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 6 July 2021 (previously circulated).

Cllr Tom Wells for Cllr Martin Allen and Cllr Mel Allcott for Cllr Richard Udall.

Apologies were received from Cllr Martin Allen, Cllr Jack Satterthwaite and Cllr Richard Udall.

Cllr David Ross declared an interest in Agenda item 5 as Leader of Kidderminster Town Council as the Town Council had objected to the application. However, he was not a member of the Town Council’s Planning Committee and had taken no part in the consideration of the relevant item.

Cllr Bill Hopkins declared an interest in Agenda item 5 as a Director of a currently dormant recycling company called Composite Recycling Ltd and as a UK distributer for WIMAO.FI, a company based in Finland which supplied capital recycling equipment.

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.

It would be helpful if members of the public who wish to attend the meeting registered by e-mail with the officer below their intention to attend the Committee meeting.

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

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2021. (previously circulated)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2021 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered the proposed development of an Energy and Resource Park at land to the rear (south and east) of Liberty Aluminium Foundry, Stourport Road, Kidderminster, 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 Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to the Waste Hierarchy, Need, Alternatives and Proximity Principle, Climate Change and Renewable Energy, Location of the Development, Landscape character, visual impacts and historic environment, Residential Amenity (including air quality, human health, odour, noise, vibration, dust, lighting, and contaminated land), Traffic, Highway Safety and Public Rights of Way, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment, and Other matters – Economic Impact, slope stability, Project Vulnerability to Major Accidents / Disasters, Fires, Cumulative Effects, EIA Team and Expertise, and Other Applications.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that with regard to the waste hierarchy, it was considered that the proposal would contribute overall to the moving of waste up the waste hierarchy, in the case of the Energy Centre (EC) from disposal to ‘other recovery’, and in the case of the Plastics Recovery Plant (PRP) from disposal to ‘recycling’ and therefore would comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy, and Policies WCS 2, WCS 3, WCS 4 and WCS 15 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy (WCS).

With regard to need, alternatives and proximity principle, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal was consistent with Policy WCS 2 of the WCS. Notwithstanding Section 7 of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW), which set out that “waste planning authorities should only expect applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up-to-date Local Plan”, the applicant had referred to discussions between Power Generation Midlands (PGM) and local business who required waste management services. Therefore, it was considered that there was a demonstrable need for the additional 'other recovery' capacity proposed in order to contribute towards the more sustainable management of local residual Commercial and Industrial (C & I) waste. Furthermore, the increase in total energy generation would add to UK energy security through the production of reliable and predictable electricity and heat derived from an indigenous fuel source. It was considered that the applicant’s approach to the consideration of alternatives was acceptable in this instance. It was also considered that the proposal would be consistent with the proximity principle.

With regard to climate change and renewable energy, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development would help contribute towards reducing the impact on climate change through reducing the amount of waste diverted to landfill and providing at least a partially renewable source of heating and electricity. Furthermore, at least 10% of the buildings’ energy would be provided by renewable technologies in the form of a heat pump and the addition of a 16kW peak  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1082.

The Committee considered the proposed new cycle/footbridge to span the River Severn and associated access paths to the local highway on land including and between Gheluvelt Park, Waterworks Road on the east side of the River Severn and the restored landfill site, Hallow Road, on the west side of the River Severn, Worcester.

The report set out an update since the Committee meeting on 6 July, 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 Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to Residential Amenity, Landscape Character, and Visual Impacts, Historic Environment, Contaminated Land, Traffic, Highway Safety and Public Rights of Way, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment and Flood Risk, Other Matter: Lighting, Green Space, Crime and Safety, Safeguarding Waste Management Sites, Utilities, Economic Impacts, Human Rights Act 1998, and Consultation.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that the proposal was included within the Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4), which was a statutory document that set out the Council’s priorities for investment in transport infrastructure, technology and services covering the period from 2018 to 2030. The Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership’s (LEP) Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) identified a river crossing at Gheluvelt Park. The SEP states that the rational for the scheme was “sustainable transport – created sustainable transport modes which supported development to West Worcester – housing and development growth; and River Severn created a barrier to sustainable transport trips in the Gheluvelt Park area of Worcester”. The proposal was also identified in the Worcester Riverside Park Management Plan and the Riverside Conservation Area Appraisal Document. The Appraisal Document considered there was a lack of connectivity between east and west banks to north of the city centre and seeks to connect them by a pedestrian and cycle bridge.

The bridge deck would measure approximately 143 metres long and would have a useable width of approximately 3.5 metres wide, and the bridge pylon would have a maximum height of 30 metres. The shared use path across the restored Kepax landfill site would measure approximately 405 metres long by 4 metres wide. The shared use path on the east side of the river in Gheluvelt Park would measure approximately 130 metres long by 3 metres wide. The County Landscape Officer and Worcester City Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Advisor both had raised no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the scale, massing and design of the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the local area. Furthermore, on balance, it was considered that the development would not cause an unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking implications that detracted from residential amenity due its design, size and location, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the detailed design, colour palate, surfacing details, CEMP, LEMP and associated method statement for planting and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1083.

The Committee considered the Planning application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary condition 1 (Approved Plans), remove condition 6 (requiring all doors to the building to remain closed), remove condition 22 (requirement for installation of roller shutter door) and to vary condition 23 (requirement to install acoustic fencing) of planning permission ref: 19/000016/CM, so as to remove the requirement to install a roller shutter door and reduce the extent of the acoustic fencing to be installed at Digaway and Clearaway Ltd, Grove House Yard, Tewkesbury Road, Upton-Upon-Severn, Worcestershire.

The report set out an update since the Committee meeting on 6 July 2021, 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 Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to Landscape Character and Visual Impacts, Residential Amenity, Ecology and Biodiversity and Other Matters – Water Environment and Flood Risk, and Traffic and Highway Safety.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that based upon the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services and the Environment Agency, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that this application would have no adverse noise, dust or odour impacts on residential amenity or that of human health, subject to the imposition of the relevant extant conditions and revised conditions including compliance with the submitted Dust Management Plan and the maintenance of the installed acoustic fencing. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development accorded with Policy WCS 14 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy SWDP 31 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Based on the advice of the County Landscape Officer, it was considered that this

application would not have an adverse or detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area, subject to the imposition of appropriate extant conditions. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development accords with Policies WCS 9 and WCS 14 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy SWDP 25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Based on the advice of the County Ecologist and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, it was considered that this application would not have an unacceptable impact upon ecology and biodiversity at the site or in the surrounding area, subject to the imposition of the relevant extant conditions and a revised condition requiring compliance with the submitted Dust Management Plan. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy WCS 9 of the Waste Core Strategy and Policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

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 SWDP 1, SWDP 2, SWDP 3, SWDP 4,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1084.

The Committee considered the winning and working of sand and restoration to agriculture (pasture for horses) (part retrospective) at former motocross site, adjacent to Wilden Lane, Wilden, Stourport-on-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 Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to Traffic and Highways Safety, Worcestershire’s Landbank of Sand and Gravel Reserves, Sieve Test/Methodology, Green Belt, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment including flooding, Landscape, Visual Impact and Historic Environment, Residential Amenity (including noise, dust, lighting, air quality or that of human health), Utilities, Restoration and Aftercare, and Other Matters - Geology.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that with regard to Worcestershire’s landbank of sand and gravel reserves, paragraph 213, f) of the NPPF stated "minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by…maintaining landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel…whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials is not compromised". The Head of Planning and Transport Planning noted that should this planning application be granted permission, it would increase the landbank by approximately 0.52 years, equating to a landbank of approximately 5.94 years in total, which was still below the minimum landbank for at least 7 years for sand and gravel. The proposal was considered to be consistent with paragraph 213 f) of the NPPF as it would contribute towards the MPA’s landbank for sand and gravel.

With regard to whether the proposal met the site selection criteria set out in the adopted County of Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan (Sieve Test / Methodology, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the weight to be afforded to Policy 2 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan was limited, given that it could be argued that this policy is out of date, as it was not considered to be consistent with the NPPF, which did not operate a sieve test, or impose a blanket ban on all development within primary constraints, for example within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) or within 200 metres of a group of six or more dwellings.

With regard to the Green Belt, the proposal was located within the West Midlands Green Belt. Minerals could only be worked where they were found and mineral working was a temporary use of land. The proposed development would, notwithstanding its duration, be a temporary activity and, therefore, would not conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy.

Paragraph 150 of the NPPF identified certain forms of development as not inappropriate development within the Green Belt, this included mineral extraction and engineering operations, provided it preserved the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. In a similar manner, whilst the proposal would disturb the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1085.

The Committee considered the Safety of Sports Grounds Annual Review 2020/21.

Peter Maloney from Worcestershire Regulatory Services introduced the report and would seek to arrange a programme of visits for members to relevant sports grounds to observe safety procedures in action during live events.

RESOLVED: that

a)    The 2020/21 Annual Review of activities carried out by the Council to manage and implement the Safety at Sports Grounds legislation be noted; and

b)   It be further noted that the Council has successfully met its statutory duty in respect of Safety at Sports Grounds legislation during 2020/21.