Agenda item

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afforded to Policy 2 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan was limited, given that it could be argued that this policy is out of date, as it was not considered to be consistent with the NPPF, which did not operate a sieve test, or impose a blanket ban on all development within primary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 for a period of time, it would not conflict with the five purposes of Green Belt, as the site would be progressively returned to an open state following completion of extraction. In view of this, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the exceptions for mineral extraction and engineering operations at paragraph 150 of the NPPF would apply, and the proposed development was, therefore, not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The site would be restored to agriculture (pasture for horses). Conditions could be imposed to ensure that following the restoration of the land that any plant, equipment, structures or buildings would be removed and that details of means of any enclosure are provided. As such, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that there would be a very limited permanent spatial or visual impact on the Green Belt.

With regard to ecology and biodiversity, based on the advice of the EA, Natural England, WWT and the County Ecologist, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning 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 conditions relating to an Ecological Mitigation and Management Plan, soils, aftercare scheme including controlling invasive species, CEMP (Biodiversity), SuDS, and a LEMP. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development accorded with Polices WCS 9 and WCS 10 of the WCS, Policy CP14 of the Wyre Forest District Council Core Strategy, and Policy SAL.UP5 of the Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan.

With regard to the water environment including flooding, in light of the above matters and based on the advice of North Worcestershire Water Management, Seven Trent Water Limited, the EA, Natural England and WWT, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that there would be no adverse effects on the water environment, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to the submission of a CEMP (Biodiversity), surface drainage; SuDS, and the design of any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development accorded with Policy WCS 10 of the WCS, Policy CP02 of the Wyre Forest District Council Core Strategy, and Policy SAL.CC7 of the Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan.

With regard to landscape character, visual impact and historic environment, the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area was located about 650 metres broadly to the west of the site. The Grade II Listed Church of All Saints lies approximately 550 metres, broadly to the south of the site. Wilden Viaduct, which was Grade II Listed, lies approximately 830 metres broadly to the south of the site. The Grade II Registered Park and Garden of Hartlebury Castle lies approximately 1.4 kilometres broadly to the south-east of the site. Due to the distance from the Conservation Area, Listed Buildings and Grade II Registered Park and Garden, coupled with the presence of intervening structures and features, including vegetation, it was considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area, Listed Buildings or Registered Park and Garden.

In light of the above matters, including the lack of objection from the County Landscape Officer and County Archaeology Officer, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the local area and would not have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area, Listed Buildings, Registered Park and Garden, and archaeology subject to conditions relating to a LEMP and a restoration plan.

With regard to residential amenity (including noise, dust, lighting, air quality or that of human health), the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on noise, dust, lighting, air quality or that of human health, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including a CEMP, noise limits and lighting. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal was in accordance with Policies CP01 and CP03 of the Wyre Forest District Council Core Strategy.

With regard to utilities and in light of the comments from Cadent, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon utilities, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions that protect the pipeline.

With regard to restoration and aftercare, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning noted that the EA, Natural England, Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, the County Ecologist and County Landscape Officer all had no objections to the proposal, subject to appropriate conditions. Given the nature of the proposed working, which would extract minerals to a maximum depth of 4 metres, it was considered that in principle the restoration of the site by the importation of inert materials was acceptable in this instance, subject to a condition relating to a revised restoration scheme. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal was in accordance with Policy WCS5 of the WCS.

With regard to traffic and highways safety, paragraph 111 of the NPPF stated "development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe". There was a recently constructed access from the site onto Wilden Lane. The access point was onto a section of Wilden Lane which was subject to the national speed limited although the speed limit changed to 30 mph just to the south of the access. There was also a recently constructed access from the site onto Wilden Top Road, which was a single lane carriageway in part, albeit that there were some informal passing bays that appeared to be used to manage two-way flows of traffic.

With regard to Wilden Lane, the applicant’s transport consultants had undertaken speed surveys on Wilden Lane positioned close to the existing site access point. Based on the speeds surveyed, there was a requirement for the site to achieve a ‘Y’ distance visibility splay of approximately 117 metres (based on 43.8 mph) and 112 metres (based on 42.7 mph) at a ‘X’ (set back) distance of 2.4 metres.  The TA clearly showed that the site could only achieve a visibility splay of 81 metres to the centre of the carriageway (to the south). This was already a shortfall on the visibility requirements, although the Highway Authority could not accept visibility measures to the centre of the carriageway, and the Manual for Streets showed this should be measured to the edge of the carriageway. Whilst not measured by the applicant, this would likely reduce the visibility splay achievable to approximately 70– 75 metres.  The visibility achieved at the Wilden Lane access would therefore be in the order of 30-40 metres short of what was required.

On balance, it was considered that permitting the proposed development would be unacceptable. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF indicated that Local Planning Authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions. Access to and from Wilden Top Road appeared to be achievable subject to the imposition of a suitable condition. It had not been demonstrated that if two HGVs were to meet in opposing directions on Wilden Top Road or Hillary Road, this would not have an unacceptable impact on the operation of the local highway network. The Head of Planning and Transport noted the objection from the County Highways Officer that visibility in accordance with standards could not be provided to the south of the site’s access on Wilden Lane. It was considered that this could not be adequately addressed by a planning condition. The proposal was, therefore, considered to be harmful to highway safety contrary to Policy WCS 8 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, Policy CP03 of the Wyre Forest Core Strategy, Policy SAL.CC1 of the Wyre Forest Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan, and paragraph 111 of the NPPF.

As the recommendation before the Committee was one of refusal councillors were made aware that as the application was part retrospective and the development applied for had been ongoing, a technical breach of planning control was taking place. As set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 17b-003-20140306), “Local planning authorities have discretion to take enforcement action, when they regard it as expedient to do so having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”. The PPG (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 17b-005-20140306), under the heading of ‘Why is effective enforcement important?’, sets out that “Effective enforcement is important to:

·         tackle breaches of planning control which would otherwise have unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area;

·         maintain the integrity of the decision-making process;

·         help ensure that public acceptance of the decision-making process is maintained”.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning added that if the Committee was minded to agree with the recommendation, the County Council’s planning enforcement officer would make an assessment with regard to whether enforcement action was appropriate in the circumstances. Enforcement action was discretionary and each case must be assessed on its own merits; the Council must first decide, having given regard to the policies contained in the Development Plan,  the NPPF and any other material planning considerations, whether or not it was ‘expedient’ to take formal action. The test of expediency required a careful assessment of the nature and extent of the breach of planning control, and the degree of harm it might be causing to the environment and/or amenity of the area. Amongst other things, Local Planning Authorities should act proportionately in responding to such breaches.

The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning introduced the report and commented that a question had been raised at the site visit querying the reason for the designation of the local SSSI. The reason for the designation was that it had the richest and most diverse wetland habitat in Worcestershire and included examples of fen and damp meadow marshy land. Since the publication of the report, four letters of representation had been received via the local councillor stating that there had been historical access to the site via Wilden Top Road and Wilden Lane.

He added that a further submission had be sent by the agent acting on behalf of the applicant stating that the applicant had received assurances from Cadent Gas that they would work with the applicant to find an alternative access further north on Wilden Lane. The Transportation Consultancy estimated that moving a distance of 56 metres would enable the visibility splays to be achieved. The applicant had been subsequently informed that this was a change to the existing application and would therefore require the submission of a new planning application.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·         A local councillor expressed his disappointment that the applicant had been advised that the existing visibility splays were insufficient given that the access had been in use for a number of years. The representative of the County Highways Officer advised that it was appreciated that the access had been in use but this application would result in an intensification of use. In addition, the vehicles accessing the site would be slow-moving, large heavy vehicles and therefore on safety grounds, the applicant was required to provide the appropriate standard of visibility splay for the site entrance

·         A local councillor commented that sand washed off the site on a regular basis and this issue had intensified over the last few years due to climate change to an extent that Wilden Lane had had to be closed on occasion. The sand wash and subsequent pollution did not just affect the road but also impacted on local residents and caused accidents. The current owner of the site had made efforts to resolve this issue and consequently there had not been any run-off over the last 18 months, resulting in the River Stour becoming cleaner. The only issue with this application related to highways matters and yet vehicles including HGVs had successfully accessed the site over a number of years. Consideration could be given to vehicles exiting the site from Wilden Top Road and entering via Wilden Lane to overcome this highway objection. Alternatively, the installation of a new entrance could be added as a condition

·         The representative of the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance advised that members could only determine the application that was before them. If members were minded to grant approval against the officer’s recommendation then careful consideration should be given as to the reasons for this decision and on that basis, she would advise deferral to a future meeting to allow officers to determine appropriate conditions

·         Whilst the enthusiasm of the applicant to resolve the issue of sand on the highway was recognised, it would be very difficult to make a decision that was contrary to the advice of the County Highways Officer

·         A local councillor moved deferral pending the highways issues being resolved. No seconder was forthcoming and the Chairman advised that deferral was not an option on this basis because as the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance had advised, the Committee could only consider the application before it. 

·         The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning added that the problem with the suggested deferral and suggestions for an alternative entrance or the change of exit/egress arrangements was that there remained unresolved highways issues associated with the access via Wilden Top Lane. Officers had engaged with the applicant about the use of an alternative access to the site but the applicant had asked that this application be determined. No assessment had been undertaken of any alternative visibility splays or whether the site of the proposed alternative access was outside the applicant’s control. The Committee should therefore consider the application before it.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for 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, DY13 9JT for the following reason:

·         It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon highway safety. In the absence of this information, the proposal is contrary to Policy WCS 8 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, Policy CP03 of the Wyre Forest Core Strategy, Policy SAL.CC1 of the Wyre Forest Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan, and paragraph 111 of the NPPF.