Agenda item

The Committee considered a County Matter application seeking planning permission for a temporary period of 5 years for a proposed materials recovery plant to process road sweepings and highway drainage clearance materials on Land at Station House, Saltway, Hanbury, 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, location of the development, Green Belt, landscape character and visual impact, residential amenities (including noise and dust emissions), traffic and highway safety, water environment, ecology and biodiversity, and other matters – local economy, pollution control and integrity of the railway line.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that as the proposed development would recover waste materials, which would otherwise be disposed of to landfill, it would comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy. It would also contribute to Worcestershire’s equivalent self-sufficiency in waste management capacity in accordance with Policies WCS 2 and WCS 15 of the Waste Core Strategy. It would provide recycled aggregate to the construction industry, which was a substitute for crushed hard rock for which Worcestershire now had no remaining permitted reserves (as referenced in Draft Policy MLP 11: Steady and Adequate Supply of Crushed Rock of the Emerging Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan – Publication Version).

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that whilst a waste management facility was not explicitly referred to within Policies SWDP 2 and SWDP 12 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, the proposal was considered broadly to be an employment site and would constitute the retention of an existing employment site and was for the re-use of previously developed land, complying with these policies.

The proposed development was wholly located within the Green Belt. The development applied for was no longer part-retrospective which now did not weigh against the proposal, when compared to the earlier application (CPA Ref: 15/000046/CM) and subsequent appeal. The application was for temporary permission for five years. The applicant had also submitted an assessment of alternative sites (Sequential Test).

The NPPF stated that "when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight was given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, was clearly outweighed by other considerations".

The proposed development was inappropriate development, which was considered to result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. With regard to the NPPG and paragraph 001 Reference ID: 64-001-20190722 relating to “What factors can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt?” it was recognised that the applicant had only sought planning permission for a five year period, and that the land could be returned to its original or equivalent state of openness. Nonetheless, it was considered that the proposal would 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.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the reasons set out above, when considered individually or as a whole, on balance, did 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 13, Policy WCS 13 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policies SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that views of the site would be possible from the east along the Saltway given the boundary adjoining the railway line consisted of only a palisade fence. However, such views would be seen in the context of the existing established distribution yard and buildings and would be well screened from views along the southern and western boundaries due to the established landscaping and site levels. The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable visual impact or detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area.

Given the separation and established vegetation buffer between the neighbouring residential properties and the application site, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposal would have no adverse noise, dust, or odour impacts upon residential amenity or that of human health, subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition restricting the operating hours as recommended by Worcestershire Regulatory Services.

Given the existing access and the proposed vehicle movements, as well as the lack of objection from the County Highways Officer, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on traffic and highway safety.

Based on the advice from the different consultees, including the Environment Agency and the LLFA, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that there would be no adverse effects on the water environment, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, and the proposal would accord with Policy SWDP 29 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Worcestershire Wildlife Trust had been consulted due to the proximity of the proposal to the Local Wildlife Sites and had raised no objections to the proposal and wished to defer to the County Ecologist for all on-site detailed ecological considerations. The County Ecologist had no objection to the scheme subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The applicant had confirmed that no alterations to the landform at the site were proposed, no trees would be removed and no additional lighting would be required. In view of the above matters, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity at the site or on the surrounding area, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

On balance, it was considered that permitting the proposed development would be unacceptable in this Green Belt location contrary to Section 13 of the NPPF, Policy WCS 13 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Mr Brian Murphy speaking on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee. He commented that there was an industry need for this type of facility across the country. The applicant already had planning consent for an operational depot on the site on a 24 hour basis but this application sought to restrict work to day time hours. There were no major objections from any stakeholders. The land adjacent to the site was of poor quality with an area of contaminated land, a redundant landfill site and railway tracks and therefore it could be concluded that the area was not the greenest.

He added that there had been criticism in the report of the applicant’s attempts to find alternative sites. One suggestion was that Throckmorton airfield be used but this site was inappropriate as it had already been allocated for housing development. The applicant was an employer in local area and this application would bring further employment, including the use of apprenticeships which would add social value. The recovered materials could be provided to local authorities at a reduced rate. The recycling of waste had a positive environmental impact and would be cost positive for users. Facilities of a similar nature were limited across the region and this facility would reduce travel time, emissions and costs for customers.

The follows points were raised following the presentation:

·         In response to a query, Mr Murphy argued that the yard was already established with planning permission. The surrounding land was of poor quality with a former landfill site, full of contaminates as well as a redundant household refuse site. The applicant was not trying to establish a facility in a prime greenfield site. The site was already in use and visually, there would be no additional impact

·         In response to a query about the landfill site being returned to a green field site and the visual impact of the equipment on the site on the openness of the countryside, Mr Murphy commented that the plant would be located in the lower part of the site, down a slope. Although the former landfill site had the appearance of a green field site, it was full of contaminates

·         Apart from the site in Wolverhampton, what alternative sites, were available to dispose of waste material? Mr Murphy responded that he was aware of suitable existing sites in Rugby, Sheffield and Dagenham.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

·         It was queried why there were existing operations with permission at this site in the Green Belt and why officers were recommending refusal. John Spurling explained that there was a certificate for lawful use for distribution that was not constrained by planning conditions granted in 2010.  Nevertheless, it was reasonable that the frequency, distribution and intensity of outside storage and parking of vehicles within the site could be subject to significant variation, even on a daily basis, given the transient nature of a distribution use. In contrast, although the submitted drawings indicated that the materials recovery plant was mobile there was no indication that it would be removed from the site or stored elsewhere when not in use. The materials recovery plant consisted of a number of different components including an open box bed which would be 8 metres long by 3.5 metres wide. The materials recovery and de-watering plant would be 6.6 metres high. There would also be a conveyor on site which was 16.8 metres long by 4.5 metres in height

·         The demand for this type of facility would not diminish and there was nothing comparable available in the area so how was the proposal contrary to the Waste Core Strategy? John Spurling responded that the application had been considered in line with the waste hierarchy and it was recognised that the application would recover waste that would otherwise be disposed of in landfill so in that respect it did comply with the hierarchy but the main reason put forward to justify refusal was the harm to the Green Belt

·         In response to a query about the number of jobs created, John Spurling commented that it was recognised that there were economic benefits of this application with the employment of 5 full time workers

·         Although a lot of the modern green technologies were not aesthetically pleasing, they were important technologies in terms of their impact on the environment. John Spurling commented that the site was visually contained along its southern and western boundaries so the site was less open in the countryside but the NPPF made no distinction between the importance of openness in different parts of the Green Belt and the key detriment was that the application would materially increase the amount of development on the site

·         Although the site was in the Green Belt, there was very little objection to the applicant and the need for this facility had been well-established. John Spurling recognised the lack of objections but emphasised that the application should be considered in line with the provisions of the development plan unless material planning considerations indicated otherwise. At the planning appeal in 2016 which was dismissed, the inspector did not consider that the other considerations in that case outweighed the substantial harm to the Green Belt

·         The application should not be refused because it was a much-needed facility, particularly given the lack of such facilities in Worcestershire. The key issue was the interpretation of moderate harm to the Green Belt. In reality, there would be no harm to the Green Belt. In addition, it was not correct to say there was no movement in the Green Belt given that district councils had to allocate a certain percentage of housing in the Green Belt. John Spurling explained that the inspector at the appeal had made the reference to moderate harm to the Green Belt. Although temporary permission was sought it would still mean development in the Green Belt where it did not exist before and therefore moderate harm would be caused. In relation to general development in the Green Belt, the NPPF stated that you could only alter Green Belt boundaries through the local plan process

·         Although there would be a benefit to the County of this facility, the planning process is a plan and policy led regime and the NPPF was the highest level in the process which clearly stated that the Committee had to put great weight on development in the Green Belt and development should not be permitted unless there were very special circumstances. This application was in the wrong place and there were no very special circumstances to override the NPPF and local plans.

·         Since the publication of the NPPF, there had been various clarifications and guidance from the Government and when the planning inspector looked at the site in 2016, there was not the same level of focus or interest on the impact on the environment and recycling. This was also an existing operating site and permission was only requested on a temporary basis and therefore a precedent was not being set. The environmental impact outweighed NPPF Green Belt considerations

·         The site was well-screened from public view and was impacted by its location next to the railway line and therefore permission should be granted

·         Was the site previously used as a railway siding? John Spurling advised that it was formerly used as a railway yard until its closure in 1930 however Network Rail still required access through the site for maintenance purposes

·         It was only 4 years since this Committee refused a similar application on this site which was upheld by the planning inspectorate. If the application was refused again, the applicant was afforded the same opportunity to appeal to the planning inspectorate. Just because development had been approved prior to the introduction of the NPPF did not mean it was right now. Once temporary permission had been granted, it would be difficult in 5 years time to find reasons to reject any request to extend permission. The principle to consider was whether it was appropriate development in the Green Belt for whatever length of time

·         Despite the outcome of the sequential test provided by the applicant there were sites in Worcestershire that the applicant could use for this facility. If permission was granted, there needed to be some very stringent conditions including working hours to be approved at a later meeting

·         The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy’s recommendation to refuse permission was moved and seconded. It was then put to the vote and lost

·         Steven Aldridge advised that the NPPF had been amended in 2019 but the Green Belt section had remained substantially the same so consistency of decision-making was important. If members were minded to approve the application then he would advise that consideration be deferred to allow officers an opportunity to obtain appropriate advice, possibly from external consultants to determine the reasons and identify appropriate planning conditions. Members had given an indication of the reasons for granting permission on the basis that less weight be placed on the harm to the Green Belt and more weight be placed on the economic benefits and the Waste Hierarchy in terms of identifying very special circumstances.

RESOLVED: that

a)    the Committee are minded to grant temporary permission (5 years) for a proposed materials recovery plant to process road sweepings and highway drainage clearance materials on land at Station House, Saltway, Hanbury, Worcestershire on the basis that less weight be placed on the harm to the Green Belt and more weight be placed on the economic benefits and the Waste Hierarchy in terms of identifying very special circumstances; and

b)   consideration of the application be deferred to enable officers (including possibly consultants) to obtain appropriate advice on the terms of the reasons and for appropriate planning conditions to be identified.