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); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2018 (previously circulated).

None.

Apologies were received from Mr A Fry and Mr J A D O’Donnell.

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 4 December 2018. (previously circulated – pink pages)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a planning application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary condition 3 of Planning Permission Reference: 10/000032/CM (Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/E1855/V/11/2153273) (as amended) to increase throughput of the Envirecover Energy from Waste (EFW) Facility from 200,000 to 230,000 tonnes per annum at Mercia Envirecover, Plot H600, Oak Drive, Hartlebury Trading Estate, Hartlebury, 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 need; location of the development (including Green Belt); residential amenity (including air pollution and quality, human health and litter impacts); traffic and highway safety; and other matters (alternatives, project vulnerability to major accidents/disasters, other environmental impacts, planning consultation, and EIA team and expertise).

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that the applicant had stated that the proposed change was being sought for the following principal reasons:

·         It would allow the EfW facility to operate at its maximum potential capacity and, in doing so, increase the amount of energy, including renewable energy, that would be produced

·         It would allow a greater volume of non-hazardous residual waste to be managed further up the waste hierarchy, than would otherwise be the case, and

·         It would enable Mercia Waste Management and the Joint Authorities to maximise revenues from both the additional waste that would be treated, and the additional energy that would be generated.

The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement Addendum and new Non-Technical Summary. The application was also accompanied by the original Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary, and Regulation 19 further information submissions.

It was considered that there was a both a national and local need for 'other recovery' capacity for the treatment of residual non-hazardous waste and that this proposal would contribute towards meeting this need. Furthermore, the proposal would make a positive contribution towards national energy needs, including the need for more renewable energy generation.

The principle of the development in this location had already been established and the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposed development accords with Policies WCS 4 and WCS 6 of Worcestershire Waste Core.

With regard to impacts upon the Green Belt, the applicant had confirmed that the proposal would not result in any new built development or modification to the EfW facility and primarily arose from the plant being able to operate for more hours in a given year than was originally planned. In view of this, it was considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Based on the advice of the Environment Agency and Worcestershire Regulatory Services, it was considered that the proposal would have no adverse air quality, noise or litter impacts upon residential amenity or that of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1014.

The Committee considered a proposal for Pinvin Junction Highway Improvements at Pinvin Junction (Junction between A44, A4104 and B4082), Pinvin, near Pershore, 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 Development Manager’s comments in relation to: traffic, highway safety and public rights of way; visual impact and residential amenity; water environment; ecology and biodiversity; and other matters (contaminated land, utilities, and historic environment).

The Development Manager concluded that Worcestershire County Council was seeking to undertake highway infrastructure improvements at Pinvin Junction, near Pershore, Worcestershire. The proposed scheme sought to improve the traffic flow at the junction and comprised of junction widening and signal alterations to the existing signal controlled Pinvin Crossroads junction. The scheme design would complement the proposed Pershore Northern Link Road by prioritising the flow of traffic along A44 and thus reducing the green signal time on Terrace Road (A4014).

The proposed development gained policy support from Policy SWDP 47 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. The Reasoned Justification for this policy stated that "in directing development to the north of the town it is important that infrastructure improvements are secured. These included improvements to the Pinvin crossroads junction…".

The proposed scheme allowed Pinvin junction to operate within capacity. The modelling result for 2019 peak periods indicated vehicle hours with the proposed scheme would reduce in both peaks. Vehicle kilometres would also decrease slightly in both peak periods, and average speed increased by 20.3% in the AM peak and 6.7% in the PM peak. Delays at the junction decreased significantly by 64% in the AM peak and by 62% in the PM peak. The County Highways Officer had been consulted and raised no objections to the proposal. In view of this, the Development Manager considered that the proposal would result in immediate capacity improvements to the Pinvin junction and was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic, highway safety or Public Rights of Way.

The application was accompanied by a Noise Assessment that assessed the change in noise levels at 37 Spion Kop, which was identified by the Assessment as the one most likely to experience a change in noise levels. The Assessment concluded that there was predicted to be an increase in noise of about 0.4 dB(A), which would be a magnitude of negligible and would not be a significant effect.

The proposed scheme would require the removal of 4 trees, 3 hedgerow trees and approximately 80 linear metres of native hedgerow. To compensate for the loss, the applicant was proposing to plant a new section of species rich hedgerow, which would measure approximately 70 linear metres, new areas of native tree and scrub planting, the planting of 11 hedgerow trees, 6 individual trees, and 130 square metres of native shrub mix.

Based on the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services and the County Landscape Officer, the Development Manager considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1015.