Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    A copy of the summary presentations from public participants invited to speak (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2015 (previously circulated).

A copy of documents A-B will be attached to the signed Minutes.

None.

None.

The Council has put in place arrangements which usually allow one speaker each on behalf of objectors, the applicant and supporters of applications to address the Committee.  Speakers are chosen from those who have made written representations and expressed a desire to speak at the time an application is advertised.  Where there are speakers, presentations are made as part of the consideration of each application.

Those representations made are recorded at the Minute to which they relate.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2015. (previously circulated – pink pages)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for a change of use from light industrial to a Sui Generis use to enable the receipt, transfer and temporary storage of asbestos in two sealed, free-standing metal containers.

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

The report set out the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy's comments in relation to the Waste Hierarchy, the Green Belt, location of the development, landscape character and appearance, residential amenity, health and safety and pollution control, and traffic and highways safety.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the proposal demonstrated accordance with the waste hierarchy and met very special circumstances for development in the Green Belt. The proposal accorded with the geographic waste hierarchy by being located in level 1 (the highest level). There would be no unacceptable adverse impacts on landscape character, health and safety, traffic and highways safety, or ecology and biodiversity.

Taking in to account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies WCS 1, WCS 2, WCS 3, WCS 6, WCS 8, WCS 9, WCS 10, WCS 11, WCS 13, WCS 14, WCS 15 and WCS 17 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, Policies GD 1, GD 2, SR 7, SR 9, RES 3, ENV 1 and ENV 23 of the Wychavon District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy for Waste, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies, or highway safety.

The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy added that the Government Inspector had reported that the draft South Worcestershire Development Plan was sound subject to modifications. The relevant councils were looking to adopt the plan in February 2016 therefore substantial weight could now be attached to these draft policies.  He also recommended typographical changes to condition g) of the recommendation.

Mrs Abercrombie had been invited to speak but was unable to attend the meeting. Mrs Hewitt attended in her place and read out her submission. She commented that there were currently other asbestos waste storage sites which the applicant could use within Worcestershire at Bromsgrove, Worcester and Kidderminster. Therefore this site was not necessary and represented over development in the Green Belt. The applicant had moved to this greenfield site 14 months ago from a site which was closer to Dudley landfill where they disposed of their waste, knowing fully that they would have the additional cost of transport to the Landfill site. There were of other sites available to them which were closer to Dudley landfill which would reduce the cost of transport.

She added that crops were grown on the adjacent land which were for human consumption and no care or thought had been given to ensure that there was no cross contamination. Neither the applicant nor Worcestershire County Council had put in acquitted measures to stop this possible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 926.