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 5 July 2022 (previously circulated).

Apologies were received from Cllr Linda Robinson and Kit Taylor.

None.

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 5 July 2022. (previously circulated)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2022 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman

The Committee considered the proposed extraction of aggregates with restoration to agriculture and lake suitable for water sports on land at Ryall's Court, Ryall Court Lane, Ryall, 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 Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to Alternatives, Worcestershire's landbank of sand and gravel reserves, Location of the development, Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, Traffic, highway safety and public rights of way, Landscape character and visual impacts, Historic environment, Residential amenity (including noise, dust, air quality, human health and contaminated land), Water environment including flooding, Ecology, biodiversity, and geodiversity, Restoration and aftercare of the site, Impact upon festival land,  Economic Impact, and other matters - Overhead power lines, Crime and safety, Climate change and sustainability, Cumulative impacts, Vulnerability to accidents and / or disaster, Environmental Impact Assessment team and expertise, Human Rights Act 1998, and Obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that:

Alternatives

With regard to the consideration of alternatives, the PPG stated that the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 did not require an applicant to consider alternatives. However, where alternatives had been considered, Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 required the applicant to include in their ES a description of the reasonable alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects. The applicant rejected a number of alternative restoration schemes on the basis that they did not allow the creation of a final landform within which a FISA guidance compliant rowing course could be formed, either because the body of water would be too shallow or insufficiently wide. They also considered that in terms of the likely significant environmental impact, all the options considered by the applicant were assessed as having very similar impact footprints to that ultimately proposed. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the applicant's approach to the consideration of alternatives was acceptable in this instance.

Worcestershire's landbank of sand and gravel reserves

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 0.56 years, equating to a landbank of approximately 3.62 years in total, which was still substantially 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.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1107.

The Committee considered a planning application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to not comply with conditions 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 49 and 53 of planning permission: 15/000013/CM "Proposed minerals extraction of about 1.4 Million tonnes of Sand and gravel and erection of a temporary wharf with progressive restoration to make a landscaped lake" to facilitate an alternative working scheme and progressive restoration scheme to agriculture and a lake suitable for water sports at Ryall North Quarry, land off Ryall Court Lane, Holly Green, 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 Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to Alternatives, Location of the development, Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, Traffic, highway safety and public rights of way, Landscape character and visual impact, Historic environment, Residential amenity (including noise, dust, air quality, human health and contaminated land), Water environment including flooding, Ecology, biodiversity, and geodiversity, Restoration and aftercare of the site, Impact upon festival land and tourism,  Other matters - Economic Impact, Climate change and sustainability,  Cumulative impacts, Vulnerability to accidents and / or disaster, Environmental Impact Assessment team and expertise, Human Rights Act 1998, and Obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded the following:

Alternatives

With regard to the consideration of alternatives, the PPG stated that the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 did not require an applicant to consider alternatives. However, where alternatives had been considered, Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 required the applicant to include in their ES a description of the reasonable alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects. The original ES considered alternatives, focussing on alternative means by which the minerals site might be worked (phasing and direction of working) and restored, and alternative wharf locations. The updated ES also considered alternatives, focussing on alternative restoration schemes, but these were rejected on the basis that they did not allow the creation of a final landform within which a FISA guidance compliant rowing course could be formed, either because the body of water would be too shallow or insufficiently wide. They also considered that in terms of the likely significant environmental impact, all the options considered by the applicant were assessed as having very similar impact footprints to that ultimately proposed. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the applicant's approach to the consideration of alternatives was acceptable in this instance.

Location of the development

With regard to the location of the development, the Government’s PPG stated that “minerals can only be worked (i.e., extracted) where they naturally occur, so location options for the economically viable and environmentally acceptable extraction of minerals may be limited…”.   It was considered that the location of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1108.

The Committee considered the proposed demolition of existing single storey temporary classroom block, erection of new replacement two-storey classroom building to accommodate 12 no. classrooms, 4 offices and ancillary space, and the relocation and reconfiguration of the existing car park provision at Wolverley CE Secondary School, Blakeshall Lane, Wolverley, 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 Green Belt, Historic Environment, Residential Amenity, Visual Impact and Landscape Character, Traffic and Highway Safety, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment including Flooding and Other Matters – Playing Fields, Minerals, Consultation, Renewable Energy, Human Rights Act 1998, and Obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that on balance the proposed development, when considered in isolation and in combination with other developments, would have moderate impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the applicant’s considerations, such as the state of the existing mobile classrooms and the lack of available land within the school boundary outside of the Green Belt designation amount to very special circumstances.  Accordingly, very special circumstances existed and, in relation to Green Belt matters, the granting of planning permission could be justified. As such, the proposed development met the relevant policy requirements in the NPPF Section 13 and accorded with Policies SP.7 and DM.22 of the adopted Wyre Forest Local Plan.

On review of the submitted information and taking into account comments from the consultees including the County Archaeologist, Wyre Forest District Council Conservation Officer and Historic England, and due to the nature, scale and location of the proposal, together with the distance from heritage assets and intervening buildings, and established trees and vegetation, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considers that the proposals would not lead to any material harm to any of the identified heritage assets. In view of this, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon heritage assets, in accordance with Policies SP.20, SP.21, and DM.23 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse or detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area, and would not cause any unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking implications that detracts from residential amenity due to its design, size and location.

On review of the submitted information and taking into account comments from the County Landscape Officer and WRS, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, there would be no unacceptable adverse noise, dust, vibration, odour, air pollution impacts on residential amenity, visual impacts and landscape character,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1109.

The Committee considered the installation of a kiosk to house control equipment for sewage treatment upgrades and associated infrastructure (part-retrospective) at Alvechurch Sewage Treatment Works, Redditch Road, Alvechurch, 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 Green Belt, Location of the development, Residential amenity, visual impact and landscape character, Historic environment, Traffic and highway safety, Water environment, Ecology and biodiversity, Other Matters - Access for Fire Service vehicles, Human Rights Act 1998, and Obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that in accordance with paragraph 11 c) of the NPPF, development proposal that accorded with an up-to-date Development Plan should be approved without delay and taking in to account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies WCS 1, WCS 3, WCS 6, WCS 8, WCS 9, WCS 10, WCS 11, WCS 12, WCS 13, WCS 14, and WCS 15 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, Policies BDP1, BDP4, BDP16, BDP19, BDP20, BDP21, BDP23, and BDP24 of the adopted Bromsgrove District Plan, and Policies HDNE 1, HDNE 2, HDNE 3, HDNE 4, HDNE 6, GAT 1 and GAT 3 of the made Alvechurch Parish Neighbourhood Plan, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies.

The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning introduced the report and commented that

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·         The improvement to this sewage treatment facility was welcomed given the need to reduce the levels of pollutants entering the local water courses

·         What extra capacity had been built into this facility to deal with the future expansion of the surrounding area? The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning responded that the application and the Environmental Permit included the capacity to deal with any future expansion of growth albeit he could not confirm to what scale

·         In response to a query, the representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning indicated that Bromsgrove District Council had an adopted local plan. However, there was nothing in the public domain regarding site allocation. Focus was currently on the revision of the plan and the District Council had indicated that there would be a slight delay to its release as more evidence was being gathered. Therefore, it was not possible to comment on future development until the plan was released probably in 2023

·         It was requested that the design of these kiosks be improved for future applications. 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the installation of a kiosk to house control equipment for sewage upgrades and associated infrastructure (Part-Retrospective) at Alvechurch Sewage Treatment Works, Redditch Road, Alvechurch, Worcestershire, subject to the following conditions:

Approved Plans

1)    The development hereby approved shall be carried out in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1110.

The Committee considered the Safety of Sports Grounds Annual Review 2021/22.

In the ensuing debate, it was requested that arrangements be made for members of the Committee to visit a sports venue(s) to observe the SAG operations.

RESOLVED that:

a)   The 2021/22 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 2021/22.