so one of
them, could generate around 50 vehicle movements during the morning and evening peak periods.
If you have the other 120 dwellings, which I think is to the south towards like Drake's
Drive, I believe, industrial area, that could generate around 60 vehicle movements during
your morning peak, your evening peak.
This development, yes, HGVs,
but it's 80 HGVs across the day,
not those same numbers during those
morning and evening peak periods.
So the notion that it's oversubscribed
to accommodate these HGVs is not valid.
There's a distinction between the two.
And so, yes, junction assessment's done
for the residential developments,
but not for this anaerobic digestion site.
Thank you.
That may well be a point that would be useful to argue
with an inspector.
Kind of moving on then, the other issue
that really concerns me is that Bucks Council,
we really have been very forward looking.
We've been very progressive in our approach
to anaerobic digesters.
And that policy, that strategy kind of framework moving forward seems to be completely in contradiction to what we're looking at now.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:12:21
And it feels as if, once again, we often seem to get here with this committee.
We seem to be dealing with a contradiction.
So I'd like to know whether our commitments to supporting farmers, to supporting our local farmers, to supporting small -scale anaerobic digesters,
an example of which we heard from the developer on his own farm,
would be undermined by a development of this scale.
I think this is a case of there isn't a policy.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 4:12:54
There might be an idea out there,
there might be a commitment by some people to that idea.
But until it's a planning policy, and
until it's a planning document that carries some weight,
it would have very little weight in our decision making.
Our policy has to be, goes through a process
to gather weight in decision making.
So if there's no policy in your development plan,
in your local plans, minerals plan,
or Bell of Ellesbury local plan, then you can't give weight.
Thanks, that's a really straightforward answer.
And it tempts me to then say firstly,
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:13:33
that our local plan ought to have a policy supporting our local farmers.
Our position within this council really ought to be supporting local farmers
rather than an industrialised view of what we would like to see in the countryside.
But that's something I think would be worth us as an area, as a council,
as a community, putting to an inspector.
And the final one really is I was really surprised to see there was no comment
from Thames Valley, from Thames Water.
And I'd like to, I assume that's because they're not,
and please correct me if I'm wrong,
but they're not a statutory consultee in this case.
But we've certainly heard that this site
will use vast amounts of water.
We heard 39 million litres as one of those examples,
and not all of that can possibly be fed through rainfall.
So we're actually talking about a site that will need to tap into the local water.
At a time when we heard from one of the, I can't remember who it was,
one of the submissions told us that a application for
housing was rejected on the basis that wasn't enough water pressure to supply them.
So I wonder, first, can you confirm whether or
not Thames Water are a statutory consultee?
So, and in which case?
I can confirm they've been consulted numerous times
on this application.
They did comment as.
Their failures comment.
Does that carry weight?
They have commented.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:15:05
They commented it was a couple of years ago
and they didn't raise objections.
But we have consulted them.
We consulted them this year and it's for Thames Water
to determine what matters it wants to raise.
And then we have to consider the responses they receive.
But it's not like our role to have kind of comment
on specific matters, we consult them,
they have an opportunity to feed into the process.
They have commented once.
It's not unusual for a consultee to only comment the first time
and not comment again if their opinion hasn't changed.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 4:15:46
The other thing about that was when the local resident was
speaking earlier, he gave us the application number,
which I think was PL256024OA,
which is a development at Magis Farm in this way,
along Corinda.
They got the impression from what was being said
that the Thames Water had raised an objection
to the application,
whereas they are recommending a planning condition.
So they're not recommending that the application be refused.
It is a planning condition.
It's quite a strict condition, but it nonetheless, it's a condition.
It's what they're suggesting.
And will that carry any weight for us in determining this application?
No, we've consulted Thames Water.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:16:32
They've not raised concerns.
We can't introduce water as an issue, water supply as an issue.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:16:37
You know, this application has merits.
And I did quiz the officers quite hard about Thames Water because of our previous discussions.
And based on their feedback and their responses,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:16:49
they've not had any objections and not required any conditions
to be put on the application from their perspective.
Whereas other applications, as Chris has rightly said,
they have actually made specific conditions.
So we have this application based on their resources
to this application, and they've raised no objections
and or put any conditions on it to us.
So.
Right, thank you for that.
And one last one, this is really quick.
And it's just taken with a number of references to gas flaring.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:17:19
From a visual perspective, have you made any assessment of how often we're likely to have plumes of flames on top of this site?
And how visible that's going to be from the surrounding area?
And what sort of substances are likely to be emitted through gas flaring?
The gas, the flame is all enclosed, so you wouldn't see it outside the site.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:17:46
And effectively it's just more needed for like emergency,
sort of exceptional requirements, because effectively they're burning their profit if they burn gas.
So it's not in their interest either. But yeah, they're fully enclosed flames.
Okay, there's only one other little question I've got based on the feedback we have from all the speakers.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:18:05
One of the speakers talked about there being a scheme drawn up about Carters Lane and in
terms of Vista Road.
I think it was a 250 ,000 junction improvement in some shape or form.
It wasn't clear exactly what that was.
They sort of suggested that they may want to talk to the Bucks Highways Authority team
at some point.
Just curious whether they have or haven't given you any suggested plans or details of
that to the highways team.
And then separately for the planning offices,
if we felt this was still an issue, could we then make that a condition as part of
that process thing actually, because we still feel there are issues with
the highways, that this could be one of those requirements.
Bit like we do with education, highways, ICB, etc.
Could you then potentially make to look that piece?
I think it was about, it was also about severance and
the thing where it wouldn't necessarily be that the council necessarily implements this
piece, but it's more that they've assessed it and said that would be a workable solution.
So I don't know whether they have presented this to you or not. I think it was one of
the parish councils I think suggested they'd at least given it to somebody in the highway
scheme at some point, I don't know.
It's not a scheme that I'm being approached by the applicant on. It may be...
Andrew Cooper - Highways OfficerAman Sekhon-Gill - Assistant Director QA - 4:19:30
It's from the parish council, I think, one of the parish councils.
Yeah, it may well be a scheme that's been developed at a request from the parish council
and it wouldn't be a highways DM team, it would be the council highways may well have
drawn something up, costed it out and obviously said we need, the council can't afford to
fund it at the moment but in terms of the developer suggesting that they might be willing
to contribute to it, that's not something that we've been approached to discuss with
down now.
And just one additional point.
If we attach any conditions, it has to meet the tests,
it has to meet the compliance tests,
and that's why we haven't added the condition
David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning - 4:20:11
because we don't think it meets the tests.
The tests, oh, you're gonna question me on the tests.
So any conditional contribution has to meet the six tests.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:20:26
David Marsh - Highways DM Team Leader Planning - 4:20:28
They have to be directly related.
So, you've got a criteria you have to go through to say, okay, does it matter?
And if we can't demonstrate that it's having that impact on that place,
we cannot impose that condition or request that contribution from a developer.
So, I've come in, the MPPF slightly changed the wording.
It's on page 21 of the MPPF if you have it.
It's policy DM 6, use of planning conditions and obligations.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:20:52
It says, planning conditions should only be attached to a planning permission
where they are one, necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms,
relevant to the development and planning considerations generally, sufficiently
precise to make them comply with enforced and reasonable in all other respects.
Okay, that must be helpful. Okay, so I think that we've gone through all the technical
questions because I think while I was in the Tenuous System about highways, we've actually
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:21:21
talked about pretty much most everything I think. So my suggestion is we now go to
the open for the debate.
Could I just take the opportunity?
Just there was some discussion earlier relating to,
obviously, we had agricultural impacts,
both positive and negative.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:21:36
And I just want to clarify from a sort of policy basis,
in terms of there is a policy basis looking
to agricultural land if you are losing best value
agricultural land from a development.
But this site is only 3B, so it's not best and most
versatile agricultural land.
In terms of any impact on national food prices,
there's no evidence that we have before us,
with concrete evidence to link it to that,
and there's no planning basis to object.
So I just wanted to be clear that the food prices are,
is not, there's not a planning basis
that could be progressed on that.
Thank you, Chair.
I would guess if it was sort of,
currently 1 ,500 miles of whatever it might be,
but on the basis it's a relatively small site
related to the national scheme,
It doesn't afford any weight at all.
Okay. Right.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:22:26
Okay. So I think that's all the technical questions done.
I see the Councillor Gomes now back again.
So he's obviously dealt with HS2, which is good.
So I will now go to the open debate.
If any of the Councillors wish to speak, please raise your hand
so I know where to go to first.
And then we can, okay, so we can start with Councillor Feeley
and then Councillor Roberts and Councillor Smith.
And we'll start with those three and then we'll work from there.
So Council Member, over to you.
Chair, thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:22:56
We've heard a lot today about the digester
and the advantages it brings to the farming community, which
is good news.
Because they can dispose of some of their waste
as well as their products, and we can return it into gas.
Which is great.
But it cannot be the detriment of the local community.
because it sounds like the impact it's having,
certainly from a transport point of view,
to me is not acceptable.
I know this community area very well,
I know the villages very well,
and it will have a huge impact on them.
And for that reason, I can't support the application.
My view is that this application has failed under TR6,
which is the severe adverse impact on the transport network
We talked about capacity, congestion, cumulative effect, and highway safety.
I think there's a lot of those areas that have not been addressed, and therefore they need to be taken into account.
We have a community area where the villages are extremely small, very narrow, particularly if you go to Bruell.
I know in Bruell you can barely get a car through there on occasion.
But they're certainly not in a position to be able to take any more HGVs or vehicles like that.
I think this application is a great application in Britain, a long location.
It needs to be somewhere closer to the main road network, probably similar to what you saw at Three Maids,
where there's a dual carriageway, those things locally, and it would have less impact on our community.
Our community needs us to defend their position. We've got to look after the communities that
we have and the impact it would have on schools, children and other aspects of village life.
And for that reason, I would not be able to support the application and at some stage
would recommend it to be refused.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:25:13
Thank you Councillor P
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:25:37
Thank you chairman. It's a very difficult application. That's probably why we spent so long on this application.
Because I think in terms of the technology and the benefits that it would give to the farming community,
it has a lot of positives and particularly the fertilisers it produces,
is the strengthening that we put forward
in terms of making sure that it would link in
with the gas system, which will take out some lorries,
but it's not a lot of the lorries,
which would actually be part of that process anyway.
But that makes it a better site, a better location.
And what we see when we did visit the other site,
it doesn't produce lots of smell,
which is some of the things
which we worried about initially.
that location was different.
It was not set within beautiful fields.
It was right up against a road.
You then got some of the other issues which are being raised
by the general community that lived within the villages
and looking at the local highways
and roads which are there.
And also, it will make an impact within the local environment,
though it's within a dip, this particular part.
But actually, because a lot of the villages are above,
it will actually be more visible rather than less visible
because of that reason, not actually from the roadside,
particularly, but actually from the vantage points
of the villages.
I think the problem that I'm getting
is that highways is a major issue with this,
and the amount of traffic that has to go to the site,
some which will be coming from outside the area,
though there are limits within that.
But even if you're looking at the five mile part of it,
that means most of that is gonna come
through those villages.
Some of that's gonna come from the land.
But what we're not having is from the points
that we've raised and the things we've seen
and the things we've heard,
we're not getting the support from the highways team
To actually give us the hard evidence to take this forward and say that would be the key reason
To turn it down and these are the highway reasons that we would put in
With the evidence to show because even where we know and we've talked about the pinch points and getting around
It's almost that thing of the difficulty we guess at getting a crossing in somewhere. No where no one's being killed
We get told you can't have it. No one's died. The whole point is nobody should be dying
But that's the issue that we get all the time when we talk about things like that.
It's a little bit the same with some of these issues where, yes, there isn't a pattern recorded
instance, but it is a difficult traffic area once you get larger vehicles moving through
it and creating this slalom effect.
And the more vehicles you add on, even if it's bit by bit, the more chances you're going
to get where they're not going to be able to get by.
They're not going to actually do the right thing.
These things happen, and they happen regularly.
So it's that sort of balance.
And I think, yes, some villages will
feel it starts severing them from parts of the village
from the facilities that they have.
So there are these balances which make, for me,
this is going to be a difficult decision to make.
So I'm not going to come forward and say straight away,
without hearing what other members have got to say,
that I would recommend exactly which way I'm sitting
at the moment between the two.
Very good idea, but some major difficulties
within the location that it is, which would affect communities.
But on the other hand, also help some
of the agricultural communities which are around,
which also we need to sustain.
So there's a really difficult balance there.
So I'm not sure I've helped people, but I've tried
to actually clarify some of the points.
I think the elements we put
and the extra elements are important there as well.
Thank you, Councillor Waters.
So Councillor Roberts, follow up on Councillor Hall.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:29:52
Yeah, I'd mostly like to echo the points raised
by Councillor Feeley and Councillor Waters.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:29:55
I understand the reason for the facility
and totally get the benefits of it,
but it's all about the location.
And for me, I'm not convinced
that the real life road safety issues in the villages
have been sufficiently addressed.
And echoing Councillor Waters' point,
that it seems like we, the villages, residents
of the villages are being asked to suffer
the consequences of the traffic before there's
the evidence to justify the traffic not being there.
And that doesn't quite sit properly with me.
That relevant to that are the MPPF policies.
TR3 talks about impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure and accessibility for users.
TR4 talks about places that are safe and inclusive and attractive and minimising conflict between
pedestrian, cyclists and vehicles.
And TR6 talks about the cumulative impacts,
looking at future scenarios, impacts relevant times of day,
and so on.
So while the capacity might be there on the road,
I'm not convinced that the road safety aspects in the villages
have been considered.
I haven't heard anything about any proposed investment
in road safety improvements in those villages
to mitigate the additional traffic.
The final point really on the operational transport management
plan and the construction phase as well.
MPPF policy DM6 refers to conditions must be enforceable
and capable of compliance.
And I think that comes back to the point I raised earlier about boosting the element
of monitoring of the data that's captured under the operational management transport
plan.
Operational transport management plan.
And I'd actually like to see it go further if it could and to have some kind of community
liaison group for parish councils, highways, and other stakeholders to be able to have
a forum to review that annual return and the progress of the operations from a highways
perspective. And my understanding is that could be addressed through a section 106 agreement
and to require the establishment of a forum like that.
I'd be interested to hear what other members think
about that idea.
Obviously that would need to be with the agreement
of the stakeholders in the local community.
On the balance of it, I'm kind of inclined
towards not being able to support the recommendations,
but I'm open to hearing further from other members.
Hey, Councillor Roberts, that's been very, very helpful.
So I think you quoted TR3, TR4, TR6 and DM6,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:33:34
but I got the impression that DM6 could be overcome
because you could potentially have a parish forum,
you could have a scenario where you had a management,
So they can use the forum management forum that did that piece as it were technically.
Okay, so these are TR3, TR4, TR6 and the MPPF.
Okay, so what counts the more followed by Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chairman.
What a great number of erudite and sound points,
Cllr David Moore - 4:34:07
not just from members but from officers, all the speakers here today.
It's been one of the most interesting applications I've ever sat through, whether it be sitting
on this committee or in our area planning committee.
My concern with this application, it's full of holes and question marks, and I recognise
some of the benefits of this.
I recognise the hard work that our farmers do and what they need to do to deliver their
vital roles in keeping this country going.
But the end of the day as a planning committee, we look at the application in front of us.
We are we are a political we are quasi judicial and we have to apply that to
planning material considerations and whether that be conditions whether that be
ensuring that compliant with planning policy and
for me
It's bewildering that we have an application front of us that has an unconfirmed
unconfirmed gas grid connexion despite the fact that this site was implied to be chosen primarily because it was near a gas
grid connexion. But in a location where, you know, with a B, arguably a B road, but
can that even be justified as a B road with potentially unrestricted tanker movements,
certain tanker movements being able to move in the middle of the night, the effect of
that on the network, the lack of a kind of one reconcilable figure that we can work from,
you know I think in my view is cause for concern we had some mitigation to the
broke but anything the 10 -metre buffer zone is adequate the heritage Harlem
nearby farmhouse so I am I would support Councillor Phele's motion and second that
motion to refuse this application I endorse the policies already cited by my
fellow members but I know Councillor Robinson.
Back to the proposal in the second thing, formally, so that's just part of the debate
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:36:10
bit at the moment because he didn't find the proposal but yeah I think we'll come back
to that bit once he's done the physical whole debate because I think we want to clarify
if we are going to review what exactly the reasons are and I think the debate has talked
through more issues than just Councillor Pippa first raised so therefore we might want to
revisit depending on which way you've got to go.
They might get it, we actually approved the thing.
We might refuse it, whatever.
But the point was at this stage,
but you've given your sort of thought processes
that you're minded to support Councillor Feeley
in his thought process at this stage.
Okay, so we'll leave that at that fence there.
And we'll then go to Councillor Smith
and Councillor Gormley back in the room.
You're welcome to contribute if you wish to contribute.
Sorry, Chairwoman.
Well, so you, so although you can't vote
because you had to go and sort out HS2,
you are still allowed to come back and be part of the debate if you can't physically vote.
Well as long as members realise I can't vote, I just let it continue as it is, Chairman.
Okay, so Councillor Smith, over to you.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:37:14
Thank you, Chair, and like other members here, I am seriously significantly conflicted really in this decision
because there is no doubt that this is fantastic technology that is really needed, very much needed
in terms of gas production, but also in terms of localised fertiliser and all the other benefits that we've heard.
But the concern I have, of course, echoing others, is that it's huge.
It's 98 ,000 tonnes of food stock. 47 ,000 tonnes, we're told, will be food grown for fuel.
So taking up and disputed somewhere between 2 ,000 acres
and 5 ,000 acres of land that will be devoted just
to feeding this digester.
So the scale of it seems to suggest
that its sustainability criteria is weakened quite significantly,
just on that basis.
But also industrialised scale anaerobic digestion
on this scale and in this place where it is has a whole range of knock -on effects, including
what has already been mentioned about HGVs, as well as the visual impact.
This thing is, each one of these five containers is the size of this building.
Imagine that in the countryside.
It will also use a great deal of water.
We've heard wonderful mitigating kind of efforts to ensure that there is no runoff into the local brook.
But our local environmental groups are really quite concerned about that because of the nature of flash floods that we have now.
And they are going to get worse. There's no question about that.
So with all of these things together, it really makes me seriously doubt whether this is the right place for this facility.
And that a facility on this scale really ought to be in an industrial setting.
But what we as a council should be doing is promoting, supporting, doing whatever we can
to enable local farmers in collectives perhaps to have anaerobic digestion on a genuinely
farm level, farm based level.
And that would fit in so much better with our current direction of travel if it's not
policy, a direction of travel within this county in the way that we support farmers
and the way that we recognise this as a technology that really should be embraced.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:39:50
Absolutely I like it, Councillor Gormley. You've sat through the pre... it was just
unfortunate deal with HS2, wasn't it? But hey.
Well, what can I say? Jeremy, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to come back into
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:40:05
meeting and to speak again now because normally the rule is you're out, you're
out until later on so thank you very much and colleagues at the same time.
Again this is a difficult situation that the Planning Committee find themselves
in, situations that we absolutely detest being in but someone has to make
decisions along the way. You know we're all very keen supporters of Bucks looking
after the farming community but this is not just the farming community that
we're looking at, we're looking at a big, big community.
But I will turn around and say I am fully supportive
of the digestive systems that come in this way.
That is what this country requires.
It does use the agricultural network in a way that it should do.
We've used this project, produce as it goes through.
So I fully support that.
I'd rather see loads of those than soda farms all over my countryside,
this great British countryside because the system is using it. The thing that I find hard on this one
is because I was impressed when we saw the site ourselves, the way it worked and how clean it was,
but the problem I'm hacking is the transport part of this. You know, I spoke to them about
the gas line, where it is, could it be situated, could it be looked at. I'm not 100 % sure, but
looking at the rural communities that I know there as well, it would have a quite devastating impact.
as it goes along.
So I would split between two, you know,
the product is there, it's fantastic,
but on the same time, is it the right place?
And Sam, if you'll know that it's not, it's, you know,
but that's where I am.
But I can't vote because I'm not allowed to.
And usually I will speak about it.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:41:50
Having gone to three bays myself and like Councillor Gaughan,
being very impressed with the whole process,
in terms of noise pollution, light pollution,
there is none. In terms of that versus the solar farms because we both sat in
the Rosefield Solar Farm Inquiry which is 3 .1 miles of agricultural land being
lost to physical protective use. This is a much better use of that system. But the
query I have in my mind is the connector. So I'm surprised about the fact that the
room rooms are not much, much less.
Because we're going into the grid,
because green rates, sorry, green rates
didn't have that ability to be connected
to the main grid, this does.
I was very surprised by the volume of room,
so we were then being told we're gonna have to have.
Because I would have thought you could have a minimum
and a maximum going, okay, minimum number
to make this thing physically work for 98 ,000 tonnes
would be X, Y, Z, and then you'd maybe like 40 rooms a day
versus potentially up to 80 or whatever it might be.
So, like you, I'm a big supporter of the farmers,
I think this is the way forward.
I'm not convinced by the location
because they haven't got that connexion with the grid.
So that's why I was asked that real detailed question
about the condition and the 106.
Because I think like cancer more,
that needs to be a fundamental.
If you're going to have permission,
yes, you have permission.
But it can't physically start until you physically
get connected to the grid.
So on day one, it's in with the grid
no matter what happens on day one.
It is with national grid pumping in.
Even if it's one therm of gas or whatever it is,
it has to be producing that on day one,
not waiting 12 months, two and a half years for some gas maybe that's going to be syphoned
off. I'm sorry, that's not acceptable. If it's been permitted, it operates. If it operates,
it goes straight into the grid. In terms of the application, in terms of the national
planning policies we've been talked about, the way the MPPF has come out recently as
well, the reason I'm going to ask the officers some questions now is I know that Councillor
and perhaps more keen to potentially oppose refusal.
But my concern is it goes to the appeal
and we just get stoned over on appeal.
And therefore we don't get any conditions in there,
it just happens that it is.
Because I know it's TR3, TR4, TR6,
but also we're looking at the update about MPPF and policy,
EM1 and EM3 about renewable energy is almost,
the bar is built like the motorway service
we had last time round,
where the bar has gone from this high requirement to this high requirement.
So therefore, my concern is we then decline this application,
and then the government inspector just goes,
sorry, are you having it, whether you like it or not.
So I don't want the residents to be under the illusion,
we might say no, a bit like we had with Marla Fumicello,
we said no, and the inspector just went, we don't care,
you're going to have it, whether you like it or not.
So I'm just conscious, and that's why one of the officers
talked me through the weight of those policies to see
If we go down that route are they justifiable policy reasons to make it stick if that makes sense
The I could be then defended at appeal so council council waters you go ahead up
Just the bit you've been talking about which I don't agree with you our understanding of is
my understanding is that
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:45:07
The park has to get to a certain amount of gas production
It has to have a level of gas production before the national grid will allow it to connect.
So it can't connect at the beginning.
So it has to get to whatever that point is to have a pressure level to get in there.
I'm no scientist, wasn't my best subject, but that's what my understanding is.
So the issue I had with the applicant was she was talking two and a half years away.
There's no way it's going to take you two and a half years to get to that level of peace,
right?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:45:37
Therefore, they need A, have the agreement with National Grid, and B, you know, the requirement
that she was describing, oh, well, it might take me two and a half years.
Sorry, that's not acceptable.
We need to have much, if you're going to go to approval, you have to have much stricter
piece.
I think the other thing there, I know that Niko's going to come in, I think it's what
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:45:59
they're talking about, the two and a half years, is that will be the construction.
and so what we're talking about with the year is from the point of production, not construction,
is the year. So there's not two and a half years, it's one year.
You've seen what they constructed of Council Waters. You know, both went to remades. It's
not going to take you 18 months to construct one of these things. If you did it, it's probably
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:46:19
about three months, right? It's not the physical things they put in place. It's not building
the Empire State Building, right? It is not that technically difficult because they're
almost a copy paste of what we do have three mates, right?
So it's not a unproven technology, unknown technology,
right, so therefore that's why I have an issue
with the two and a half years piece,
is that, it's not, yeah, that piece itself.
But, yes.
Just sticking, I suppose, with really what we know,
the first thing, if the committee did resolve approval,
there'd need to be a legal agreement.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 4:46:52
The legal agreements can take anything up to six months
to negotiate and get.
Oh yeah, yeah.
So there's six months.
In terms of construction process, I mean,
I don't know any more than anybody else how long it will take.
But the applicant is saying it would take longer.
And they are the ones that are best informed, because they have built one of these.
So I don't want to contradict you, but there are constraints.
They may need to be some deals done on the land as well.
We don't know that, but that could be the case.
And that can also slow things down.
There might be some other permits and licences, etc., that are required.
That also can slow things down.
So two and a half years was the estimate that they gave.
So we don't really know, but we can't say that that's definitely wrong.
That's fine, okay.
In terms of those policies that have been quoted by Councillor Feeley and Councillor
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:48:01
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:48:04
and policy TR3, TR4, TR6, then you've got EM1, EM3 and the MPPF piece, just making sure
that if you go down that route that they're talking about, are they defendable and justifiable?
Because we would have to sit at the planning appeal, like I would be sitting in the planning
with the officers going and the decision was X, Y, and Z,
and these are our reasons for it,
whatever our refusal might be to make sure
that we're not going to be falling foul of making
a decision that then we just get told by the inspector, sorry.
Yeah, and I understand that totally.
I think we've heard earlier that the junction and the long
quandary capacity, if you were to increase it further,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 4:48:46
what the implications of that.
And I think all those areas going into on Quenten particularly is very susceptible to
Congestion as well, so I think there's a lot to do the whole thing about this revolves around
transportation and the safety of our people in that area
To well
Sorry can I just make what it was a point you made and I think it's a very good point
You said that if the application goes to appeal,
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 4:49:18
we may not get the same conditions that we've put on.
And I don't see that in any,
don't want to threaten anybody by saying that,
but that is what happens appeal after appeal.
We see that on housing developments,
inspectors walk it down on conditions.
So there is a risk, but I think you'll understand that.
Council Gough.
Chair, I appreciate what we're being told.
you know, if we don't listen to conditions,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:49:46
and it goes to appeal, it could get kicked back.
I am sick to the teeth of that being loosed around our neck.
You know, we should be able to speak openly
and stuff like that.
I'm not being disrespectful to you.
But you know, every time we walk in, it's like,
I appreciate that.
You know, conditions could help protect the project
at the end of the day, but also that could be detrimental
to those locally.
But anyway, that's just my opinion.
And to try and build that place within two and a half years, I would be impressed to
get that because it's like a baby calf coming into this world and being fed and grown at
two and a half years, it's ready to produce.
That's how I would see it.
So I put conditions in to try and do it before that.
But anyway, that's just my opinion.
I wasn't always flagging was, we're going to make sure whatever we do is robust and
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:50:37
defendable and therefore just TR6 and its own.
Councillor Roberts did talk about TR3 and TR4 as well.
I'm sure Councillor Moore's got some other bits
he wants to put in as well.
So I wouldn't just want to do TR6 only, Councillor Felder.
That was my point.
Yeah, yeah, but that's why I was true.
That was my point was that I would make sure
what we've put forward, whether it's approval or refusal,
it's robust and defendable, whichever way we choose to go.
So I've got Councillor Moore, you've got your hands.
As the Chairman, whether we cited policy S5,
whether this is a sustainable countryside location,
Cllr David Moore - 4:51:12
and I can't see this being a sustainable countryside location
due to the concerns on transportation,
due to the fact of it, yeah, nature is location.
Additional point, then?
If I could just come in on the MPPF.
So, if the MPPF obviously quite radically changed a week or so ago,
it's introduced a whole suite of national decision -making policies,
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:51:33
and sort of a cascade or a route that you go down through those policies.
So the policy we would start with is policy S5 of the MPPS.
And that's to do with development outside countryside.
And it basically says only a certain forms of development outside settlements
will be allowed as set out in the list below.
But then the list includes energy infrastructure.
And that's the MPPS has really bolstered the weight that the government is giving and effectively that the
appeal inspectors will give down the line to renewable energy and they've really put that weight
substantial to the force. So it says basically
energy infrastructure should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects
when assessed against the national DM policies in this framework. And then if you look at
national DM policies. For example, W3, renewable and low carbon energy development. That says
we should give substantial weight to the benefits of improving energy security, supporting economic
development and the transition to net zero. Then you have all the economy policies. You've
We've got E2, to support business growth,
substantial weight should be given
to the economic benefits of commercial developments.
So there's another substantial weight.
We've got substantial to renewable.
We've got substantial to economic development.
And then E4, it says in applying policy E2,
the sustainable growth of businesses in rural areas
should be supported.
And then it talks about development and diversification
of agriculture and land -based businesses.
So there's a really strong weight and balance shift
in the MPBF to renewable energy developments and to improving developments in general.
So then when we come to the highways, developments, just flip through those, sorry.
TR3 talks about any significant impacts on the network should be mitigated to an acceptance
agree and we have conditions limiting movements, we have operational traffic management plans,
we have hours limiting it.
So there are various mitigations come in to seek to address that one.
TR4 is not relevant because it's about residential, TR5 is not relevant.
And then TR6 is back to the very high severe impact test again and unacceptable highway
safety and the challenge at appeal is having the evidence to present a public inquiry that
there is a severe impact.
And the form of evidence that that would take is highways are advising is the documents
the applicants are submitting, they're the kind of evidence that would look to justify
whether it's severe or not and the highway authority has reviewed those, has visited
decide and there is the view that it's not a significant impact.
Even if you found some level of harm as part of the planning balance,
you would need to weigh.
So you might find, members, that there is traffic harm.
You then need to weigh that harm against the other benefits we've identified
and also the harm that I referred to in my presentation
to list the setting of the listed building.
So you would need to look at that balance.
But that's probably all I'd say to add, Chris.
So I think the officers have explained to us the changes to the MPPF in the last week
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:55:23
or two that's getting tilted about some more in favour of renewable energies and the rest
of it. But obviously we've had the debate. I don't know if anyone wants to put any other
further points. I think Councillor Pugh wanted to put a proper proposal forward for refusal
based on their pieces there. I think the TR4 from what the officer said, it relates to
residential role than for agricultural commercial so I think it'd be TR 3 and TR 6. I think the reference to s5 is is
although I know that
the officer is saying
Okay, that's five we think yes why was not suitable because
S5 says only student films
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 4:56:08
Sorry only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements as set out in the following list
These should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed
by any adverse effects when assessed against the national decision -making policies in this
framework.
And then the list of things which are appropriate outside settlements is development for agriculture,
processing engineering operations and infrastructure, including for transport, energy, water, and
telecommunications.
So they're all...
Can you read the rest please? Because it says in accordance with policy TR5 and TR5 says
Cllr David Moore - 4:56:48
if the development meets improved driver welfare and security, the safety of road users is
going to make road users more at risk. So I think this is absolutely relevant S5 and
it links to the fact that if TR5 is not satisfied, which I don't think TR5 is being violated
as a policy here. So I think S5 is totally relevant.
No, sorry, the roadside facilities
are in accordance with policy TR5, the rest of it isn't.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 4:57:12
So development for agriculture and development
for infrastructure, including for energy, is appropriate.
Yeah, the TR5 only relates to roadside facilities.
Yeah.
So it's appropriate.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:57:33
So it would, that is not a policy you can rely on as a reason for refusal.
So we're saying TR3 and TR6 then?
What does road side facilities define that?
Cllr David Moore - 4:57:48
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:57:52
Road side facilities like the motorway service area or something like that?
All the way to a lay -by?
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 4:57:56
What does it mean?
I've just got the new MPPF in front of me, so.
So in the only way S5 would apply is if the benefits substantially outweigh the harm,
but that's the only tie -in to S5.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:58:14
But the principal approach it's introducing is to allow those developments unless you
can demonstrate the harm outweighs the benefit substantially.
Yeah.
So the substantially outweigh.
policy compliant bit.
So the reason I wanted to go through this in detail
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:58:33
as we are now is to make sure when we do have a vote
so we know exactly what we're voting for
and that we're comfortable with the reasons
if they're gonna be refused, what the refusal are.
So there's no ambiguity about what we've decided to choose
or not to choose to do.
Council Roberts.
Yeah, just in terms of what I'm hearing
is that we're seeing on the one side
that it complies with the MPPF substantial benefits,
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:59:02
and that would need to be outweighed by substantial harms.
And I think from the discussion before the highway issues
we were raising, that you're saying
that we don't have evidence of substantial harms
because nobody's died.
That's the essence of the argument.
The applicant's put in a transport assessment that's been reviewed independently by our
highway officers.
They've been out and visited.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 4:59:33
The objectives have submitted a large, they submitted a transport assessment of their
own and a large pack of location, what they considered to be dangerous or difficult locations.
And the highway officers gone out and visited all of those.
and the highway team, their professional advice as highway engineers is that they can't sustain a refusal on it.
It's not the advice that it's on balance or they're worried, they don't see an issue.
And they didn't see an issue with higher vehicle movements, so they didn't object to 194 and now it's 140.
And obviously all that will get presented to us at appeal, if it goes to appeal by the opposite, by the appellant.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:00:24
Again, I think what you're suggesting is that for us to make that argument of substantial
harm on the highways issues, we would have to be seeing evidence of deaths, collisions,
road accidents, that's the evidence that you're saying we would need to see to be able to
use substantial harm.
Yeah, and highways have modelled the impacts and the percentage of increases of traffic
and they're not worried about the percentage.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 5:00:48
So it's not just about the accident side of it.
They've looked at vehicle movements.
They've looked at the increase as a percentage of what
already operates on that road.
And they're satisfied that it can be safely accommodated
on the road network.
So it's more than that they've looked at the numbers,
the flows, and that's their advice to you,
their technical advice.
Yes, I'm not sure I heard that.
I think there isn't evidence that people
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:01:17
have died, so it's a looking backwards assessment.
Looking forwards, there is a modelling
of the collisions and assessments.
There's just a modelling of the numbers.
I don't think it's people that have died.
I think it was the lack of any accidents which would
demonstrate traffic conflicts.
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 5:01:39
And where there are the pinch points,
there's nothing to suggest that people wouldn't just slow
and allow one vehicle to proceed and then another proceeds because the numbers on the pinch points
that were demonstrated on the network are not so high as there would be real demonstrable conflicts
that we could use in evidence to justify a refusal on highway grounds.
We've heard today from the parishes that they're great concerns, particularly by the school
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:02:18
and where there's no footpath and crossing the roads there. So these are things we need
to take into account. But I think we have to bear in mind the current
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 5:02:29
situation and the degree to which that it would be worsened by the development proposed
And I think what's being said is that there may be current concerns, but the relatively
small additional movements, given that they will be spaced out over an 11 -hour period,
and that there will be a traffic management plan to make sure that they don't go through
those pinch points at particularly difficult times of the day, for example, would not exacerbate
that existing issue to an extent that would make it capable of forming a
substantiated reason for refusal.
Chair, could I just add a small thought to that? Haven't we as a council already
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:03:16
identified that there are significant concerns with the B4011 as it goes
through Longcrendon and that's why we put in a raised zebra crossing rather
than just an ordinary zebra crossing.
That's why we have a whole row of speed bumps in Longcrendon
to try and manage the flow of traffic.
So isn't there already an acknowledgment
from this council that there's a serious problem as it stands
and that we are now considering whether to increase the problem
that we already identified?
That's reasonable voice report.
Yeah.
I mean, I think.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:03:56
No, I mean we can't sustain an appeal case on the basis that a road has some speed bumps on it to slow down vehicles.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 5:04:03
That's not enough, that's not going to be concrete highway evidence.
From a residents perspective have you tried to get speed bumps on a road in Buckinghamshire?
I accept that Councillor Smith.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:04:14
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:04:16
Look, I'm conscious we've been at this and it's 10 o 'clock this morning, we're now at 24.
I know Councillor Phealy wanted to put proposal forward for refusal.
I think the IMA officer has explained that if it does go to appeal we have to be able to give a robust reasons as to why we're looking to refuse it.
I know Councillor Wall wants to come back in again, maybe to help with additional reasons as to why he thinks we might be wanting to refuse it.
Well, I just wanted to add, Chairman, that just going back to S5, I think it fails the
S5 balance because the whole point of this location was to be near a connexion.
But that connexion isn't being satisfied.
Cllr David Moore - 5:04:54
I don't think that 12 -month rule is being forced.
And that has the cumulative effect on the issues we've had with HGVs.
So I think S5 in the context of the other transportation policies, you know, we can
I mean, debate TR5, but the other ones I think
are absolutely related to this because
it's not a sustainable countryside location,
especially if there's gonna be no grid connexion.
If we approve.
Chairman, it's not a material consideration
that you might be able to say there's somewhere better
for this to go.
I'm not suggesting that.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 5:05:26
I'm not, I'm keeping it to this.
They may well have selected the site
Cllr David Moore - 5:05:31
because there was a gas link,
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 5:05:33
and that gas link is being secured by a legal agreement,
so it is being secured.
You then have to consider the site and its location.
What are the harms, what are the benefits,
and why and benefit it,
which is what we've done as officers.
If you ascribe some harm to the highways,
that harm may still not be enough to offset the benefits.
That's the way the system works.
And in inscribing harm to highways, the evidence you need is a high bar, which I haven't heard
in our discussions in this room.
I think a very variable and subjective bar in my view, Chairman.
Cllr David Moore - 5:06:23
No, I understand where you're coming from, Councillor Moore, but I've been dealing with this for a long, long time
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:06:27
and Chris and myself have known that the bar has to be extremely high, but I get that.
But ultimately, if the committee wish to propose refusal, then they can do.
I'm not saying they can't.
I'm just flagging that, you know, if we then go to appeal, we have to be able to justify and defend it, right?
So, okay.
But Chairman, I would just say that Policy S5 is met unless we can say the adverse effects
Kathy Stubbs - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Highways - 5:06:54
when assessed against the national decision -making policies and the framework are substantially outweighed.
substantially outweigh, you know, this is actually saying that the type of development proposed is acceptable outside of settlement,
so I really don't feel that S5 would be a policy you'd want to refer to.
I can understand you wanting to refer to TR3, TR6, although we don't feel as officers that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate those reasons for refusal.
You would have more chance with that than with a policy that is met.
I defer to the proposed.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:07:38
So I think from what we're hearing from the officers and the officers' advice is that if you do want to go down the route for refusal,
then it would have to be on TR3 and TR6 in the MPPF, not just TR6.
I think Councillor Fielders, you were suggesting the original proposal. Is that something you would like to formally put?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:07:57
But could I just add in if you were, if it's a highway safety refusal or
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 5:08:01
to the impact then you'd also want the corresponding valve policies and
minerals and waste on safety and stuff like that.
Yes, exactly, yes.
So would you leave it to the officers to write the relevant actual detail wording
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:08:12
and the rest of it if that's what the committee wants to do?
Yes, it would include the existing valve because obviously a new level plan hasn't
actually come into effect yet.
So, VALPA is still the MPPF and VALPA are the two policies that are required,
or plans that are required as of today.
But obviously come next year then,
obviously the new local plan would be able to supersede VALPA as it were.
So, go back to you, Cassapele.
I'll let you -
TR3, TR6, and also VALPA.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:08:39
That's a formal proposal that Cassapele would like to -
Just on policy then, what's the reason?
The substantial harm, isn't it?
In no but what harm?
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 5:08:53
Yes, so what's the policy, but which bit? Yeah exactly what is the harm? Is it a highway
safety harm? Well we believe there's harm to the highway safety from the
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:09:04
pedestrian and children crossing the road and particularly at a pinch point
where they have to literally run across to get away from any vehicles coming
I think originally you talked about cumulative effect Council
I think originally you talked about cumulative effect Council
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:09:23
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:09:24
I said that as well, we said capacity because of the over subscribing, congestion and also the
cumulative effect of other vehicles. So just cumulative effect being this is
adding traffic to traffic that's already there.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 5:09:43
I think the feedback I'm getting,
I think the sense I'm getting from the committee
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:10:10
was their feeling was that it was a severe impact rather than just a ordinary impact.
That's where they were coming from. Exactly, that's what it says. TR6 is severe adverse impact.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:10:23
It's okay, so severe adverse impact. Okay, so Councilman, were you the one who talked about
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:10:29
potentially seconding? Do you now want to formally second that proposal? Yes, I'm very happy to
Cllr David Moore - 5:10:33
formally second. I'm happy to give reasons why TR3 and TR6 are also satisfied and that the
the assessment is unclean transport assessment is unclear in terms of
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:10:53
mitigations but okay so I think that's a formal posing a formal seconder yes
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:11:07
Sorry, could you just clarify what you've got down there for the part of TR3 and TR6?
So it's in the form of notes, but it's the policies are TR3 and TR6 of the National Planning
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 5:11:17
Policy Framework and any corresponding policies in the valve.
The issue is about, or the harm is highway safety,
especially to pedestrians and children crossing the road,
and that's to be seen in terms of a cumulative effect
of the extra traffic, and there's a severe adverse impact.
Now that doesn't read yet like a reason for refusal,
but those are the elements that would appear
in such a reasonable way.
Thank you for reading that.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:11:55
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 5:11:57
I think, sorry, also, because there isn't a legal agreement signed, can I just cheque
to see if there needs to be a reason for refusal?
Yes, there is.
If the inspector granted permission, we would expect it to be granted subject to a legal
agreement.
So I think we have to have a reason for refusal because there isn't one at the moment.
Yeah, so we would need to construct what that would be, but that would be the second reason,
the absence of a legal agreement.
Yes, because if you turn to page 9 through 10, it does talk about refuse if a session
agreement cannot be completed.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:12:33
So as one hasn't been completed as of now, that would be part of the process.
It would be, these are things that need to accompany the submission.
Yeah.
And that would of course include the...
The national reconnection piece.
If the 106 had to come forward it would be on the basis of the amendments we've suggested and proposed during the course of the meeting if that makes sense.
And also its size and impact on the community.
Size and impact on the community?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:13:08
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:13:16
In what way? In what way? It's huge. How does that impact in planning terms?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:13:20
On the what side?
Oh okay fine yeah.
I think that there was a bit raised about the fact that all the parishes could see it from
miles around if I remember rightly and when we looked up at Brill Hill and the rest of it,
I think the rest of the parties could see it.
So although the Oakley couldn't see it,
but I think there was a discussion
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:13:41
that went around that process of that.
With respect, just cause you can see it,
doesn't make it harmful refusal.
So if there is, I mean,
it does, the members can put forward
like a planning impact.
Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer - 5:13:52
Obviously our landscape officer's given his view,
but if there is a one you want to put forward.
I'm just relaying what was done during the debate.
So that's the forms of work so far.
Is there any additional planning issues or points that the rest of the members want to raise?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:14:14
If not, could a properly proposed proposer formally second it?
We'll now have a vote on that proposal and that seconding.
And a raise of hands in support of that proposal.
Those in favour of that proposal.
So I've got five.
Got the right answer.
So for me, I know I wasn't popular with the residents, but actually I think it's the right answer.
Because when you look at playing policy in the way that it's actually now rewritten, especially after last week,
I think before last week it might have been a different discussion, but because of the new changes to the MPPF,
I think basically it says if it's renewable energy, it gets given whether we like it or not.
So I think to me that's five in favour of the proposal, two against.
And obviously Councilman Gaughan, because he had to leave for HS2, couldn't participate in this.
I might have voted to be in that meeting.
Yeah, he did, absolutely, Chairman.
That's right.
Yes, you were chairing that meeting.
I was showing this meeting, but anyway.
But yes, so yeah, he wasn't able to vote
because of that scenario.
So therefore, on that basis, this application
has been refused.
Obviously, the officers will work with myself
to come forward with the exact form of words,
but it's on the basis of what was articulated
by the committee members.
Thank you very much for your time on that.
I'm just conscious we still have another application to do.
What I'd probably suggest is we have a five -minute comfort
break.
We're now at four o 'clock, or sorry, 10 minute, 10 minute, 10 minute comfort break.
And then we'll move to five past four to look at the next application.
Good, okay.

Break

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:16:03
Right, good afternoon members of the public who are listening on webcast.
We're now back to look at agenda item five, which is application number 24 forward slash 07967 forward slash OUT.
at South Corner, Wickham Airport, Clay Lane,
Booker, Buckinghamshire at page 123 of your Agenda Pack.
COOA public speakers on this application, please respond

5 24/07967/OUT - Land At South Corner, Wycombe Air Park, Clay Lane, Booker, Buckinghamshire

after I call your name to indicate you're in attendance.
Please ensure actual verbal representations
of the committee refer to the relevant planning considerations
regarding the planning application being considered
and does not include any personal comments.
Follow your statement, members may ask points for clarification,
the conclusion of which we'll ask you to return back to your seat.
So, I've got Oliver Bell as the agent.
Okay, great. I see you've got a couple of officers supporting you,
so I guess they'll come and sit in case there are any technical questions with you.
Right, okay. Fantastic, cool.
Okay, so I'll now call on the case officer Emma Crotty to introduce the report on the application.
Over to you Emma.
Thank you Chairman.
Outline planning permission is sought for a data centre development including ancillary offices,
associated infrastructure and landscaping.
Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer - 5:17:21
All matters are reserved so that is appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access.
The application is being heard at committee because the council is the freeholder of the land.
The application site covers an area of approximately 13 hectares of land adjacent the airfield to Wickham airpark in High Wickham.
It is bound on the east and west boundaries by Clay Lane and Marlow Road.
The site was formerly part of Wickham Air Park airfield with the remainder of the airfield located beyond the northern boundary of the site.
The site is allocated within the Wickham District Local Plan as a strategic employment area.
It is also within the defined settlement boundary.
The site is not within the Greenbelt nor national landscape, but it is within the setting of this as it's adjacent to the site to the south and west.
Residential properties are located to the east of the site along with a garden centre.
The closest residential property to a data centre would be over 130 metres.
Land to the north, west and south has a more rural character, although the Wicca Wanderers
training ground, including buildings, is located opposite the proposed new access on Marlowe
Road.
There is a rising ground level across the site from the southeast to the northwest corners.
To the south and east of the site, the roads and residential properties are positioned
on much lower ground levels.
Marlowe Road is approximately 1 metre low within the site, whilst Clay Lane is approximately 8 -9 metres below the site.
The site benefits from extant planning permission granted in 2025 for film studio development,
including eight sound stages up to 21 metres high and a new access point off Marlowe Road.
Sound stages are like big warehouse buildings.
The parameter plan submitted and shown on page 126
of your pack demonstrates an area
for development of 9 .2 hectares.
It's the area demarcated by a long broken line.
The majority of the development area would have a proposed
maximum building height of 20 .5 metres.
This would enable the buildings
to contain two floors of data halls.
However, the parameter plan indicates an area
which is proposed to have a maximum building height
of 20 .5 metres with a further three metres of plant on top.
This is a hatched area.
The parameter plan also indicates three areas,
the purple corners of the site,
which would have a lower maximum building height
of 12 metres.
The data centres would be air cooled,
which is less water intensive method
of cooling the data holes.
The applicant has also confirmed
that they have a firm electricity supply commitment offer
of more than 50 megavolt amperes,
enough for a medium to large data centre.
Turning to the photos.
This shows the site location.
The orange line is the M40 motorway.
High Wycombe Town Centre is to the northeast.
Marlow is to the southeast, Lane End to the northwest.
This again shows the site.
The runway can be seen towards the top of the photo.
This shows the existing building on the site.
This building is about 18 metres tall.
This shows the existing building and boundary with the airfield.
This is the view from within the site towards Claymore Park where there are residential properties.
This is a photo from within Claymore Park of the existing building on the site.
This is a view from within the site towards Marlowe Road to the southwest.
This again is looking towards Marlowe Road.
This is on the site but looking towards the Clay Lane,
Marlow Road Junction.
And this is that Clay Lane, Marlow Road Junction,
but looking towards the site.
This is taken from a long Marlow Road looking towards
that junction that we just discussed.
And this is another view along Marlow Road but facing more towards Lane End.
Is that the one where the exit would come from?
Wasn't there a potential exit coming out onto the Marlow Road?
Yeah, that's correct.
So that's the reason why there's Marlow Road there, that's where the additional access point would come out.
But it's away from the junction isn't it?
That's correct, yeah.
Between the junction and Lane End.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:22:42
Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer - 5:22:47
This is a view of the existing building looking east from Marlowe Road.
This is a photo montage showing the potential impact
of the proposed development from the airfield.
So the grey buildings are the potential data centres.
And this again is showing the potential impact
from Claymore Park.
You can see that the existing building has been removed.
This again is showing the potential impact from Marlowe Road.
This is between that junction and Marlowe.
You can see the grey buildings representing the data centres.
This is taken from Lane End and it shows the grey buildings in,
I suppose, in the background of the photo,
demonstrating the data centres.
This is the parameter plan, so it's the only plan that would be conditioned.
The pink and the purple areas are the areas for development, with the pinkish area for
development up to 20 .5 metres, the hatched area within this being the area for up to
metres of additional plant on top. The purple areas would have a 12 metre
height limit and the green is landscaping. This is an indicative
master plan and shows six data centre buildings. This plan is indicative only
so it's not necessarily what will be built. The scheme however has been, this
scheme has been used throughout the documentation in order to assess the
potential impact of the development.
This is an alternative indicative scheme
that's been submitted showing only three buildings.
Again, this is indicative only,
but demonstrates that different schemes could be implemented
in accordance with the parameter plan.
This slide just shows potential designs of buildings
with the inclusion of green walls.
This would all be debated and secured
through later reserve matters applications.
As discussed, there is an extent permission at the site for film studio development.
This includes eight sound stages, which are big warehouse -like buildings, up to 21 metres
high.
This is the approved layout, as it was a full planning application.
This is the fallback position.
And this is a visual of the approved film studio permission.
Just go back to the parameter plan.
In terms of updates for this item,
a further response has been, so you can look
at the update report that's been provided.
A further response has been received from Thames Water
who maintain concerns regarding foul sewer
and water supply capacity and request planning conditions
to secure any necessary upgrades prior
to occupation of the development.
However, Thames Water no longer identifies an inability
of receiving sewage treatment works
to accommodate the development,
with the latest response focusing instead on the need
for further drainage information and confirmation
of network capacity.
Therefore, condition 20 is no longer required.
Thames Water confirm again that they consider conditions
to be the most appropriate way to deal with their concerns.
As already discussed, the applicant has confirmed
that they have a firm power connexion offer of more than 50 MVA sufficient for a data
centre operation.
The applicant has also submitted a note comparing the scheme with the MPPF 2026.
The update report confirms the proposal would not affect any designated heritage asset.
There is also discussion in the update report about section 85A of the Countryside and Rights
Way Act 2000, which places a statutory duty on the Council as decision -maker to seek to further
the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the children's national
landscape when exercising its planning functions. There are also some conditions updates and the
addition of an informative. These correct some writing errors. Not in your update report,
but today we've received a further response from the LLFA,
so the drainage team, and their response doesn't materially
alter their position that infiltration is likely
to be a viable solution,
but that the submitted detailed design is not
yet currently acceptable.
In summary, the proposed development has been assessed
against the development plan as a whole,
and all other material considerations.
These include the recently published
national planning policy framework, the MPPF 2026,
which is a material consideration.
The use would be acceptable given the allocation
of the site as a strategic employment area.
And it is noted to be within the settlement boundary
where development is supported by the MPPF.
Substantial weight is afforded to the economic benefits
associated with the delivery of a strategically important
digital infrastructure facility, including job creation during construction and operation,
inward investment and support for the digital economy. The government's clear support for
the delivery of digital infrastructure is noted, which includes data centres which are
recognised as an important component of national economic growth, technological development and
resilience, as demonstrated by the inclusion in the new MPPF. The scheme would not compromise
or limit the operation of aviation uses at the air park.
The scheme would be acceptable from a highway's perspective,
with highway improvements also being delivered.
An appropriate design and layout could be achieved,
albeit at reserve matter stage.
It would have an acceptable impact
on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers,
given that pollution issues, including air quality,
light, and noise, can reasonably be controlled by condition.
It would achieve a 10 % net gain in biodiversity
and a policy compliant 25 % tree canopy cover.
It is considered drainage issues
and water supply issues could be resolved at a later stage.
Moderate weight against the proposal is attributed
to the landscape and visual harm arising from the scale
and massing of the proposed development
and its likely impact upon the setting
of the Chilterns National Landscape.
The proposal is not located within the national landscape itself, and the harm relates to its setting rather than direct effects on its natural beauty.
Whilst this gives rise to some conflicts with Policy DM30 and DM32, the extent of the harm is not considered sufficient to outweigh the substantial economic benefits, strategic employment benefits, and policy support associated with the development of this allocated employment site.
And it's also noted that the film studio development
incorporating that eight sound stages
and other buildings would be the fallback position.
As this is an outline application,
detailed matters relating to layout scale,
access appearance and landscaping would be subject
further scrutiny through future
reserve matters applications.
Weighing the identified harm to the setting
of the Chilterns National Landscape
and other limited adverse effects of the proposal
against the benefits of the scheme,
together with the ability to address outstanding detailed
design and environmental matters through appropriately
worded planning conditions, reserve matters approvals
and legal agreement provisions,
it's concluded that the proposal represents
a sustainable form of development.
The application is therefore recommended for approval
subject to the conditions set out in the report
and planning obligations,
which should secure traffic regulation orders,
speed survey, funding and implementation of a traffic regulation order for a
speed reduction, speed limit reduction to Marlow Road, travel plan monitoring,
damage cost contribution to mitigate air pollution including requirements to
improve and limit impacts on air quality. Therefore the application should be
delegated and deferred to the service director of planning and the environment
for approval subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or
a few years if this can't be achieved. Thank you.
Thank you, Emma. That was a very comprehensive report. We'll now hear from Oliver Bell, the
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:31:50
agent for the applicant. Once the timer starts, if you want to come forward, Oliver, once
the time starts and begins, you'll have three minutes in which to speak. So over to you,
Oliver. Thank you. Good afternoon, members. I speak
on behalf of the applicant to Wicom Park Limited in support of this outline application for a data centre at Wicom Air Park.
Public Speakers - 5:32:15
This application is before you today with a clear officer recommendation that outline planning permission should be granted.
That recommendation follows a detailed assessment by your officers who have concluded that proposals are acceptable
in regard to relevant local and national policy. We agree.
Firstly, the principle of development here is firmly established.
The site is allocated as a strategic employment area under policy HW 15 of the adopted local
plan and was specifically removed from the green belt for employment purposes.
Officers have concluded that a data centre is an appropriate employment generating use
on this allocated site and that the proposals fully supports the intended purpose of the
allocation.
As the site is located outside the Greenbelt and allocated for employment use, it's important
that sites like these are utilised in an effective and efficient manner to limit the need to
develop other Greenfield or Greenbelt sites.
Second, this proposal would deliver major economic benefits.
The scheme is expected to support a significant number of jobs during the construction and
and operational phases within Buckinghamshire and nationally,
generating substantial investment and contributing
to a growing digital infrastructure cluster in the area.
National policy now gives strong support to data centres,
recognising them as critical infrastructure
that underpins economic growth, innovation,
and modern digital services.
Third, members can be reassured
that the key technical matters have been carefully examined.
The highway authority raises no objection
and confirms that the development can be accommodated safely, subject to agreed mitigation works
and travel plan measures.
Environmental health is satisfied that noise and air quality impacts can be appropriately
controlled through conditions.
The LLFA comments can also be addressed through conditions.
Importantly, officers agree that the proposal would not compromise the ongoing operation
of the air park.
Finally, any employment scheme on this site will have some landscape effect, but as your
As our officers recognise, the applicants ought to minimise impacts as far as possible while meeting the requirements of data centre operators,
and detailed design, landscaping, and visual mitigation are all reserve matters.
Members will also note, and as has been identified, that the site already benefits from extant planning permission for a substantial film studio development,
broadly on the same footprint.
That fallback remains a material consideration and is a proper baseline against which landscape
effect should be judged.
Ultimately, any impacts must be weighed against the substantial economic benefits associated
with this scheme, which will be delivered on an allocated employment site.
For all these reasons, the case in favour of the proposals is compelling and we respectfully
ask members to support your office's recommendation and resolve to grant outline planning permission.
Thank you.
Time, number 385.
I was being generous because we've had a long day today,
so I was being generous on that.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:35:19
Okay, so are there any,
so we've heard from Oliver,
are there any planning issues raised in this statement
that any of the officers would like to comment on,
or are we happy just to go to the members?
Okay, so are there any questions of clarification
from the members to the speaker.
Councillor Ball.
Just wanted to clarify on your sustainability points.
This is going to be air -cooled, this data centre,
not water -cooled, is that correct?
Yes, correct. Yes.
Do you have any intention of making it water -cooled
in the future, or is this going to be always air -cooled?
Cllr David Moore - 5:35:57
No, the intention is that it is to be air -cooled,
and we've accepted that as part of the application
Public Speakers - 5:36:01
that that is the route that we'll be pursuing,
or the future operator would be pursuing.
Councillor Fealy.
Couple of points, if I could.
Air -cooled, does that mean there's more fan noise?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 5:36:18
Or would that cause a nuisance to the locality?
So yes, of course, there would need to be cooling.
So as part, and it would be through air source heat pumps,
it would be the predominant mechanism which would be used
that obviously that's sort of common
Public Speakers - 5:36:40
in sort of domestic builds as well.
So the use of those sorts
of technology is developed quite significantly in terms
of reducing the sort of ambient, the noise levels
that are generated from it.
The noise assessment work
that we've undertaken today has demonstrated
that it's eminently achievable in accordance
to British standard noise levels having regard
to the significant distance between the weather data halls
and plant will be located
and neighbouring residential properties.
And also noting there's obviously quite a substantial
landscaped bank between where the data halls would be
and the Claymore Park residents.
So would they be mounted on top of the building?
Yes, so there is a, there could be a mixture,
predominantly on top is what we anticipate.
Obviously, it's not a detail which is for approval at this stage, but conventionally,
and as Emma identified, there is a plant zone which is identified on the top of the buildings.
So yes, that is potentially where they'll be located.
There's also other lower ancillary buildings, which you might have noticed on the alliterative
master plan, which are next to the main data halls.
So potentially, they could be located in those zones lower down as well.
Okay.
Does that also apply to generators?
Yes.
So generators are required in, obviously, in a backup sense
if there were to be a power failure.
So the specific location of those
is a matter for determination at the reserve matters stage.
They would be expected to be located at ground level
because they would need to be sort of readily accessible
for maintenance in particular.
So, whilst as I said the detail isn't before you for consideration of the exact location,
logically you'd expect that in terms of where they'd be located,
they would be located sort of on the far side of the data halls relative to where the Playmore Park residents are,
because then you'll get natural screening of noise, etc. by the data halls themselves.
Would you see it as a generator per building or for the site?
I think it would be a generator per data hall, is my general understanding.
Thank you.
Councillor Gough?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:39:07
I'm really intrigued, never seen the data centre, and Councillor Feeley took my questions. This is happening a lot today.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:39:09
But, so, with the air cooled system, so, okay, let me just flick this around a bit actually.
So the data collectors or data machines, I don't know much about, I know technology, but do they hum or anything like that?
Is the building soundproofed?
Yes, the building would be, would have acoustic insulation to it, so you're not, I mean yes obviously there would be noise generated by electrical appliances,
But there would be a clue since I think the the noise from the previous council was obviously references in terms of the external plant
But you to sort of call the actual halls themselves, which is obviously have to be externally like mounted to to see
Extract feet. Yeah into the building. So Emma educated me yesterday
By saying it's a double storey
Yes unit. So if he was water cooled that obviously be to walk or system
So when we talk about the fans, the cooling fans,
just on top, we'll just hit the top ones.
What about the lower ones or would it circulate?
It would be, yeah, I mean,
this is getting obviously beyond my expertise as well
in terms of technical design.
Ignore them, don't worry.
I must admit, but it would be a case of,
Public Speakers - 5:40:25
they would be located and then ducted in a way
which obviously they could suitably ventilate the building
in an even fashion.
So it doesn't necessarily mean that just
because they're on the top, they would only serve the sort of upper storey for day to day.
And my last question, Chairman, and again Emma educated us with the plan that's shown
up there under outline and showed us those pictures as well of the building that's there now.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:40:53
So would you be looking to implement some nice trees, you know, down the far end
and that to try and hide those buildings a bit?
I know it's a technical that I go to the officer about, but I'm enjoying talking to you.
Yes, it's a short answer.
So there's a policy requirement for that,
which you'll be probably aware of anyway in terms of the need
for a 25 % canopy cover across the site.
Public Speakers - 5:41:08
So we have to hit that as a policy requirement anyway.
Yes, that you're allowed to include some existing vegetation
within that, but there is also a requirement
to put additional planting on the sites.
And as part of the discussions that we've had
with offices during the consideration
of the application, we have discussed measures
from a softer landscaping perspective as a way
to ultimately soften some of the appearance, to break up some
of the appearance of the buildings.
And so that will be looking at additional plant,
and particularly on the northern boundary, where at the moment,
there's just a sort of palisade fence.
And so we'll be looking for plants along there.
Any additional planting around the boundaries as well.
And then green walls is something
which is expressly committed to within the conditions as well
as something which will be explored as a way to try
and better assimilate them within the wider context.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you chair and I know that this is going to be dealt with at a later stage, but I
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:42:07
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:42:10
Noticed in the in the submission that there's potential for photovoltaics
And is that is that a certainty given the amount of
power that the data centre is going to going to use and the amount of
roof space that you're putting in this little corner of High Wycombe.
And just the second question really, which is about water supply.
And again, this is gonna be dealt with later.
But because the system isn't water cooled,
I was trying to understand what volume of water you were likely to require.
And I think probably there still is a demand for water.
And I wondered if there is anything in your planning that would expect to see rainwater
catchment and reuse rather than relying on the grid for water supply.
Sure.
So, on photovoltaics, look, as you said, obviously the energy demands of data centres is obviously
very significant.
Public Speakers - 5:43:12
So I don't think we should be expecting that the PV provision is there to sort of
provide to address the full needs of the energy demands of a data centre.
That said, there's the data halls themselves,
which are the most energy intensive.
But you also have other ancillary buildings that could be potentially
smaller office accommodation buildings,
which obviously have reduced energy demands, etc.
So that's potentially where the PV could help to sort of be a bit more self
sufficient in terms of addressing some of those needs.
And then in terms of water usage,
really we would expect the water uses
to be fairly limited in so far as it would be purely to serve.
If there were any ancillary office accommodation,
then it would obviously to serve sort of welfare facilities
within their measures in terms of rainwater harvesting,
et cetera.
I think that would be a detail for reserve matters.
Obviously, it's fairly sort of standard.
and say whether or not it's harvested for reuse or whether that goes into the landscape,
the ecological design, etc.
A matter for another day, but I'm sure it's possible.
Without influencing the decision, it's really nice to hear that at least this is within your thinking
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:44:30
for such a vast amount of development with such a vast amount of roof space.
Did you have some idea about the extent, the amount of solar PV, or is it...
No, we haven't. So at the moment we've just undertaken a preliminary sort of energy and sustainability assessment
Which looks at kind of the the potential feasible measures from from a renewables perspective
Public Speakers - 5:44:51
Obviously air source heat pumps are effectively sort of classed as a very low to sort of zero carbon solution
So that's that that's the sort of fundamental objective
there's also actually in terms of source in the power and that we're sort of willing to commit to insofar as for
the origins of that power insofar as it is from renewable sources to obviously
to reduce carbon output.
Any other bit like you can't go cancer Smith's nicked all my questions about
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:45:25
the moment we've had green walls and photovoltaic because they say this is
the thing because to me that would be a golden opportunity because of the size of the roof
space but I would assume both those things would come, I'm just checking with Emma here,
that both those items would come back to us on reserve matter application. I would assume
both photovoltaic and green water both because there would be, the physical detail would
be required, we would have to come back to us on reserve matter application then?
The reserve matter only comes back if it's called for committee by, under our roles of
in case it's the committee.
So, um...
So I would like to come back to the committee.
And of course, if the council still owned the land
at the time of the reserve matter,
then it would come for that reason.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 5:46:13
But the council may well dispose of the site.
I don't know what the arrangement is for the land deal
on this, but yeah.
Okay, I think...
Okay, so, okay.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:46:31
So if they let council stone the land, then it would automatically come back for reserve matters.
If not, then it would have to be called in by me as chairman or the local member or however it works.
It would be the local members calling it in.
Right, okay.
Okay, yeah, okay, that's fine.
Okay, so any other questions for the applicant and the agent?
Okay, thank you very much.
That's the end of the public speaking.
We will now move on to the actual technical questions for the officers, if there are any.
But I know that we've obviously, a large number of us actually went on the site previously
and saw the actual live existing big warehouse, which is the existing sound studio that's already there.
So are there any technical questions for Emma and Chris at all?
No, I think...
Oh, oh, oh, now we're a couple of minutes.
Okay, so, right, we'll start with Councillor Gaughan this time.
So he gets first. No, no, no, no, no, because I was saying right side first and I'll go the other way.
No, no, no, I think Councillor, because obviously Councillor Smith keeps taking your questions, he gets first.
We, we, okay, so, actually I forgot what I was going to say, could you...
I'll happily jump in.
And it really is just to follow on the previous discussion.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:47:50
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:47:54
It's just that what are our powers to include some conditions to say that a building of
this size demands this amount of electricity should be generating some electricity through
solar PV?
Do we have any ability to include that as a condition?
and do we have any ability to include conditions on these sorts of structures to have some sort of rainwater catchment,
some sort of ability to be able to use water, given the climate that we're now in,
without having to draw from our local drinking water from local residents.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:48:42
So, we already have some conditions.
So, condition 10 is about water usage.
Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer - 5:48:54
So, they've already submitted a note about sustainability.
sustainability and their energy commitments.
So that contained a condition that they recommended to us.
So that's been included in relation to their water usage.
So that's a commitment to reduce their water usage levels.
And then we've also got condition 11,
which is about their sustainability statement and their energy statement.
So that secures some of their commitments that they made there and to ensure that those
statements are updated.
We've also got a condition on drainage, so condition 22 is surface water drainage and
suds and that will include the consideration of things like rainwater harvesting.
Cass LeGotte, have you been here for a moment?
I did, yeah, it's been a long day Chairman, like all of us, you know, it's, um, okay.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:50:03
Ellen, could you just go back to the photos please? There's just, I just want to ask,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:50:06
when you showed the building, that was one actually, but if you could go, no, if you
go, keep going backwards.
That, I think it was that one, go forward again.
One more please.
That one. So we can see that the building exists now. That's going to go.
The question I want to ask, it looks like the autumn that that picture was taken.
I'm just imagining when the new buildings go in, that we'll be back almost in that place where, well, it's near it anyway.
I'm just looking at that tree line, the way it's just not hiding the building.
But like the gentleman said, they're gonna do a new,
you know, tree culturing up there, so.
Yeah, so if I just flip through to the comparison
of the parameter plan, oh.
So the parameter plan, well, I would suggest
that that building that's there already
Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer - 5:51:06
is sort of near the, in a purple bit.
So the purple bit restricts it to a building height
of 12 metres, and that building is approximately
about 18 metres at the moment. So if I go on to the... so this is the film studio
permission with the layout with that being stage one in the... so yes so the
the photo montage whilst it is a time when there's leaves on the trees
actually the the data centre permission would result in a reduced building.
Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Moore and Councillor Roberts.
Thank you, Jeremy.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:51:56
My question was regarding the emergency generator noises
and how can we, I suppose, fully assess
Cllr David Moore - 5:52:02
the environmental noise picture
if we can't quite ascertain the impact
of the emergency generators?
Is there some condition that's already there
that deals with that effectively?
That is correct.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:52:30
You've got conditions 14 and 15 which are related to noise and generators.
Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer - 5:52:35
So condition 14 is more about the kind of fixed mechanical air handling systems and
the impact on existing and potentially new receptors,
whereas 15 is, talks about emergency generators
and it requires the details to be submitted.
And is like the testing of these emergency generators,
can they be, is there some kind of limitations
that they can't be tested on Sunday,
bank holidays, because I know they can be quite loud.
That's correct, condition 12.
Oh, sorry, that is put by condition 12.
That's an earlier condition.
But yeah, at the top of the page, 151.
Yes, Robert.
Cllr David Moore - 5:53:19
Yeah, probably quite a quick one.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:53:23
I was just wondering if you could just clarify
the position from Thames Water,
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:53:27
because there's been some update there.
So can you just clarify what the latest position is
from there?
Sure, so Thames Water,
were concerned that there might not be a sufficient capacity, but they were happy that it could
Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer - 5:53:44
be dealt with, or that it all could be dealt with by condition.
They have since submitted an additional response.
So they were concerned about foul water, sewage treatment, and potable water.
And they've now, in the latest response,
they've removed any reference to the sewage works.
So they no longer require the condition about that.
But they are very satisfied that conditions
are the most appropriate way to deal with their concerns.
Okay, that's fine, thanks.
Okay.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:54:30
So that's the end of the technical questions.
Now we can open up the question for debate.
I hope Councillors will wish to raise their hand to speak.
Okay, Councillor Roberts.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:54:50
I think the information that's been presented outlines the case quite satisfactorily.
We've got all the information there.
It seems to be a very straightforward case to me
and I'll be supporting the recommendation.
Yeah, I'm the same as you, Councillor Roberts.
I'll come back to you in a second, Councillor Waters.
I think when we did the site visit, I think when you went back
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:55:12
to that bit, can you go back to that picture again with the,
at the bund?
because when we were in the site, I don't think the picture did it justice from within the site.
So the burn is really high. So when you saw that bit there was massively high,
because when you then go back to the junction of Clay Lane bit, actually, so it does that bit there,
but when you saw the Clay Lane bit, when you go to the actual junction picture, literally it's
much, much lower than the actual,
so literally it's behind there and down again below.
So again, it's so screened.
Do you know what I mean?
It was like, we were looking at it and thought,
well actually, we might have to use
a little climbing crampons to get up the bund.
It was that high.
And then the trees were on top of the bund again.
So it was that much of a screening.
And in fact, I think you said,
was it 25 % of additional screening as well?
Or?
So the tree can't be covered.
Tree can't be covered, yeah, yeah.
So that was where I was coming from in that respect.
Emma Crotty - Principal Development Management Officer - 5:56:15
And it looked like it actually was a better system or better application.
And what was actually there was the original film studio.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:56:18
It was much more intrusive, to be honest.
So this one looks much less intrusive than what's already there as a fallback position.
So I've got Councillor Waters followed by Councillor Gormley.
Yes, I'd like to support what Councillor Roberts has said in terms of his assessment.
I also think the conditions are there in terms of particularly the noise side of things,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 5:56:39
in areas we don't really know where things are going to go in terms of these external systems,
which are going to be for cooling or generators, etc.
We need to understand that and that seems to be there.
So I would second the recommendation to go with the office's recommendation.
Councillor Gough.
And then Councillor Smith.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:57:05
I was going to say, Chair, was to go for a vote because, you know, it has pollution there.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 5:57:10
Emma's done a fantastic job at supply and all that information.
We've seen the site.
I think they've supplied everything we need.
To be honest, I think we're just wasting time if we just keep deliberating about it.
Yes, mate.
And again, to be very brief, I can see no planning reasons why we would want to object,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:57:28
or we could legitimately object.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 5:57:31
I think residents, and generally across Buckinghamshire, will be disappointed.
It's not a film studio bringing a lot of prosperity, jobs, activity, rather more than a huge warehouse
that is just going to hum away in the background. But that's really not our choice, so I think we
have to go with the officer's recommendation. Well, as was reminded down the road in Marlowe,
there is a massive film studio that's already been approved by the Secretary of State, so
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:57:58
there is one available to be developed, if so to be wished, if that makes sense.
I think, like the Councillor said,
I think this is an appropriate use.
And I think actually it looks like a better use
of the employment sites than we've already had.
So a formal proposal from Councillor Roberts,
formally seconded by Councillor Waters
on the recommendation that it's my little grant
and to defer planning obligations.
I would formally say I would like to have seen this
come back to us on reserve matters,
because I do think the photo -autics
And I do think the green wars, et cetera, are really key in terms of landscaping and
also how it actually self -generates the electricity itself.
So I don't know quite how we incorporate that into it, but that's the pros and the second
does.
So I can have a show of hands of those in favour of the proposal.
And myself as well.
So that is unanimous.
Yeah, it's all eight of us.
All eight of us, yeah, that's unanimous.
Excellent.
Okay.
So that's that part there. Right.
So...
We go on to item 6, but before I
do, I'd just like to point out that the
other woman to my left, Chris Stewart, and I've known each other since 2004.
He started back in 1999, if I remember rightly.
And we've been planning on planning together ever since.
And this is his last meeting.
So he is retiring from the council.
When he said that, I was like, I thought you were
about 50 something.
No, he's a bit more than that.
I was like, okay.
So, yes, so I'd like to formally thank Chris for all his help
and support over the years.
Because we both are at Wickham and in the county
and in the unitary.
So, yes, wish him well in his retirement.
Thank you very much.
So it's been 43 years in planning, which is quite a long time, but thank you very much
for that.
And I certainly miss the committee.
Chris Steuart - Team Leader Development Management - 6:00:08
I think it's a privilege sitting here and advising you all.
And I've certainly enjoyed my time working with you, and certainly with you, Alex, as
well.
As you say, we go back a long way.
So thank you very much for that.
So what's next, Chris?
I think just sitting in the garden and having a look.
Relaxing.
It would be lovely.
So moving on to Adriatic Emergency 6, the reason I did that before is because our next
meeting will take place on the 24th of September at 10am.

6 Date of Next Meeting

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 6:00:36
Our next slide is the 22nd of September and I think of it very immorally is Holland's
Farm is the next application which is basically down in Bourn End and therefore because of
that I've taken the decision that we will actually hold the application meeting.
actually the formal council chamber in the Wickham offices at Queen Victoria Road.
That's why I thought I would publicly make that clear to both us and the public that that's where it will be.
And because it's a local application to that area, that's where we'll be there rather than here next time around.
Okay. Apart from that, I think that then formally just means we can formally close the meeting.
Thank you very much for all your time and help and support. Thank you very much.
Thank you.