Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

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

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2019 (previously circulated).

None.

An apology was received from Mr A Fry.

Mr P A Tuthill declared an interest in Agenda item 6 as his son had used the services of the applicant, Go Greener to refurbish a derelict farmhouse.

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 presentations made are recorded at the minute to which they relate.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2019. (previously circulated)

RESOLVEDthat the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2019 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a County Matter application seeking planning permission for a temporary period of 5 years for a proposed materials recovery plant to process road sweepings and highway drainage clearance materials 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, Green Belt, landscape character and visual impact, residential amenities (including noise and dust emissions), traffic and highway safety, water environment, ecology and biodiversity, and other matters – local economy, pollution control and integrity of the railway line.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that as the proposed development would recover waste materials, which would otherwise be disposed of to landfill, it would comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy. It would also contribute to Worcestershire’s equivalent self-sufficiency in waste management capacity in accordance with Policies WCS 2 and WCS 15 of the Waste Core Strategy. It would provide recycled aggregate to the construction industry, which was a substitute for crushed hard rock for which Worcestershire now had no remaining permitted reserves (as referenced in Draft Policy MLP 11: Steady and Adequate Supply of Crushed Rock of the Emerging Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan – Publication Version).

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that whilst a waste management facility was not explicitly referred to within Policies SWDP 2 and SWDP 12 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, the proposal was considered broadly to be an employment site and would constitute the retention of an existing employment site and was for the re-use of previously developed land, complying with these policies.

The proposed development was wholly located within the Green Belt. The development applied for was no longer part-retrospective which now did not weigh against the proposal, when compared to the earlier application (CPA Ref: 15/000046/CM) and subsequent appeal. The application was for temporary permission for five years. The applicant had also submitted an assessment of alternative sites (Sequential Test).

The NPPF stated that "when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight was given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, was clearly outweighed by other considerations".

The proposed development was inappropriate development, which was considered to result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. With regard to the NPPG and paragraph 001 Reference ID: 64-001-20190722 relating to “What factors can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt?” it was recognised that the applicant had only sought planning permission for a five year period, and that the land could be returned to its original or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1044.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for the proposed extension of building to house 1no. additional biomass boiler at Go Greener, Guinness Park Farm, A4103, Leigh Sinton, 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 visual impacts, residential amenity (including noise, dust, odour and air quality), traffic and highway safety, water environment, and ecology and biodiversity.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the development of the biomass boiler and associated wood chipping operation would overall move waste up the waste hierarchy from disposal to other recovery and would reduce the waste miles associated with transporting the excess wood off site. It would therefore comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy, and Policies WCS 2, WCS 4 and WCS 15 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered the principle of the proposed development in this location was acceptable and accorded with Policies WCS 4 and WCS 6 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on landscape character or visual impact, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposal would have no adverse noise, dust, or odour impacts upon residential amenity or that of human health, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic or highway safety, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the water environment, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity at the site or on the surrounding area.

Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies WCS 1, WCS 2, WCS 4, 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 SWDP 1, SWDP 2, SWDP 3, SWDP 4, SWDP 6, SWDP 8, SWDP 12, SWDP 21, SWDP 22, SWDP 23, SWDP 24, SWDP 25, SWDP 27, SWDP 28, SWDP 29, SWDP 30, SWDP 31 and SWDP 33 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 local councillor commented that he was minded to support the application and welcomed the local investment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1045.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for the proposed installation of a new terminal pumping station incorporating a pumped storm overflow, to replace the existing pumping station at New Street in Upton-upon-Severn, to improve capacity and flood resilience on land to the south of New Street, 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 need for the development, location of the development, residential amenity, visual impact and landscape character, historic environment, ecology and biodiversity, water environment, Highways Safety and Public Right of Way, and other matters - Minerals.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the proposal would accord with the Development Plan in terms of the need for and location of the development, residential amenity and landscape character, traffic, highways safety and Public Right of Ways and minerals, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions. A key consideration related to impact of the development on the Upton-upon-Severn Conservation Area and associated heritage assets. In this regard, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the mitigation to the site design provided by the applicant and recommended to be secured by condition, and the substantial public benefits that this development would provide, outweighed the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets. In view of this, it was considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the historic environment, in accordance with relevant historic environment legislation and policies. 

With regard to impact upon ecology and biodiversity at the site and in the surrounding area, it was noted that the application site was over 34 kilometres upstream of the Severn Estuary SPA and SAC which were European sites. The site was also notified as a Ramsar Site (of international importance) and at a national level as the Upper Severn SSSI. Due to the nature and location of proposed project, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposal was hydrologically connected to this European designated site and, therefore, had the potential to affect its interest features. In view of this, it fell to the County Planning Authority, as the competent authority to undertake an HRA screening to determine if this proposed project might affect the protected features of a habitats site before deciding whether to undertake, permit or authorise it.

The County Planning Authority had undertaken an HRA screening, which concluded that having taken Natural England’s comments into account, the project would not be likely to have a significant effect on any European site, either alone or in combination with any other project or plan (in light of the definition of these terms in the European Court of Justice Case C-127/02 (the ‘Waddenzee’ judgement)) and, therefore, an appropriate assessment was not required in this instance. In reaching this conclusion, the County Planning Authority took no account  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1046.

The Committee considered proposed amendments to Protocol for Delegation of Decision-making.

In the ensuing debate, the Chairman commented that under the previous protocol, one objection had been enough to trigger an item being brought for consideration by the Committee. This approach which did not seem sensible, especially in circumstances where an objector lived a considerable distance from the application site.

RESOLVED that the Protocol for Delegation of Decision Making set out in the Appendix 2 of the report be adopted.