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.   A copy of the presentation by Mrs S L Blagg, the local councillor for agenda item 5 (previously circulated); and

D.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2016 (previously circulated).

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

None.

Apologies were received from Mr A Amos, Mr P Bridle and Mr S Clee.

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 20 September 2016. (previously circulated – pink pages)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for the proposed construction and operation of an Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) recycling facility accepting 120,000 tonnes per annum along with ancillary / welfare facilities and operation of mobile equipment at Sandy Lane Quarry, Wildmoor, Bromsgrove, 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, alternatives, location of the development, Green Belt, landscape character and visual impacts, residential amenity (noise, dust and odour), traffic, highway safety and impacts upon public rights of way, the water environment, ecology and biodiversity and other matters – economic impact including provision of secondary aggregates, heritage impacts, public consultation, cumulative effects and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the proposal would provide a small number of direct employment opportunities, as well as contributing to the wider growth aspirations for the county through the supply of secondary aggregates to the construction market. Therefore, it was considered that the proposal would provide substantial sustainable economic development benefits to the local economy in accordance with the NPPF, which stated that "significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system". The proposed development would also enable waste that would otherwise be landfilled to be recycled and put to a beneficial use as a secondary aggregate; therefore, it would comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy. The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy recognised the positive contribution the proposed facility would make to the provision of secondary aggregates should it be granted planning permission.  

The application site was located within the West Midlands Green Belt. The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and therefore, very special circumstances needed to be demonstrated, which justified an exception to Green Belt policy. It was considered that the proposal would significantly reduce the openness of the Green Belt in as much as development would be present where it did not exist before, conflicting with the fundamental aim of Green Belts, which was to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It would encroach into the countryside, develop greenfield land and further erode the Green Belt and therefore, would conflict with three of the five main purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The Head of Economy and Infrastructure considered that the reasons set out above, when considered individually or as a whole do not amount to very special circumstances, which outweighed the harm to the Green Belt caused by the inappropriate development itself. As such, the proposed development was contrary to the NPPF Section 9, Policy WCS 13 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policies DS1, DS2 and DS13 of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan, and Policy BDP4 of the Draft Bromsgrove District Local Plan. 

The proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 961.