Agenda item

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". Therefore, the Planning Development Control Manager considered that the proposal would provide negligible noise attenuation benefits.

The submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal concluded that "there would be temporary short-term adverse impacts on the landscape and visual character of the site while the works are being undertaken, due to the increased vehicle movements and the presence of construction vehicles and bare soil on the site. However, in the medium to longer-term the proposal could be accommodated without harm to the wider landscape, and in a manner consistent with existing landscape pattern and character evident in the surroundings". Therefore, the Planning Development Control Manager considered that the proposal would provide a neutral impact upon the landscape, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The submitted Ecology Assessment concluded that "the landscape proposals will create habitat enhancements in the medium-term with the provision of grassland and woodland planting of greater ecological value than the existing arable fields". Therefore, the Planning Development Control Manager considered that the proposal would provide minor ecology and biodiversity benefits.

Furthermore, it was noted that the applicant had stated that the proposal "provides an opportunity to dispose of the waste soil within Worcestershire". In view of above matters, the proposal was considered a disposal operation. Policy WCS 5 went on to state that "planning permission will not be granted for the landfill or disposal of waste except where it is demonstrated that:

      i.        re-use, recycling, or energy or resource recovery are not practicable for the waste type to be managed and no landfill or disposal capacity exists in the county for that type of waste; or

     ii.        there will be a shortfall in landfill or disposal capacity necessary to achieve the aims and purpose of the strategy; or

    iii.        the proposal is essential for operational or safety reasons or is the most appropriate option".

It was considered that parts i) and ii) of Policy WCS 5 did not apply to the proposal and therefore, for the proposal to conform with this Waste Core Strategy Policy the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal was essential for operational or safety reasons or was the most appropriate option.

It was considered that there would be no clear noise attenuation benefits from the construction of the earth bund in this location; it was considered the proposal would have a neutral impact upon the landscape, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions; and only minor benefits in terms of ecology and biodiversity were anticipated. It was considered that the proposal would provide minor drainage benefits in terms of reducing the reliance of the existing site on the M5 Motorway drainage infrastructure, thereby enhancing the resilience of the Strategic Road Network. It was also considered that the proposal would help to facilitate the development of the Worcester 6 site, which was identified as a key project in the Worcestershire LEP Business Plan; as an 'Economic Game Changer site' in the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP); and was allocated within the South Worcestershire Development Plan (Policy SWDP 45 / 6). It was noted that the NPPF afforded significant weight to be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

Furthermore, the proposal would limit the distance HGV's had to travel to dispose of the waste soils at an appropriate licenced facility or recovered for beneficial purposes in other projects. Notwithstanding this, the Planning Development Control Manager was not satisfied that the limited benefits of this proposal when taken individually or as a whole demonstrated that "the proposal is essential for operational or safety reasons or is the most appropriate option", as set out in part iii) of Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy. Therefore, it was considered that there would not be a clear benefit for the construction of an earth bund in this location that would override Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Waste Core Strategy and the principle of the waste hierarchy.

It was also noted that the County Minerals and Waste Management Planning Policy Officer objected to the proposal as it was considered contrary to the vision, objectives and policy of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.

Whilst the NPPF reiterated that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise; and each application must also be considered on its own merits, it was considered that should this application be granted planning permission, it would set an undesirable precedent which would encourage further landfill/landraising applications to dispose of construction waste in the countryside potentially creating alien landforms without any clear benefits, undermining Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy. Furthermore, the County Minerals and Waste Management Planning Policy Officer considered that appropriate disposal of waste must be considered to be an essential component of the design and business case for any development. No overriding factors had been demonstrated in this case, and it was considered that the waste arising from the Worcester 6 Site and Retail Park development should be appropriately disposed of, as would be expected of all developments in the county.

On balance, it was considered that permitting the formation of an earth bund on land to south of B4636 and east of M5 Motorway, Spetchley, Worcestershire, would be contrary to Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, as the proposal would be a waste disposal operation, with no clear benefits that outweigh the harm of not driving waste up the waste hierarchy.

The representative of the Planning Development Control Manager indicated that since the publication of the report, the applicant had requested that the application be deferred so they could reconsider the proposal, provide further information on the Waste Core Strategy and to overcome the objections from Highways England. Highways England had put in a holding objection to the application. In light of the holding objection from Highways England, Members would only be able to refuse permission or be minded to grant permission subject to consultation with the Secretary of State.  He considered that in the circumstances, the request to defer consideration was reasonable.

RESOLVED that consideration of the application be deferred.