Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated); and

B.    The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2016 (previously circulated).

A copy of document A will be attached to the signed Minutes.

None.

Apologies were received from Mr M H Broomfield and Mr D W Prodger.

Mr R C Adams declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and left the room for Agenda item 8 as a tenant farmer on land owned by the applicant

Mr A Amos, Ms P Agar, Mr P Denham and Mr A Roberts declared an interest in Agenda item 8 as members of Worcester City Council which was likely to consider a planning application that would provide a source of the soil for use in the creation of the bund.

Mr A Roberts declared an interest in Agenda item 6 as a Cabinet Member at Worcester City Council. The portfolio for which had responsibility for the road sweeping contract currently undertaken by the applicant. 

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.

None.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2016. (previously circulated – pink pages)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for the retrospective use of the land for external storage purposes ancillary to the existing waste transfer station at Lydstep, Cleeve Road, Middle Littleton, Evesham, Worcestershire.

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, location of the development, the local economy, landscape character and appearance of the local area, residential amenities (including noise and dust emissions), ecology and biodiversity, the water environment, traffic and highways safety.   

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the proposed development was ancillary to an existing adjacent waste transfer station operation. Waste materials were recovered which drives waste management up the waste hierarchy and contributed to the delivery of sustainable development. The ancillary use of this site adjacent to the existing Waste Transfer Station was considered to be reasonable for the functionality of the existing waste transfer station business.

On balance, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy did not consider that the loss of the enclosed agricultural land as a result of this land being used for ancillary purposes in association with the existing waste transfer station business for storage use would have any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, subject to conditions limiting the height of any stockpiling of materials and skips and retaining and maintaining boundary hedgerows. This was in accordance with Policy WCS12 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy SWDP 25 of the Draft South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Having taken into the account the concerns raised from local residents and in view of the comments received by Worcestershire Regulatory Services and the Environment Agency, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy WCS14 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy 31 of the Draft South Worcestershire Development Plan.

In view of the above, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity in accordance with Policy WCS 9 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy SWDP 22 of the Draft South Worcestershire Development Plan.

In accordance with the Environment Agency's advice, all waste storage areas should be located on impermeable hardstanding with sealed drainage and this was something that the Head of Strategic and Economy considered would be appropriate to control through the imposition of a condition. Subject to this condition, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the water environment in accordance with Policy SWDP 28 and Policy SWDP 29 of the Draft South Worcestershire Development Plan.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 931.

The Committee considered a part-retrospective application for a proposed materials recovery plant to process road sweepings and highway drainage clearance material on Land at Station House, Saltway, Hanbury, Worcestershire.

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, location of the development, the Green Belt, the local economy, landscape character and appearance of the local area, residential amenities (including noise and dust emissions), ecology and biodiversity, the water environment, traffic and highways safety, and pollution control.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the proposed development contributed to the delivery of sustainable development by recovering waste materials and, therefore, driving waste management up the waste hierarchy.

The application site was located in Level 5 of the Geographic Waste Hierarchy. In accordance with Policy WCS 3 of the Waste Core Strategy, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposed location was appropriate.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy had considered the applicant's very special circumstances in attempt to overcome Green Belt restrictions, however, he did not consider that the applicant had demonstrated very special circumstances that outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt. In particular, the applicant had given no locational reason as to why the plant needed to be located on this site within the Green Belt and would not maintain the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposal was, therefore, considered to be contrary to Section 9 ("Protecting Green Belt Land") of the National Planning Policy Framework; Policy WCS 13 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposal would promote continuation of employment opportunities and was, therefore, in accordance with Policy SWDP 12 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposed development would be well screened from public view and would not have any adverse impact on the landscape character of the area in accordance with Policy SWDP25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. 

Given the separation and vegetation buffer between the neighbouring residential properties and the application site, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy did not consider that that the proposed development would have any adverse impact on residential amenities in accordance with Policy WCS14 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy 31 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity in accordance with Policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development plan.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposed development would not have any adverse impact on the water environment in accordance with Policy SWDP 29  ...  view the full minutes text for item 932.

The Committee considered an application under Regulation 3 of the Town and County Planning General Regulations 1992 for planning permission for the proposed construction of a two-storey science park building together with associated car parking and landscaping to replace the existing Dytecna buildings at Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern, Worcestershire.

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 Planning Development Control Manager's comments in relation to the local economy, landscape character and appearance of the area, residential amenity including lighting, scale, design, noise, adjacent bridleway and construction works, water environment, traffic and highway safety, ecology and biodiversity and the Malvern Hills AONB and SSSI.

The Planning Development Control Manager concluded that the proposed building would accommodate office and research and development. The proposed building would provide flexible 'grow-on' space to retain established tenants and allow for future growth within the existing Science Park. The Planning Development Control Manager was satisfied that the proposal was in accordance with Policy SWDP 8 and Policy SWDP 52 of the Draft South Worcestershire Development Plan and was therefore acceptable.

The Planning Development Control Manager considered that the design of the scheme was in keeping with and would complement the existing buildings within the Malvern Hills Science Park complex; was satisfied that the scale of the proposed building would not dominate the site and considered that the proposed development, particularly the non-shiny roofing materials used would not have a significant adverse visual impact on the views from the Malvern Hills AONB and on the immediate character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy SWDP 21 and SWDP 23 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

The Planning Development Control Manager did not consider that the proposal would have a significant impact on the residential amenity of any of the neighbouring residential properties, in accordance with Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Subject to the imposition of conditions relating to drainage, the Planning Development Control Manager was satisfied that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the water environment, in accordance with Policy SWDP 28 and SWDP 29 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. 

The Planning Development Control Manager was satisfied that there would be no adverse impact on highways safety and that the proposal offered genuinely sustainable travel choices in accordance with Policy SWDP 4 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and was therefore acceptable.

The Planning Development Control Manager was satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity, subject to conditions as recommended by the County Ecologist, in accordance with Policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

The Planning Development Control Manager considered that the design of the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the views to and from the Malvern Hills AONB or on the SSSI, in accordance with Policy SWDP  ...  view the full minutes text for item 933.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for the formation of an earth bund on land to the south of B4636 and east of M5 Motorway, Spetchley, Worcestershire.

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 Planning Development Control Manager's comments in relation to the waste hierarchy, landscape character and appearance of the local area, residential amenities (noise and dust impacts), the water environment, ecology and biodiversity, traffic, highway safety and impact upon the Public Rights of Way, and economic impact.

The Planning Development Control Manager concluded that as with any planning application, this application should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The NPPF was a material consideration in planning decisions. The reason why the Development Plan was at the heart of the planning system was because it was the forum where the need for new development was identified, and also where it would be inappropriate. The plan would have been through public consultation, and would have been subject of independent examination.

The key development plan policy to be considered in the determination of this planning application was Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy. Policy WCS 5 stated that "no capacity gap had been identified for the landfill or disposal of waste". The supporting text to Policy WCS 5 stated that "the decision on whether proposals were a form of disposal would be guided by the Environment Agency's advice". This was contained within the document: RGN13: Defining waste recovery: permanent deposit of waste on land.

Appendix 1 of RGN13 gave examples of when the Environment Agency considers a particular activity could be considered a recovery operation rather than disposal operation. Appendix 1 stated that "bunds can be created for a number of purposes. Evidence must be presented that shows the bund is needed. This would include setting out the benefits that would be derived when the work is complete, and justifying that there was a genuine need for the bund…if a very large bund is proposed, but the benefits derived from installing it are marginal, this would point more towards a disposal operation".

Therefore, for the proposal to be considered a recovery operation rather than a waste disposal operation, the applicant had to demonstrate a clear benefit to the deposit of waste soils in this location.

It was noted that the application was accompanied by a Noise Overview Assessment, which concluded that "whilst some acoustic screening of short segments of the M5 Motorway to specific receptors points would occur, there would be little or no additional screening from the majority of the section of the M5 Motorway from which noise currently contributes to the local noise environment at individual noise-sensitive locations. Accordingly, the overall reduction in noise would be very slight and it is unlikely the reduction would be perceptible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 934.