Agenda item

Mrs P Agar in the Chair.

The Committee considered a County Matter planning application for the formation of an earth bund containing about 150,000 tonnes of soil on land to the south of B4636 and east of M5 Motorway, Spetchley, 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 Planning Development Control Manager's comments in relation to the waste hierarchy, landscape character and appearance of the local area, residential amenities (noise and dust impacts), the water environment, ecology and biodiversity, traffic, highway safety and impact upon the public rights of way, and economic impact.

The Planning Development Control Manager concluded that as with any planning application, this application should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF was a material consideration in planning decisions. The reason why the Development Plan was at the heart of the planning system was because it was the forum where the need for new development was identified, and also where it would be inappropriate. The plan would have been through public consultation, and would have been subject of independent examination.

The key development plan policy to be considered in the determination of this planning application was that of Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy. Policy WCS 5 of stated that "no capacity gap has been identified for the landfill or disposal of waste".

The applicant stated that "on the examination of the available inert landfill sites in the County and the most up to date information on landfill sites from the Environment Agency has indicated, on the basis of the 2014 input rates, that the amounts of inert waste arising would fill available void space in just over 4 years. Between 2019 and the end of the plan period in 2027 there would be an inert landfill capacity gap with available void space exhausted, unless new facilities are approved, and therefore the expectations of the Waste Core Strategy would not be realised. Further inert landfill capacity is justified and this proposal would help fill the identified capacity gap and maintain self-sufficiency in the plan area up to 2027".

In response to the applicant's comments that there was a capacity gap in Worcestershire for inert landfill, the Planning Development Control Manager examined the applicant's suggested figures in detail and considers that it appeared the applicant had made a typographical error in their calculation of inert infill rates within the County, noting that the applicant suggested that Summerway Landfill Site, near Stourport had received 725,850 cubic metres of infill material. However, it appeared that this figure was actually the void space remaining rather than the inert infill figures. The Environment Agency had confirmed that the Summerway Landfill Site received approximately 2,150 cubic metres in 2014, not 725,850 cubic metres as suggested by the applicant, and no wastes were landfilled in 2015 as the operator had been creating a new landfill cell. The Environment Agency also confirmed that the latest publicly available data was that of the Environment Agency's Waste Interrogator data (2014). This was the data that underpinned the County Council's AMR. The County Council's Planning Monitoring and Enforcement Officer subsequently visited the site and confirmed that very limited inert materials had been landfilled over the past 2 years and the operator suggested about 2,000 cubic metres of inert material had been landfilled, which was in accordance with the Environment Agency's comments. 

The supporting text to Policy WCS 5 stated that "the decision on whether proposals are a form of disposal will be guided by the Environment Agency's advice". This was contained within the document: RGN13: Defining waste recovery: permanent deposit of waste on land. Appendix 1 of RGN13 gives examples of when the Environment Agency considered a particular activity could be considered a recovery operation rather than disposal operation. Appendix 1 stated that "bunds can be created for a number of purposes. Evidence must be presented that shows the bund is needed. This would include setting out the benefits that would be derived when the work is complete, and justifying that there was a genuine need for the bund…if a very large bund is proposed, but the benefits derived from installing it are marginal, this would point more towards a disposal operation".

Therefore, for the proposal to be considered a recovery operation rather than a waste disposal operation, the applicant had to demonstrate a clear benefit to the deposit of waste soils in this location.

It was noted that the application was accompanied by a Noise Overview Assessment, which concluded that "whilst some acoustic screening of short segments of the M5 Motorway to specific receptors points would occur, there would be little or no additional screening from the majority of the section of the M5 Motorway from which noise currently contributes to the local noise environment at individual noise-sensitive locations. Accordingly, the overall reduction in noise would be very slight and it is unlikely the reduction would be perceptible". Therefore, the Planning Development Control Manager considered that the proposal would provide negligible noise attenuation benefits.

The submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal concluded that "there would be temporary short-term adverse impacts on the landscape and visual character of the site while the works are being undertaken, due to the increased vehicle movements and the presence of construction vehicles and bare soil on the site. However, in the medium to longer-term the proposal could be accommodated without harm to the wider landscape, and in a manner consistent with existing landscape pattern and character evident in the surroundings". Therefore, the Planning Development Control Manager considered that the proposal would provide a neutral impact upon the landscape, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The submitted Ecology Assessment concluded that "the landscape proposals will create habitat enhancements in the medium-term with the provision of grassland and woodland planting of greater ecological value than the existing arable fields". Therefore, the Planning Development Control Manager considered that the proposal would provide minor ecology and biodiversity benefits.

Furthermore, it was noted that the applicant states that the proposal "provides an opportunity to dispose of the waste soil within Worcestershire" and the Planning Development Control Manager was not convinced that the development would likely proceed should this waste material not be available, particularly as the applicant only proposed to construct part of the bund if the Retail Park development was not granted planning permission. This, therefore, suggested that the bund was only required for a means of disposal of waste material.  In view of above matters, the proposal was considered a disposal operation. Policy WCS 5 goes on to state that "planning permission will not be granted for the landfill or disposal of waste except where it is demonstrated that:

      I.        re-use, recycling, or energy or resource recovery are not practicable for the waste type to be managed and no landfill or disposal capacity exists in the county for that type of waste; or

    II.        there will be a shortfall in landfill or disposal capacity necessary to achieve the aims and purpose of the strategy; or

   III.        the proposal is essential for operational or safety reasons or is the most appropriate option".

It was considered that parts i) and ii) of Policy WCS 5 did not apply to the proposal and therefore, for the proposal to conform with this Waste Core Strategy Policy the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal was essential for operational or safety reasons or is the most appropriate option.

As indicated earlier, it was considered that there would be no clear noise attenuation benefits from the construction of the earth bund in this location; it was considered the proposal would have a neutral impact upon the landscape, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions; and only minor benefits in terms of ecology and biodiversity were anticipated. It was considered that the proposal overall would provide minor drainage benefits in terms of reducing the reliance of the existing site on the M5 Motorway drainage infrastructure, thereby enhancing the resilience of the Strategic Road Network. It was also considered that the proposal would help to facilitate the development of the Worcester 6 site, which was identified as a key project in the Worcestershire LEP Business Plan; as an 'Economic Game Changer site' in the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP); and was allocated within the South Worcestershire Development Plan (Policy SWDP 45 / 6). It was noted that the NPPF afforded significant weight to be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

Furthermore, the proposal would limit the distance HGV's had to travel on the public highway to dispose of the waste soils to an appropriate licenced facility or recovered for beneficial purposes in other projects. Notwithstanding this, the Planning Development Control Manager was not satisfied that the limited benefits of this proposal when taken individually or as a whole demonstrated that "the proposal is essential for operational or safety reasons or is the most appropriate option", as set out in part iii) of Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy. Therefore, it was considered that there would not be a clear benefit for the construction of an earth bund in this location that would override Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Waste Core Strategy and the key principle of the waste hierarchy.

In addition, the Environment Agency stated that this "application appeared to be seeking a convenient disposal point for inert construction waste from projects in the locality. This made it a simple landfill disposal activity. There appeared to be no other justification proposed. This put the proposed use at the bottom of the Waste Hierarchy as the least preferred option. Waste management options arising from the Retail Park and Worcester 6 site could have better been evaluated as part of thinking over those proposals rather than requiring a separate proposal for landfill disposal"… This application to build a “Bund” seemed to be because of the intention to avoid traditional landfill with the additional cost. It was also noted that the County Minerals and Waste Management Planning Policy Officer objected to the proposal as it was considered contrary to the vision, objectives and policy of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.

Whilst the applicant considered that the "proposals are specifically related to an identified local need and are not designed to serve any general inert landfill demand, and therefore, would not set a precedent" and it was acknowledged that the NPPF reiterated that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise; and each application must also be considered on its own merits. The Planning Development Control Manager considered that should this application be granted planning permission, it would set an undesirable precedent which would encourage further landfill/landraising applications to dispose of construction waste in the countryside potentially creating alien landforms without any clear benefits, undermining Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy. As the benefits of this proposal, principally being adjacent to the construction site would apply to most if not all major development sites in Worcestershire that were close to greenfield sites. Furthermore, the County Minerals and Waste Management Planning Policy Officer considered that appropriate disposal of waste must be considered to be an essential component of the design and business case for any and particularly significant developments. No overriding factors had been demonstrated in this case, and it was considered that the waste arising from the Worcester 6 site and Retail Park development (should it be granted planning permission) should be appropriately disposed of or recovered for a beneficial purpose, as would be expected of all developments in the county.

On balance, it was considered that granting the formation of an earth bund on land to south of B4636 and east of M5 Motorway, Spetchley, Worcestershire, would be contrary to Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, as the proposal would be a waste disposal operation, with no clear benefits that outweigh the harm of not driving waste up the waste hierarchy.

The Planning Development Control Manager introduced the report and commented that since the last report to the Committee, Highways England had withdrawn their objection. In addition, there had been a couple of changes to the plans as the gradient of the bund had increased and the applicant was intending to use 18 tonne vehicles instead of 20 tonne vehicles which would increase the number of vehicle movements to and from the site.

In the ensuing debate, it was commented that it was inappropriate for soil to be deposited at this site from other sites contrary to Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the formation of an earth bund on land to south of B4636 and east of M5 Motorway, Spetchley, Worcestershire for the following reason:

The proposal is considered to be a waste disposal operation that would not drive waste up the waste hierarchy, contrary to Policy WCS 5 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy.