Agenda and draft 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 7 February 2023 (previously circulated).

Apologies were received from Cllrs Allah Ditta, Bill Hopkins, and David Ross.

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 7 February 2023. (previously circulated)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2023 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered the proposed change of use to Sui Generis waste use for development of a facility for recovery of precious metals from metal containing wastes, minor modifications to existing building, including the installation of exhaust flues and addition of other minor ancillary structures to support development at Unit 10 Merse Road, Moons Moat North Industrial Estate, Moons Moat, Redditch, 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; the location of the development; Landscape character, visual impact and historic environment; Residential amenity (including noise and vibration, dust, odour and health impacts); Traffic, highway safety and public rights of way; Ecology and biodiversity; Water environment; Economic impact; Climate change; Consultation and publicity; and other matters - Human Rights Act 1998; and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that:

Waste Hierarchy

The proposed change of use development would provide a highly specialist and bespoke facility for the recovery and recycling of precious metals with a modest throughput of up to 250 tonnes per annum, of which a proportion would undergo no physical processing on site and which would be sorted / batched up in preparation for transfer and subsequent recycling / recovery by specialist operators (where possible) elsewhere, that it would comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy in accordance with the objectives of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and National Policy.

Location of development

Policy WCS 3 of the adopted Waste Core Strategy required waste management facilities that enabled re-use or recycling of waste, such as this proposal, to be permitted within all levels of the Geographic Hierarchy, where it was demonstrated that the proposed location was at the highest appropriate level of the Geographic Hierarchy. 

The application site was located within Level 1 the highest level of the Geographic Hierarchy and, therefore, complied with Policy WCS 3 of the adopted Waste Core Strategy.

Policy WCS 6 of the adopted Waste Core Strategy directed waste management development to land with compatible uses. Policy WCS 6 directed enclosed re-use and recycling facilities, such as this proposal, to land which included existing or allocated industrial land; contaminated or derelict employment land; redundant agricultural or forestry buildings or their curtilage; and sites with current use rights for waste management purposes.

As the proposed development would be located on existing and allocated industrial land, it was considered the proposal complies with Policy WCS 6 of the adopted Waste Core Strategy. It was also noted that the site would be located within an area designated as a Primarily Employment Area in the adopted Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4, and Policies 23 and 24 of the adopted Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 considered such areas were appropriate locations for waste management facilities, subject to other relevant material planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1125.

The Committee considered an application for a Public Footpath Order (Extinguishment Order) under Section 118A Highways Act 1980. The Order is to stop up the public right of way, Tutnall and Cobley footpath TC-504, in the interests of the safety of members of the public and to stop up the length of footpath Lickey LK-524 running from its junction with footpath TC-504 to its junction with Fairways Drive.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·         The local councillor acknowledged that the railway crossing was extremely unsafe and did need to be shut. However since 2017, he had been promised mitigation measures to provide local residents with alternative pedestrian routes. A number of promises had been made by officers to find solutions over this time but with no resolution. He agreed that the bridge over the railway line was tight and was designed for small vehicles, not larger vehicles so to put in a footpath would be impractical. The most appropriate solution would be to provide signage and introduce a speed restriction on that part of Blackwell Road. However these suggestions had to date been considered to be against Council policy. Local residents were merely requesting the ability to walk over the bridge, down the Blackwell Road (a rural road with fast-moving traffic) and onto the golf club off the Blackwell Road. He would support the extinguishment order but would like an undertaking from the Council to meet him to work out a mitigated route to allow local residents to walk safely down the Blackwell Road

·         It was evident that the crossing was unsafe and the proposal for an extinguishment order in this location should be supported

·         Would Sections 503B and 505C of the footpath network be closed? The Mapping Manager responded that due to the nature of the order, it would not be possible to extinguish any other areas of footpath outside the proposed area for safety issues. It might be possible in the future that an agreement could be reached with the landowner to shut those footpaths if requested

·         The local councillor requested a condition be added that officers undertook to liaise with the local councillor to introduce mitigation measures. On the advice of the representative of the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance, the Chairman advised that it was not possible to introduce such a condition. However he undertook, on behalf of the Committee, to write to the Strategic Director for Economy and Infrastructure to request that possible arrangements for a diversion route and appropriate signage be investigated in consultation with the local councillor. The local councillor welcomed the way forward suggested by the Chairman.

RESOLVED that AN ORDER BE MADE under Section 118A Highways Act 1980 to stop up the public right of way, Tutnall and Cobley footpath TC-504, in the interests of the safety of members of the public and to stop up the length of footpath Lickey LK-524 running from its junction with footpath TC-504 to its junction with Fairways Drive it being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1126.

The Committee considered the Safety of Sports Grounds Annual Review 2022/23.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·         It was queried why the Valley Stadium in Redditch had not been included under the Safety of Sports Grounds legislation. The representative of Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) advised that the legislation only applied if the venue had a covered stand with over 500 seats. This was not the case at the Valley Stadium. However, WRS would always wish to discuss safety issues with stadium owners/event organisers even where the legislation did not apply

·         It was queried why New Road, the home of Worcestershire County Cricket Club was not covered by the legislation. The representative of WRS explained that the legislation referred to covered stands and none of the major stands at WCCC were covered. The cricket club did liaise with WRS especially in relation to other events that took place at the venue

·         A query was raised about the involvement of WRS in other major non-sporting events. The representative of WRS commented that the responsibility for safety of events always rested with the organiser/promoter of the event. WRS would provide safety advice for large events if requested. There was separate guidance available for these types of events outside the Safety of Sports Grounds legislation. The capacity of the venue was a key factor in determining the evacuation and safety procedures

·         The Chairman thanked the representative of WRS for arranging the previous Safety of Sports Grounds site visit to Kidderminster Harriers Football Club and recommended that councillors attended similar visits arranged in the future.

RESOLVED that:

a)    The 2022/23 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 2022/23.