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);

C.   The local member comments from Mr R Sutton in relation to Agenda item 6; and

D.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2016 (previously circulated).

A copy of documents A – C will be attached to the signed Minutes.

Mr A Fry substituted for Mr P Denham.

Apologies were received from Mr A Amos, Mr P Denham and Mr R Sutton

Mr R C Adams declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and left the room for Agenda item 9 as a tenant farmer on land owned by the applicant and left the room during the consideration of the item.

Ms P Agar declared an interest in Agenda item 6 as a personal friend of the public participant and left the room during the consideration of the item.  

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 12 July 2016. (previously circulated – pink pages)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for a proposed minor material amendment to planning permission 12/000008/CM, dated 13 July 2012, as revised by Non-Material Amendment approvals, to vary Condition 2 so as to construct two new Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Tanks at Rotherdale Farm, Long Lane, Throckmorton, 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 landscape character and appearance, residential amenity, traffic and highway safety, and other matters – location of the development, ecology and biodiversity, the water environment and economic impact. 

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the proposed digestion tanks had been designed to match the existing AD tanks at the site and as such fitted into the wider context of the operating AD facility. Accordingly, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that, based on the advice of the County Landscape Officer, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area, subject to the imposition of conditions as imposed on the extant planning permission.

The proposed two new AD tanks would not have any emissions to air and the applicant had confirmed that the tanks would not generate noise emissions. Based on the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services and Public Health England, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that there would be no adverse air pollution, noise, dust or light impacts on residential amenity or that of human health, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as imposed on the extant planning permission.

Condition 4 of the extant planning permission (Ref: 12/000008/CM) restricted the throughput of the facility to a maximum of 20,000 tonnes per annum of feedstock. The applicant did not propose to increase the throughput of the facility or amend this condition, therefore, subject to the carrying forward of this condition on to any new planning permission, it was considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on traffic or highway safety.

Taking into 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 12, WCS 14, and WCS 15 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policies SWDP1, SWDP2, SWDP4, SWDP6, SWDP12, SWDP21, SWDP22, SWDP24, SWDP25, SWDP27, SWDP28, SWDP29, SWDP30 and SWDP31 of the  adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

·         The proposal to construct extra digesters at the site was welcomed. The application had satisfied environmental impact concerns. In addition, the County Highways Officer had not objected. On this basis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 952.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for a proposed extension of a yard associated with an existing Waste Transfer Station at Grove House Yard, Tewkesbury Road, Upton-upon-Severn, 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, landscape character and appearance, residential amenity, traffic and highway safety, ecology and biodiversity, the water environment, and other matters – economic impact.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that as the proposed development would involve the bulking up of various sources of waste in preparation for transfer and subsequent recycling by specialist operators it would comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy.

The proposed yard extension would be located in an existing agricultural field adjacent to a small commercial estate. Policy WCS 6 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy directed waste management development to land with compatible uses and identifies greenfield land as not being a compatible land use. There was no evidence submitted with the application as to why the proposal had to be sited on greenfield land and to whether the applicant had considered siting the proposed development on land set out as compatible in Policy WCS 6. As a result, the proposed development was considered to be in an unacceptable location contrary to Policy WCS 6 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.

Based on the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services, Public Health England and the Environment Agency, it was considered that the proposal would be acceptable in respect to air pollution, noise, dust impacts on residential amenity and that of human health, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as imposed on the extant planning permission together with a condition limiting the height of any external inert material within the designated bays.

Based on the advice of the County Highways Officer, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic and highway safety, however, it was also noted that the County Highways Officer raised no objections to planning permission 14/000045/CM for the extension of the Waste Transfer Station building, as the location for the approved building extension would not impact on the areas required for vehicle access, turning and parking, and no evidence had been submitted with this application to demonstrate the operation of the facility would not be feasible.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as recommended by the County Ecologist and South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership, that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity at the site or on the surrounding area or that of the water environment.

It was noted that the NPPF afforded significant weight to economic growth. By securing existing jobs and creating new opportunities,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 953.

The Committee considered an application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 1992 for a new two-form entry First School with associated external areas including access road, hard play, grass pitches, forest schools area, and parking on land at Brockhill East, adjacent to Lowan's Hill Farm, Redditch, 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 Green Belt, visual impact and residential amenity, sports provision, water environment, ecology and biodiversity, traffic and highway safety, sustainable development, and other matters – crime, historic environment, contaminated land and consultation.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the proposal was wholly located within the West Midlands Green Belt. The Head of Economy and Infrastructure considered that due to the need to replace the existing Holyoakes Field First School due to the anticipated growth in pupil numbers and the condition of the existing school and lack of space to develop on the existing school site, together with the limited number of sites available within the School Catchment Area, it was considered that Very Special Circumstances had been demonstrated that would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

Under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the County Council was required to consult the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on new buildings in the Green Belt it intended to approve that would be inappropriate development and exceed 1,000 square metres; or any other development which, by reason of its scale or nature or location, would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. As the proposed new school would create about 1,990 square metres of floorspace if this Committee was minded to approve the application, this Council must consult the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Council might not grant planning permission until the Secretary of State had notified the Council that he did not intend to call in the application for his own determination.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, that the scale, massing and design of the proposed development would not have an adverse or detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area, providing a local landmark and focal point. Furthermore, it was considered that the development would not cause any unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking implications that detracts from residential amenity due its design, size and location.

The proposed playing pitches would be in accordance with the Football Association's guidance (Football pitch for under 11's/12's to measure 73 metres long by 46 metres wide and a Football: Mini Soccer pitch for under 7's/8's to measure about 37 metres long by 27 metres wide). Consequently, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposed playing pitches were fit for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 954.

The Committee considered an application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 1992 for a new single storey 1 Form Entry Primary School accommodating Reception to Year 6.

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 need for the school, residential amenity, traffic and highway safety, building design, playing field, landscape character and appearance of the area, ecology and biodiversity, and water environment.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that on balance, in terms of the main issues to be considered in the determination of this application, the proposal would be acceptable.

In terms of need for the school, the development plan and the NPPF gave significant weight to the need to create new schools. The need for the school had been established.

The proposal would also be acceptable in terms of residential amenity. The height of the school would not be inappropriate in terms of the development plan. Concerns regarding litter would be a management issue for the school.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy noted the concerns regarding traffic and highways safety. The County Highways Officer had raised no objections. Parking provision would accord with Worcestershire County Council's Highway Standards adopted in February 2016. On balance, the proposal would be acceptable in terms of traffic and highways safety, and would accord with the sustainable travel policies of the development plan.

The proposal would accord with the development plan in terms of building design. The design philosophy accords with many sustainable design principles. Concerns regarding materials and elevations would be addressed through the imposition of appropriately worded conditions.

In terms of the playing field, Sport England's condition would ensure community use in accordance with the existing S106 agreement. The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposal to fence and separate the junior and adult pitches would not be the ideal situation and would prefer a management solution, although the important consideration of the need to safeguard children was acknowledged.

The proposal would be acceptable in terms of landscape character and appearance of the area. Concerns regarding the maintenance of the landscaping would be addressed through a condition.

In terms of ecology and biodiversity, the proposed sedum roof and landscaping weighed significantly in the proposal's favour, and accorded with the development plan. Therefore, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considers that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of ecology and biodiversity.

The proposal would be located in Flood Zone 1 (a low risk zone). Consultees had no objections in terms of the water environment. The proposal would, therefore, be acceptable in terms of the water environment.

Taking in to account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies SWDP 1, SWDP 2, SWDP 4, SWDP 21, SWDP 22, SWDP 23, SWDP 25, SWDP 27, SWDP 28,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 955.

Mrs P Agar in the Chair.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for the formation of an earth bund containing about 150,000 tonnes of soil 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 indicate 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 that of Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy. Policy WCS 5 of stated that "no capacity gap has been identified for the landfill or disposal of waste".

The applicant stated that "on the examination of the available inert landfill sites in the County and the most up to date information on landfill sites from the Environment Agency has indicated, on the basis of the 2014 input rates, that the amounts of inert waste arising would fill available void space in just over 4 years. Between 2019 and the end of the plan period in 2027 there would be an inert landfill capacity gap with available void space exhausted, unless new facilities are approved, and therefore the expectations of the Waste Core Strategy would not be realised. Further inert landfill capacity is justified and this proposal would help fill the identified capacity gap and maintain self-sufficiency in the plan area up to 2027".

In response to the applicant's comments that there was a capacity gap in Worcestershire for inert landfill, the Planning Development Control Manager examined the applicant's suggested figures in detail and considers that it appeared the applicant had made a typographical error in their calculation of inert infill rates within the County, noting that the applicant suggested that Summerway Landfill Site, near Stourport had received 725,850 cubic metres of infill material. However, it appeared that this figure was actually the void space remaining rather than the inert infill figures. The Environment Agency had confirmed that the Summerway Landfill Site received approximately 2,150 cubic metres in 2014, not 725,850 cubic metres as suggested by the applicant, and no wastes were landfilled  ...  view the full minutes text for item 956.