Regulatory Committee Agenda

Regulatory

Committee

5 December 2017 Agenda

The Regulatory Committee will meet in Committee Room 2, Shire Hall, Warwick on Tuesday 5 December 2017 at 10:30am.

Note – Planning related training will be provided for members before the committee meeting. This will commence at 9:30am in Committee Room 2.

1. General

(1) Apologies

(2) Members’ Disclosures of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests.

Members are required to register their disclosable pecuniary interests within 28 days of their election or appointment to the Council. A member attending a meeting where a matter arises in which s/he has a disclosable pecuniary interest must (unless s/he has a dispensation):

• Declare the interest if s/he has not already registered it • Not participate in any discussion or vote • Must leave the meeting room until the matter has been dealt with (Standing Order 39). • Give written notice of any unregistered interest to the Monitoring Officer within 28 days of the meeting

Non-pecuniary interests must still be declared in accordance with the Code of Conduct. These should be declared at the commencement of the meeting.

(3) Minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2017 and matters arising

All public papers are available at www.warwickshire.gov.uk/cmis Page 1 of 3

2. Delegated Decisions

Members are asked to note the applications dealt with under delegated powers between 25 September 2017 and 21 November 2017

3. Planning Application: NWB/17CM015 Marston Fields Farm, Kingsbury Road, Marston

Construction of landscaping bund on land to the west of the fishery facility at Marston Fields Farm

4. Planning application: NWB/17CC013 Nursery Hill School, Ansley Common, Nuneaton, CV10 0PY

Erection of replacement fence to front and rear boundary

5. Planning application: RBC/17CC021 Ling Hall Quarry, Coalpit Lane, Lawford Heath, CV23 9HH.

The temporary use of land for open-windrow composting of green waste and wood chipping with associated surface water lagoons

6. Planning Enforcement Investigations (Public)

An update on Planning Enforcement Investigations for Members' information.

7. Reports Containing Confidential or Exempt Information

To consider passing the following resolution:

‘That members of the public be excluded from the meeting for the items mentioned below on the grounds that their presence would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972’.

EXEMPT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE (PURPLE PAPERS).

8. Planning Enforcement Investigations (Exempt)

An update on Planning Enforcement Investigations for Members' information.

David Carter Joint Managing Director Shire Hall Warwick

All public papers are available at www.warwickshire.gov.uk/cmis Page 2 of 3

Membership of the Regulatory Committee 5 December 2017

Councillors Margaret Bell, Mike Brain (Vice-Chair), Bill Gifford, Clare Golby, Keith Lloyd, Bill Olner (Chair), David Reilly, Clive Rickhards, Dave Shilton, Adrian Warwick, Alan Webb and Chris Williams.

For enquiries about specific reports please contact the officers named in the reports.

For general enquiries please contact Helen Barnsley: Tel: 01926 412323 Email: [email protected]

All public papers are available at www.warwickshire.gov.uk/cmis Page 3 of 3 Minutes of the meeting of the Regulatory Committee held on 10 October 2017

Present:

Members of the Committee Councillors Margaret Bell, Bill Gifford, Clare Golby, Bill Olner (Chair), David Reilly, Dave Shilton, Adrian Warwick, Alan Webb and Chris Williams

Warwickshire County Council Officers Helen Barnsley, Democratic Services Officer Tom Evans, Senior Planner Jasbir Kaur, Strategic Planning and Development Manager Ian Marriott, Corporate Legal Service Manager Sally Panayi, Planning Assistant

1. General

1) Apologies

Councillor Mike Brain (Vice Chair) Councillor Keith Lloyd Councillor Clive Rickhards (replaced by Councillor Jenny Fradgley)

2) Members’ Disclosures of Pecuniary and Non-pecuniary Interests

None

3) Minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 September 2017 and matters arising

The Committee agreed that the minutes of the Regulatory Committee meeting held on 5 September 2017 be signed by the Chairman as a true and accurate record.

There were no matters arising.

2. Delegated Decisions

Members noted the contents of the report.

3. Planning application: NWB/17CM016 Former Shale Tip, Land on the corner of The Common and Merevale Lane, Atherstone

Tom Evans, Senior Planner presented the report to Members and stated that the application concerned a variation of conditions to a previous application which had already been agreed and established. Details of the proposed site were shown and it was highlighted that the site already had well established bunds for screening.

Members were asked to consider that, if this application was approved, the height of the biomass stack could potentially increase to 25m and that this would be visible above the bund (looking from the north).

2017-10-10 Regulatory minutes 1 of 3

It was confirmed to Members that a landscaping scheme is in place as per Condition 3 of the original application and that provision is in place for its maintenance.

Councillor Dave Shilton moved the recommendation and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Bill Gifford.

A vote was held and the Committee voted unanimously in favour of approving the application with the addition of a condition to ensure that the profiled powder coated cladding, painted olive green (RAL 6003) cannot be changed without approval from the planning authority.

Resolved

That the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission for Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference: NW57/08CM042 - Compaction of former colliery spoil to create a stable landform for the construction of a sustainable resource recovery park together with associated plant and buildings, hard-standing, access routes and landscaping - to allow revision of details relating to the Biomass facility, subject to the conditions and for the reasons contained within Appendix B of the report of the Strategic Director for Communities and the additional condition now mentioned.

4. Planning Application: RBC/17CC010 Eastlands Primary School, Lansdowne Place, Rugby CV21 3RY

Sally Panayi, Planning Assistant presented the report to Members and confirmed that the temporary classroom was already in place at the school. This application is for the retention of the classroom for a further four years; the original application was for a period of three years which has now expired.

The original application was required to accommodate an extra 30 pupils at the school. Permission for the temporary classroom was granted for three years due to the possibility that further, permanent, expansion at the school may be needed (at which point the temporary classroom would be removed). There has been no need for permanent expansion but the original bulge class will remain at the school for another four years until the pupils complete Year 6.

Councillor Adrian Warwick moved the recommendation and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Jenny Fradgely.

A vote was held and the Committee voted unanimously in favour of approving the application.

Resolved

That the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission for the retention of a single temporary classroom for a further period of 4 years, subject to the conditions and for the reasons contained within Appendix B of the report of the Strategic Director for Communities.

2017-10-10 Regulatory minutes 2 of 3

5. Planning Application: SDC/17CC011 River House School, Stratford Road, Henley-in-Arden B95 6AD

Sally Panayi, Planning Assistant presented the report to Members and stated that there are presently no defined boundaries to the south and east of the school. The following points were also made –

• The fence would be of a similar style to one elsewhere on the site. • The erection of the fence would not require the removal of any trees • It is not mandatory for schools to have security fences at this point in time but it is a recommendation of the Police.

Councillor Adrian Warwick moved the recommendation and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Alan Webb.

A vote was held and the Committee voted unanimously in favour of approving the application.

Resolved

That the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission for the erection of 2.4 metre high security fence at River House School (to be Arden Fields School), Stratford Road, Henley-in-Arden, subject to the conditions and for the reasons contained within Appendix B of the report of the Strategic Director for Communities.

The meeting closed at 11:27am

....………………………….. Chair

2017-10-10 Regulatory minutes 3 of 3

Item 2

Regulatory Committee – 5 December 2017

Applications Dealt w ith Under Delegated Pow ers between 25 September 2017 and 21 November 2017

Recommendation

That the Regulatory Committee notes the content of the report

1. Delegated Powers

C. APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATED POWERS BETWEEN 25 SEPTEMBER 2017 – 21 November 2017 Application reference Site location & proposal Decision date & valid date electoral division case officer

NWB/16CM022/MW Coleshill Sewage Treatment Works Approved 21/11/2016 Lichfield Road 12 Oct 2017 Coleshill Water Orton Installation of Interim Sludge Dewatering Coleshill Facility and the relocation of Sludge Destruction Plant and Grit Plant to accommodate the proposed route for High Speed 2 (HS2).

NWB/17CM017/SP Severn Trent Water Ltd Approved 07/08/2017 Marconi Way Coleshill Birmingham 12 Oct 2017 Installation of a biomethane gas to grid plant, Coleshill North & located within the operational boundary of the Water Orton existing Coleshill Sewage Treatment Works.

SDC/17CM018/TE Ragley Quarry Approved 15/08/2017 Dunnington Salford Priors Evesham 3 Nov 2017 Variation of Conditions no.4 & 5 of permission Bidford & Welford ref: S2141/98CM025 to allow importation of soil conditioner.

SDC/17CM019/TE Ragley Quarry Approved 15/08/2017 Dunnington Salford Priors Evesham 3 Nov 2017 Variation of Conditions no.1 & 37 of Bidford & Welford permission ref: S2141/07CM032 to allow importation of soil conditioner.

1 of 1

02 Delegated Decisions Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017

Item 3

Regulatory Committee – 5 December 2017

Construction of Landscaping Bund on Land to the West of the Fishery Facility Marston Fields Farm, Kingsbury Road, Lea Marston

NWB/17CM015

Application No.: NWB/17CM015

Advertised date: 13 July 2017

Applicant George Baines Marston Fields Farm Kingsbury Road Marston Sutton Coldfield B76 0DP

Agent(s) Mr Mark Walton WYG 54 Hagley Road Edgbaston Birmingham B16 8PE

Registered by: The Joint Managing Director (Communities) on 30 June 2017

Proposal: Construction of landscaping bund on land to the west of the fishery facility at Marston Fields Farm

Site & location: Marston Fields Farm, Kingsbury Road, Lea Marston, Sutton Coldfield, B76 0DP. [Grid ref: 420114.294770].

See plan in Appendix A

1 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Recommendation

That the Regulatory Committee authorises the refusal of planning permission for the construction of a landscaping bund on land to the west of the fishery facility at Marston Fields Farm, Kingsbury Road, Lea Marston for the following reasons:

• The proposed landscaping bund is not appropriate development within the Green Belt. The design, scale and permanent nature of the bund would adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt in the long term and very special circumstances of sufficient weight do not exist to outweigh this harm. Construction of the bund would generate HGV traffic on the local highway network which by the nature of the development could adversely impact upon the condition of the highway on amenity and safety grounds. The application has not demonstrated that these impacts would be adequately controlled. Additionally the application has not demonstrated an overriding need for the waste to be disposed of in this way or that significant environmental benefits would result from the development. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policies CS2, CS7, DM1, DM2, and DM3 of the Warwickshire Waste Core Strategy, policies NW3, NW10 and NW12 of the North Warwickshire Borough Core Strategy and saved policies ENV11 and ENV14 of the North Warwickshire Borough Local Plan. No material considerations of sufficient weight exist to indicate that the application should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan.

1. Application details

1.1 This application proposes the construction of a landscaping bund on land to the west of the recently constructed Fishery Facility at Marston Fields Farm, Kingsbury Road, Lea Marston. The landscaped bund would be sited between the fishery and land to the west which will be impacted upon by the construction of the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway line.

1.2 The proposed bund would extend 730 metres in length in a north-south direction along the western boundary of the fishery. The bund would extend up to 45 metres in width and 6 metres in height. The bund would occupy an area of just over three hectares.

1.3 The proposed bund would be created using around 100,000 tonnes of imported soils and subsoils (inert waste materials), sourced from the local area.

1.4 The bund would be constructed over a nine month period with works taking place between 0800 and 1700 hours Monday to Friday.

2 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 1.5 Importation of the material to the site to create the bund would equate to an average of three HGVs accessing the site per hour (six vehicle movements per hour). Over a nine hour working day this would equate to an average of 27 HGVs accessing the site daily (54 vehicle movements per day).

1.6 Access would be gained to the site via an existing access onto the Kingsbury Road. This access was used by HGVs to enter and exit the site during construction of the fishery lakes.

1.7 The application states that the proposed bund would be ‘graded’ into the existing landform to bring forward a structure that does not appear ‘engineered’. The top and sides of the bund would be planted with native species in order to reduce the impact of the bund. The north- eastern slope of the bund would be planted with a ‘copse’ of woodland native species and shrubs.

1.8 The intention is for the landscaped bund to be retained in the long term as a permanent landscape feature.

1.9 The proposed development would require an Environmental Permit which would be issued and administered by the Environment Agency.

1.10 The application states that the proposed bund would shelter the fishing ponds from prevailing south westerly winds and screen the facility together with the adjacent Marston Fields Farmhouse from noise, disturbance and visual intrusion associated with the HS2 24 hour Kingsbury Road Railhead facility that is being proposed by the Government on land adjacent to the site.

1.11 The approved proposals in the HS2 Act include for the provision of a landscaping bund between the fishery at Marston Fields Farm and the Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility at Lea Marston. The applicant wishes to undertake the construction works for the landscaping bund prior to the opening of the fishery, envisaged for March 2018, and to provide sufficient opportunity for the proposed landscape planting on the bund to fully mature prior to the commencement of operations associated with the Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility.

2. Consultation

2.1 North Warwickshire Borough Council (Planning) – object to the proposal for the following reasons:

The site is in the Green Belt. The proposal is an engineering operation that is not appropriate development. This is because it will have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt due to its size and shape. The level of harm is considered to be moderate. The applicant has put forward the planning consideration which he believes would outweigh this harm – namely that a bund of the same appearance and

3 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 dimensions is to be provided in any event under a separate planning permission, that for HS2. All he wishes to do is to bring the implementation forward.

There is clearly some weight to this argument. However it is not overriding. Firstly it would involve HGV movements that are not necessarily required in the construction of the HS2 bund. This is unsustainable. Secondly, the HS2 bund is a temporary measure – it is wholly a mitigation measure in association with the rail yard. Whilst this is likely to be present for 16/17 years it is still a temporary arrangement and once the rail yard goes, the mitigation is no longer required. Members will know that the two most important attributes of the Green Belt are its openness and its permanence. The bund now being proposed would not be temporary.

In these circumstances there is a case here for an objection being lodged. Even if HS2 has no objection, that is only in relation to its own interest which here does not equate with that of the Local Planning Authority.

2.2 North Warwickshire Borough Council (EHO) – no comments received.

2.3 Lea Marston Parish Council – no comments received.

2.4 Councillor David Reilly – objects to this application for the following reasons:

1. The site is designated for use by HS2 as a Railhead and the bund that HS2 will build on this site will be a temporary structure. The applicant intends this structure to be permanent. Currently the Railhead will operate until 2026 during Phase 1 after which restoration of the site will be considered. This will extend to 2033 if Royal Assent is granted for Phase 2b.

2. The existing road infrastructure is not capable of managing vehicle movements that will be required to import 100,000 tonnes of spoil.

3. The site is within the Green Belt and no case of significant need has been demonstrated in the application.

4. The applicant continues to operate unlawfully in contravention of planning permissions on this site.

2.5 Western Power Distribution/National Grid – no comments received.

4 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 2.6 HS2 Limited – The applicant’s supporting planning statement rightly states that proposals for High Speed 2 are being brought forward, on behalf of the UK Government, by HS2 Ltd. The enacting Phase One HS2 Bill received Royal Assent on 23rd February 2017 and the approved proposals in the HS2 Act include for the provision of a landscaping bund between the application site and the proposed Kingsbury Road Railhead facility at Lea Marston. See HS2 ‘Railhead in Operation – Mitigation’ plan submitted in support of the application for further details.

In terms of the applicant’s justification for the proposed development it is noted that the proposal will complement the extant fishery planning permission by the construction of a landscaped bund on the western boundary of the proposed fishery. The proposed bund will also shelter the fishing ponds from prevailing south westerly winds and screen both that facility and the adjacent Marston Fields Farmhouse from the proposed Railhead.

Due to the above interface, the planning statement also rightly refers to the extensive discussions which have taken place between the applicant and HS2 Ltd with regard to the design and location of the proposed landscaped screening bund. As a result of that dialogue and following internal assessment of the application, HS2 Ltd confirms that the proposals accord with the aforementioned proposed mitigation works for the railhead and accordingly there are no objections to the proposed development from a safeguarding perspective.

In terms of other material planning considerations and mitigation measures, a number of construction programme milestones for the proposed development are referenced in the planning assessment as follows:

• Para 1.1.5 – undertaking of construction works prior to opening of the consented fishery development, envisaged March 2018.

• Para 4.2.16 – construction completed within 6 month period to accord with completion of the fisheries development.

• Para 5.19 – works will be completed within 9 months of commencement of development.

In light of the interface outlined above and in order to secure that HS2 Ltd has some ongoing control and influence in respect of the detailed design and progress of the application, in the event that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, the inclusion of the following conditions (or similar alternatives) and informative are required in order to protect the delivery of HS2:

5 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Conditions:

1. None of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until detailed design and construction method statements including gradient, dimensions, details of planting species and drainage arrangements for the proposed landscaped screening bund have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in liaison with HS2 Ltd.

2. The design and method statement/s to be submitted under the above condition, shall include arrangements to secure that, during any period when concurrent construction is taking place of both the development hereby permitted and of the HS2 works, the construction of the HS2 works are not impeded. The scheme hereby approved shall not be implemented other than in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in liaison with HS2 Ltd.

Reasons: To safeguard the HS2 programme and to protect HS2 assets.

2.7 Environment Agency – no comments received.

2.8 WCC Flood Risk Management – no objection.

2.9 WCC Highway Control – no objection. From existing activities on the site, the existing access is considered sufficient to serve the proposal in terms of HGV access and the additional number of HGV movements associated with the proposal; will not have a significant impact on the public highway network. It is recommended however that a Construction Management Plan be provided to deal with matters such as limiting the amount of HGVs accessing the site at any one time and keeping the public highway clear of mud and other debris which will be hazardous to other road users.

2.10 WCC Archaeology – no comments to make on this proposal.

2.11 WCC Ecology – no comments received.

2.12 WCC Landscape – I am concerned that the proposed bund will have an engineered appearance. It needs to vary in its overall height and profile.

The Masterplan (drawing AE1316-01) indicates scattered groups of scrub planting along the top and on the slopes of the bund with Birch and Scots Pine tree planting limited to the edges of the eastern slope to avoid obstructing the high voltage power lines. Scots Pine may occur within neighbouring properties but it is not typical of the Arden landscape and can draw the eye towards the development that it is trying to screen.

6 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 The accompanying sections infer more tree planting than is actually proposed on the Masterplan. It is not clear whether the adjacent proposed mixed woodland and shrubby species will be on the lower part or at the base of the eastern slope.

Even if the bund is constructed and planted this winter tree planting is unlikely to be mature before the construction of the rail head begins. I would suggest that the birch trees proposed for the bund are planted at a larger size than the transplants indicated so they have a more immediate impact.

In order to help the scrub establish it would be prudent to include a grassland mix within the area to be planted to help suppress weed growth. The scrub planting includes Hypericum androsaemum which is not native to this region or the Arden Parklands landscape type and should be substituted for something that is more akin to heathy vegetation.

The native hedgerow planting includes Crataegus laevigata 'Paul's Scarlet' is inappropriate for native hedgerow planting and should be replaced with native hawthorn.

2.13 WCC Rights of Way - As recognised in the application, a public bridleway (M23a) passes close to the northern end of the proposed location of the bund. The Rights of Way team has no objection to the proposals but seek assurance that consideration has been given to drainage, in particular whether any measures may be required to ensure that water running off the bund does not drain onto and pool on the surface of the public bridleway.

3. Representations

3.1 None received.

4. Assessment and Observations

Background and Planning History

4.1 Marston Fields Farm has been the subject of many planning applications over the last 20 years, submitted to both North Warwickshire Borough Council (NWBC) and Warwickshire County Council (WCC) relating to various farm diversification proposals.

4.2 Planning permissions granted by NWBC include; creation of a new access onto the A4097, caravan storage, use of land as a touring caravan site, change of use of agricultural building to industrial use and various permissions, granted between 2005 and 2010, relating to the formation of six coarse fishing lakes.

7 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 4.3 Works to construct the lakes approved by NWBC took place over several years. In 2011 NWBC pursued enforcement action in respect of concerns they had with how the site was being developed, including inert waste materials being imported to and deposited on the site, the result being that all work ceased on site in August 2011 with the lakes incomplete.

4.4 In July 2013 the County Council granted planning permission (NWB/13CM004) to consolidate and regularise the previous planning permissions granted. This planning permission allowed underlying clay to be extracted and for the site to be restored to fishing lakes by using imported inert waste materials to engineer the site. The design and profile of the site evolved further as development and construction of the site continued during 2015/2016. As a result a further planning application submitted and approved in 2016 regularised the development as built. Construction of the five fishing lakes was substantially complete by late 2016. Landscape planting of the site and provision of the approved fishery car park and fishery building (welfare/admin/shop/café/machinery store) has yet to be undertaken.

4.5 It is understood that the lakes have recently been stocked with fish. The applicant advises that it is intended to open the fishery to the public in March 2018.

4.6 The route of the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway line, which received Royal Assent in February 2017, lies a short distance to the west/north of the Marston Fields Farm Fishery Facility site. Construction of HS2 includes the provision of a railhead facility (Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility) on land lying immediately to the west of the Fishery facility. It is understood that the Railhead Facility would be a temporary development and would be removed upon completion of HS2.

Site and Surroundings

4.7 Marston Fields Farm is located on the western edge of the village of Marston, midway between Kingsbury and Junction 9 of the M42. The surroundings are generally agricultural in character, but also include leisure and recreational uses. The Fishery site occupies former agricultural land and gently rises in a northerly direction. The site is located immediately to the north of the A4087 Kingsbury Road, from which it is accessed.

4.8 To the west of the site lie the buildings associated with Marston Fields Farm and dwellings centred around the Old Kingsbury Road on the edge of Marston. A modern agricultural building on the edge of the site is now in commercial/business use, Marston Caravan and Camping Park is situated to the south-east of the site and Lea Marston Hotel is located to the south of the site on the opposite side of the Kingsbury Road. Public Bridleway M23a adjoins the northern boundary of the site.

8 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 4.9 Residential properties tend to be focussed towards the eastern side of the site on the edge of the village of Marston, although other isolated dwellings lie to the south and west of the site. Other than the applicant’s property, the nearest residential dwellings are situated around: 125 metres to the west (Wheatley House), 200 metres to the south-east (Cabot Lodge) and 225 metres to the east (Sans Souci) from the site of the proposed landscaped bund development respectively.

4.10 The proposed landscaped bund would be sited to the west of the recently completed fishing lakes adjacent to and in line with existing high voltage power cables and pylons. The proposed HS2 Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility would be site immediately to the west of the proposed landscaped bund.

Planning Policy Context

4.11 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF explains that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and what that means. What the presumption means in relation to a planning application is that proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay but where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date then permission should be granted unless:

– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

– specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

In this case, there is a development plan in place which has relevant policies that are considered to be up-to-date so far as they relate to this proposal. Therefore, the application should be determined (as required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) in accordance with those policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.12 The Development Plan relevant to the proposal consists of the ‘saved’ policies of the North Warwickshire Local Plan 2006, the Local Plan for North Warwickshire – Core Strategy adopted October 2014 and the adopted Warwickshire Waste Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 – 2028 adopted July 2013.

9 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 National Planning Policy

4.13 At a national level the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems and seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

4.14 The application site is located within the West Midlands Green Belt. The NPPF sets out national guidance in respect of Green Belts and states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The NPPF reaffirms the Government’s commitment to maintaining and protecting Green Belts and states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to preserve openness. The guidance sets out five purposes of Green Belts: to check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and to assist in urban regeneration.

4.15 The NPPF makes it clear that, as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The NPPF states that, when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

4.16 The NPPF states that certain forms of development, including engineering operations, are not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt.

4.17 The NPPF makes it clear that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity. It goes onto state that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. The NPPF seeks the planning system to take a positive approach to sustainable new development in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity, in order to support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside.

4.18 The NPPF makes it clear that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good

10 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

4.19 The NPPF states that in meeting development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.

4.20 The NPPF makes it clear that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impact of the use, rather than the control of the processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.

4.21 It goes on to state that, planning policies and decisions should; amongst other things, aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development and mitigate and reduce such impacts, including through the use of conditions.

4.22 The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) sets out detailed planning policies in respect of waste development. The NPPW sets out the Government’s ambition to work towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource reuse and management, including driving waste management up the waste hierarchy. In determining planning applications waste planning authorities are required to ensure that waste management facilities are well designed, so that they contribute positively to the character of the area in which they are located. The policy also reaffirms that waste planning authorities should also work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. When determining waste planning applications, the NPPW requires waste planning authorities to consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity against criteria including; visual impact, traffic and access, air emissions including dust, odours, noise, litter, potential land use conflict, etc.

Local Planning Policies

Warwickshire Waste Core Strategy

4.23 The adopted Waste Core Strategy sets out policies in respect of directing future waste development. The policies contained within this document reflect the national government planning policy of producing less waste, and to reuse it as a resource where possible. Policy CS1 – Waste Management Capacity, seeks to ensure that there is sufficient

11 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 waste management capacity provided to manage the equivalent of waste arising in Warwickshire.

4.24 Policy CS2 – The Spatial Waste Planning Strategy for Warwickshire seeks waste management facilities to be well located in accordance with identified broad locations (The application site is located within close proximity to Coleshill a primary settlement and one of the broad locations identified for new waste facilities), where individual sites are well located to sources of waste, are well located to the strategic transport infrastructure and do not have significant adverse environmental impacts. Particular preference is shown to; mineral sites and previously developed land.

4.25 Policy CS7 – Proposals for Disposal Facilities (meaning facilities primarily consisting of disposal by landfill or incineration) states that such facilities will only be approved where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed facility is needed and will not prejudice the management of waste further up the Waste Hierarchy. Proposals for the landfilling of waste, or landraising, will not be acceptable unless it is demonstrated that:

(i) the waste cannot be managed by alternative methods that are higher up the Waste Hierarchy; and

(ii) there is an overriding need for waste to be disposed of through landfilling or landraising: and

(iii) significant environmental benefits would result from the proposal; and

(iv) it does not divert significant quantities of material away from the restoration of mineral workings or permitted landfill sites.

4.26 Policy DM1 – Protection of the Natural and Built Environment seeks new waste development to protect the natural and built environment by ensuring that there are no adverse impacts upon, amongst other things, natural resources, biodiversity, the quality and character of the landscape, and adjacent land uses or occupiers. The policy also requires development proposals to satisfy Green Belt policies.

4.27 Policy DM2- Managing Health and Amenity Impacts of Waste Development, relates to environmental controls and states that waste management proposals will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the development will have no significant adverse impacts on the local environment or communities through, amongst other things,

12 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 noise, visual intrusion, odour, dust, emissions, traffic, etc. The policy goes on to state that planning permission will not be granted for waste management proposals where by reason of the collective impact of different proposals or by reason of a number of impacts for the same development, the proposal has an unacceptable cumulative impact.

4.28 Policy DM3 – Sustainable Transportation requires proposals to demonstrate that the proposal facilitates sustainable transportation by, amongst other things, demonstrating that there are is no unacceptable adverse impact on the safety, capacity and use of the highway network.

4.29 Policy DM4 – Design of New Waste Management Facilities, requires, amongst other things, the design of new waste management facilities to demonstrate appropriate scale, density, massing, height, landform and materials, retain and enhance existing landscape features where possible and ensure safe vehicle movements.

4.30 Policy DM8 – Reinstatement, restoration and aftercare requires proposals for waste management uses in the open to include satisfactory provision for high quality reinstatement or restoration of the site and the long term management of its afteruse.

Local Plan for North Warwickshire – adopted Core Strategy.

4.31 The Core Strategy sets out policies that relate specifically to this part of Warwickshire. Core Policy NW1 ‘Sustainable Development’ states that planning applications which accord with the policies in this core Strategy will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policy NW2 ‘Settlement Hierarchy’ directs development to the main settlements. NW3 ‘Green Belt’ defines the extent of the West Midlands Green Belt. The supporting text states that within Green belts the primary aim is to maintain the open nature of the area and there is a general presumption against development that is inappropriate.

4.32 Core Policy NW10 ‘Development Considerations’ sets out the development considerations to be addressed and these include the need to avoid and address unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenities, manage the impacts of climate change, protect the quality and hydrology of ground or surface water sources and seek to maximise opportunities to encourage re-use and recycling of waste materials, both in construction and operation. Core Policy NW12 ‘Quality of Development’ says that all development proposals must demonstrate a high quality of sustainable design that positively improves the individual settlement’s character; appearance and environmental quality of an area. Core Policy NW13 ‘Natural Environment’ says that the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural environment will be protected and enhanced. Core Policy NW17 ‘Economic Regeneration’ states that the

13 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 delivery of employment generating uses, including the redevelopment of existing employment sites and farm diversification, should reflect the need to broaden the employment base, improve employment choice and opportunities for local people.

North Warwickshire Borough Local Plan 2006

4.33 The saved policies of the North Warwickshire Borough Local Plan set out other policies that relate specifically to this part of Warwickshire. Core Policy 10 ‘Agriculture and the Rural Economy’ seeks to support agriculture and promote agricultural diversification to underpin the rural economy. Policy ENV14 ‘Access Design’ states that development will only be permitted where vehicular access to the site is safe and the local road network is able to accommodate traffic from the development without causing congestion or adversely affecting road safety. Policy ECON8 ‘Farm Diversification’ supports diversification proposals providing that, amongst other things, there would be no adverse impact upon the character of the surrounding natural and historic environment and no demonstrable harm would be caused to the living or working conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Policy Considerations

4.34 The starting point in terms of consideration of this application is the need to acknowledge that the approved HS2 Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility, which is to be constructed adjacent to Marston Fields Farm Fishery, includes the provision of an almost identical landscaped bund in this location as part of the mitigation measures. Thus with or without the current proposal a bund of similar scale and appearance to that now proposed will to be constructed in this location if the Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility is developed in the form approved by the HS2 Act.

4.35 The applicant seeks to complete the bund at this time in advance of the Fishery opening in order to limit disturbance and interruption that may result from the development and operation of the Railhead Facility. Thus the applicant is seeking to limit any potential interruption to use of the fishing lakes and adverse impacts upon the viability of the fishery as a business and leisure use. This gains some policy support in terms of supporting the rural economy and economic growth.

4.36 Set against this the application site is located within the Green Belt. The proposed development is an engineering operation which is not appropriate development. The size and shape of the landscaping bund would adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. The applicant suggests that the presence of the fishery and the proposed HS2 Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility represent ‘very special circumstances’ in favour of the development coming forward at this time where construction impacts can be minimised and a defined landscaped boundary can be developed. In essence it is argued that a

14 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 bund of the same appearance and dimensions is to be provided as part of the HS2 development and bringing the implementation forward early would be beneficial and result in no greater impact upon the Green Belt. There is clearly some weight to this argument, although it is by no means overriding. The bund now proposed would be a permanent feature within the landscape and thus would impact upon openness of the Green Belt in perpetuity. The HS2 Act bund would be mitigation whilst the Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility, which is a temporary landuse whilst the HS2 is being constructed, remains in operation. In this respect it was understood that the HS2 bund would be a temporary feature in the landscape. Notwithstanding this understanding, in response to this specific question HS2 advise that, ‘if the bund were built as part of the HS2 it is likely that it would be retained as part of a wider landscape mitigation/habitat creation and connectivity feature’. HS2 also advise however that, ‘it should however be noted that the plans (identified within the Environmental Statement) are indicative only and can be subject to change within the limits of the Act. …. Until such a time as there is a formal Plans and Specifications request made to the Local Planning Authority for approval of any earthwork then the Environmental Statement drawings should not be relied upon as being the definitive proposal for development’. It is therefore apparent that a degree of uncertainty remains regarding the exact form the bund to be created by HS2 will take and whether or not it would be a temporary or permanent landscape feature.

4.37 The proposed development would involve importing the 100,000 tonnes of soils and subsoils required to construct the bund to the site by road from yet to be determined construction sites. If HS2 were to construct the bund it is assumed, and highly probable, that it would be constructed of soils and subsoils stripped from the HS2 construction site itself and transported to the bund site directly by dumper rather than imported in by road haulage. The nature of such developments where materials are transported to the site by HGV using the local road network can adversely impact upon the condition of the highway on amenity and safety grounds as a result of the deposit of mud and debris on the highway. Construction of the fishing lakes resulted in complaints regarding the condition of the highway periodically as the result of mud and debris being tracked out onto Kingsbury Road. The submitted planning application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that these impacts would be adequately controlled. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policies DM2 and DM3 of the Waste Core Strategy for Warwickshire.

4.38 Policy CS7 relates specifically to proposals for disposal facilities and sets out specific circumstances when such facilities will be approved:

(i) the waste cannot be managed by alternative methods that are higher up the Waste Hierarchy; and

15 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 (ii) there is an overriding need for waste to be disposed of through landfilling or landraising: and

(iii) significant environmental benefits would result from the proposal; and

(iv) it does not divert significant quantities of material away from the restoration of mineral workings or permitted landfill sites.

Where any landfill or landraise proposals do not meet all four criteria, the proposal will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that landfilling or landraising at that location will deliver overriding community or environmental benefits to justify granting planning permission. The submitted planning application has not demonstrated that the proposed development meets these criteria or that the development would deliver overriding community or environmental benefits to justify the granting of planning permission. The proposal therefore does not accord with policy CS7 of the Waste Core Strategy.

Residential Amenity

4.39 The activities and equipment involved with the construction of the proposed bund would by their nature result in a degree of upheaval and adverse impacts locally. Works undertaken on site in recent years to create the fishing lakes did periodically result in complaints from nearby residents concerned about , amongst other things, noise, mud on the highway, visual appearance of the site, etc. It is acknowledged that construction of the bund by HS2 would result similar impacts. However, this would be seen and managed in the overall context of the HS2 construction project rather than the standalone development now proposed.

Visual/Landscape Impact

4.40 In visual terms there would be short term impacts related to construction works and long term visual impacts in respect of the landscape impact of completed landscaped bund.

4.41 Construction of the fishing lakes on site resulted in a disturbed landscape for many years which was unsatisfactory and visually unacceptable. Development of the proposed bund would similarly result in a disturbed landscape during the construction phase. The elevated nature of the bund would exaggerate this impact. Notwithstanding this, construction of the bund by HS2 would result in the similar impacts.

4.42 In the long term the bund would appear engineered and unnatural in appearance. A planting scheme proposed would go some way to softening the appearance of the completed bund but would not take away its alien appearance. The bund now proposed would not be

16 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 sympathetic to the settling and is therefore not appropriate to be retained as a permanent feature in the landscape.

Highways/Traffic

4.43 The proposed development would generate vehicle movements during the construction period associated with the importation of waste materials to the site.

4.44 Vehicles would import waste materials onto the site via an existing access point off the A4097/Kingsbury Road. This access was previously used in association with creation of the fishing lakes and is suitable for the type and level of traffic the development would generate.

4.45 The nature of such developments where materials are transported to the site by HGV using the local road network can adversely impact upon the condition of the highway on amenity and safety grounds. Construction of the fishing lakes resulted in complaints regarding the condition of the highway periodically as the result of mud and debris being tracked out onto Kingsbury Road. The submitted planning application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that these impacts would be adequately controlled.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The bund now proposed is almost identical to one which is likely to be constructed in this location as part of the HS2 development. The applicant seeks to complete the bund at this time in advance of the Fishery opening in order to limit disturbance and that may result from the development and operation of the HS2 Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility. This has some logic but is by no means overriding or compelling.

5.2 The proposed landscaping bund is not appropriate development within the Green Belt. The design, scale and permanent nature of the bund would adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt in the long term and very special circumstances of sufficient weight do not exist to outweigh this harm. Construction of the bund would generate HGV traffic on the local highway network which by the nature of the development could adversely impact upon the condition of the highway on amenity and safety grounds. The application has not demonstrated that these impacts would be adequately controlled. Additionally the application has not demonstrated an overriding need for the waste to be disposed of in this way or that significant environmental benefits would result from the development.

17 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5.3 It is therefore considered that the proposed development is contrary to policy and therefore planning permission should be refused for the following reasons:-

6. Supporting Documents

6.1 Submitted Planning Application – Planning reference NWB/17CM015

6.2 Appendix A – Map of site and location.

Name Contact Information Report Author Matthew Williams [email protected] 01926 41 2822 Head of Service Mark Ryder [email protected] Joint Managing Monica Fogarty [email protected] Director (Communities) Portfolio Holder Cllr Jeff Clarke [email protected]

18 of 18

03 Marston Fields Farm Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Proposed Landscape Bund Fishing Lakes

HS2 Kingsbury Road Railhead Facility

Fishing Lakes

Application No.: NWB/17CM015 Marston Fields Farm, Landscaping Bunds

Warwickshire County Council Regulatory Committee:5 December 2017 Shire Hall Warwick, CV34 4SA Scale: 1:5000 Drawn by: Bee Yew-Booth Dept.:Communities Telephone: (01926) 410410 ´ www.warwickshire.gov.uk Item 4

Regulatory Committee - 5 December 2017

Erection of replacement front and rear boundary fence, Nursery Hill Primary School, Ansley Common, Nuneaton, CV10 0PY.

NWB/17CC013

Application No.: NWB/17CC013

Advertised date: 27 October 2017

Applicant(s) Mr Steve Smith Warwickshire County Council Head of Physical Assets - Resources Group Warwickshire County Council Shire Hall, Market Place Warwick CV34 4RL

Agent(s) Mr Danny Evans Warwickshire County Council Property Services – Resources Group Shire Hall Warwick Warwickshire CV34 4RL

Registered by: The Joint Managing Director (Communities) on 20 October 2017

Proposal: Erection of replacement front and rear boundary fence.

Site & location: Nursery Hill Primary School, Ansley Common, Nuneaton, CV10 0PY. [Grid ref: 431154.293706].

See plan in Appendix A

Recommendation

That the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission for the erection of replacement front and rear boundary fence subject to the conditions and for the reasons contained within Appendix B of the report of t The Joint Managing Director (Communities). 1 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 1. Application details

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the repair of the existing dwarf walls and replacement of the blue coloured railings on the front boundary of the school site. The proposed replacement railings would be green coloured (RAL 6005), solid bar, bow top metal railings, 1.8 metres in height.

1.2 The dwarf wall on the front boundary of the school is to be repaired and the new railings installed above. The western pedestrian access is to be removed while the eastern pedestrian gate and the vehicular gates would be replaced with new gates in their existing positions on the frontage. A ramp would provide level access between the public footpath and the playground, with a low wall and handrail constructed within the playground area. The replacement boundary treatment would be higher than the existing to ensure security for pupils at the school.

1.3 A key pad intercom linked to reception is to be installed on the 1.2 metre wide pedestrian gate on the front boundary to increase the level of security.

1.4 On the rear boundary of the school, the retaining wall which marks part of the boundary with the adjacent farmland is proposed to be repaired and an Aco Rain Drain channel installed within the playground area along the length of the rear boundary fence. The existing wooden palisade fencing would be replaced by 1.8 metre high galvanised steel, bow top railings. A bamboo screen would be attached to the railings within the school playground area.

1.5 The aim of the development would be to improve the safety and security for both pupils and the school premises in accordance with Ofsted Safe Guarding requirements.

1.6 Planning permission is required for the erection of a fence at a school premises if the height of the structure exceeds 2.0 metres in height (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order 2015, Part 2, Class A). In this case while the 1.8 metre high railings are below the permitted development limit of 2.0 metres, they are to be installed above the existing dwarf wall on the front boundary and would therefore in places be over 2.0 metres in height. On the rear boundary, the combined height of the replacement railings and the existing wall above the level of the neighbouring field exceeds the 2.0 metre permitted development limit. For these reasons planning permission is required for the fencing.

2 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 2. Consultation

2.1 North Warwickshire Borough Council – Planning: No objection

2.2 North Warwickshire Borough Council - Environmental Health – No comments received.

2.3 Ansley Parish Council – No objection: The Parish Council support any measures to improve the safety of the children and therefore has no objections to the proposals for the replacement fencing.

2.4 Councillor Margaret Bell – No comments received by 21 November 2017

2.5 WCC – Highways – No objection.

2.2 Site notice posted on 25 October 2017

2.3 8 nearest residential properties individually notified on 25 October 2017

3. Representations

3.1 Correspondence was received from the owner of the land to the rear of the school premises stating that in 1998 the playground fence was underpinned and in doing so encroached onto their land which has made it under productive ever since. If their land is wanted to get to the rear wall to repair it then a strip of land must be purchased before any work is started on repairs.

4. Previous Planning History

4.1 Planning approvals were granted for extensions to the main school in 1995 (NW/95/CC031) to provide four additional classrooms and in 2004 (NW/04/CC021) to create two additional classrooms.

4.2 Two temporary classrooms installed on the site prior to the 2004 application have been retained on the school site, the most northerly of which was subject of a planning application (NW/04/CC057) for retention for a further 5 year period, subject to a condition that the building be removed by 20 February 2010. The building has been retained on the school site to date.

5. Assessment and Observations

Location

5.1 Nursery Hill Primary School is located on the western edge of Ansley Common, north-west of Nuneaton. The school site is positioned on the northern side of Coleshill Road, B4114, with residential properties to the west, south and east. North of the school site is open farmland. 3 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5.2 The school is a traditional single storey brick built Edwardian building with tiled pitch roofs and a modern brickwork single storey extension to the west of the main building.

5.3 The school is positioned on a sloping site. The boundary to the front of the school facing on to Coleshill Road has a dwarf wall of varying height with blue painted railings over. The playground area between the front of the school and the road is at a lower ground level than the adjacent pavement. On the rear boundary of the school site, the ground levels of the agricultural land to the north are lower than the school site with the result that the existing wooden paling fence is set on a raised bank and in the eastern section, on a brick retaining wall.

Amenity and Environmental Issues

5.4 The school is surrounded to the west, east and south by residential dwellings, while to the north is agricultural open countryside. The area is not in the Green Belt and not in a Conservation Area.

5.5 The boundary fencing would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of either of the residential dwellings immediately adjacent to the school site. The comments raised by the land owner to the north of the school in relation to access to the land to carry out the necessary repairs to the retaining wall represent a neighbour dispute between the two parties; the landowner and the applicant. Such a dispute is a legal matter and not a planning consideration and would not be a reason either to refuse or not determine the application.

5.6 The choice of materials for the railings would be similar to those already in use at the school and not out of character for a school premises.

5.7 WCC Highways have raised no objection to the replacement fence and gates. It is noted that both the pedestrian and vehicular gates open into the school site and will not obstruct the public highway footway. The public footway was re-laid during the half term holiday in October 2017 and the two previous safety barriers between the school boundary and the kerb replaced with two larger barriers running along the majority of the school frontage.

Planning Policy

5.8 Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’.

4 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5.9 The Development Plan relevant to the proposal consists of the ‘saved’ policies of the North Warwickshire Local Plan 2006, the Local Plan for North Warwickshire – Core Strategy adopted October 2014 and the Warwickshire Waste Core Strategy Adopted Local Plan (July 2013).

National Planning Policy

5.10 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. The NPPF states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The Framework states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems and decision makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5.11 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials and create safe and accessible environments where crime and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

Local Plan Policies

North Warwickshire Adopted Core Strategy -Oct 2014

5.12 NW12 - Quality of Development states that all development proposals must demonstrate a high quality of sustainable design that positively improve the individual settlement’s character; appearance and environmental quality of an area.

North Warwickshire Borough Local Plan 2006

5.13 The following saved policies of the North Warwickshire Local Plan are considered to be relevant in the assessment of the proposed development.

5.14 ENV11 - Neighbour Amenity seeks to protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers from significant loss of amenity, including overlooking, loss of privacy or disturbance due to traffic, offensive smells, noise, light, dust or fumes.

5.15 ENV12 - Urban Design states that development will only be permitted if: (i) all elements of the proposal are well related to each other and harmonise with both the immediate setting and wider surroundings to present a visually attractive environment.

(iv) the design and layout reduces opportunities for crime. 5 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5.16 ENV13 - Building Design seeks to secure satisfactory standards of design and external appearance requiring that materials and detailing used respect and enhance local distinctiveness

5.17 ENV14 - Access Design requires safe and convenient access arrangements.

Analysis

5.18 The height and design of the replacement railing fence on the front boundary of the school premises is not significantly greater in height than could be erected as permitted development. It is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and no detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties.

5.19 The increase in height of the boundary fencing increases the security of the school and the safety of the pupils using the premises.

5.20 On the rear boundary, the increased height of the railing fence above that of the existing palisade fencing would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the area when viewed from the open land to the north of the school site. The fence would not be out of place when viewed against a background of the school buildings.

5.21 The design of the proposed replacement fencing would be in accordance with Policies NW12, ENV11, ENV12, ENV13 and ENV14 of the Local Plan and is considered to be acceptable.

6. Conclusions

6.1 The proposed replacement fencing on the southern and northern boundaries of the school site is considered to be of an acceptable scale and design and to accord with the provisions of the development plan and the NPPF. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

7. Supporting Documents

7.1 Submitted Planning Application – Planning reference NWB/17CC013

7.2 Appendix A – Map of site and location.

7.3 Appendix B – Planning Conditions.

6 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Name Contact Information Report Author Sally Panayi [email protected] 01926 41 2692 Head of Service Mark Ryder [email protected]

Joint Managing Monica Fogarty [email protected] Director (Communities) Portfolio Holder Cllr Jeff Clarke [email protected]

7 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Nursery Hill Primary School

Proposed Fence

B4114 Coleshill Road

Application No.: NWB/17CC013 - Erection of replacement front and rear boundary fence Nursery Hill Primary School, Ansley Common, Nuneaton, CV10 0PY

Warwickshire County Council Regulatory Committee: 5th December 2017 Shire Hall Warwick, CV34 4SA Scale: 1:2500 Drawn by: Bee Yew-Booth Dept.:Communities Telephone: (01926) 410410 ´ www.warwickshire.gov.uk

Appendix B.

Erection of replacement front and rear boundary fence, Nursery Hill Primary School, Ansley Common, Nuneaton, CV10 0PY.

NWB/17CC013

Planning Conditions.

1. The development hereby approved shall be commenced no later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the planning application forms, Design and Access Statement and drawings numbered 120409/2001/01A, 120409/2001/02A and 3.2-330- 067-001-001B submitted to the County Planning Authority on 20 October 2017 and any samples or details approved in accordance with the conditions attached to this permission, except to the extent that any modification is required or allowed by or pursuant to these conditions.

Reason: To define the permission and ensure the permission is retained in accordance with the submitted details.

Development Plan Policies Relevant to the Decision.

North Warwickshire Adopted Core Strategy -Oct 2014

NW12 - Quality of Development

North Warwickshire Borough Local Plan 2006 (Saved Policies)

ENV11 - Neighbour Amenity

ENV12 - Urban Design

ENV13 Building Design

ENV14 - Access Design

8 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

In considering this application the County Council has complied with paragraphs 186 and 187 contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 of 9

04 Nursery Hill School Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Item 5

Regulatory Committee - 5 December 2017

The temporary use of land for open-windrow composting of green waste and wood chipping with associated surface water lagoons, Ling Hall Quarry, Coalpit Lane, Lawford Heath.

RBC/17CM021

Application No.: RBC/17CM021

Advertised date: 5 October 2017

Applicant(s) Mr Adrian Foster, Veolia ES Landfill Limited The Old Paddocks New Works Telford Shropshire TF23 9HH

Agent(s) Ms Lauren Williamson Wardell Armstrong LLP 76 King Street Manchester M2 4NH

Registered by: The Joint Managing Director (Communities) on 21 September 2017

Proposal: The temporary use of land for open-windrow composting of green waste and wood chipping with associated surface water lagoons

Site & location: Veolia Environmental Services Limited, Ling Hall Quarry, Coalpit Lane, Lawford Heath, CV23 9HH. [Grid ref: 444603.273475].

See plan in Appendix A

1 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Recommendation

That the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission for the temporary use of land for open-windrow composting of green waste and wood chipping with associated surface water lagoons, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement to control the routing of vehicles to and from the Ling Hall Quarry site and to the conditions and for the reasons contained within Appendix B of the report of the Joint Managing Director (Communities).

1. Application details

1.1 The application seeks consent for the temporary use of land at Ling Hall Quarry for open-windrow composting of green waste and wood chipping with two surface water lagoons.

1.2 Planning permission (Ref: RBC/16CM021) for the temporary use of land for open-windrow composting of green waste and wood chipping with the installation of waste water storage tanks beneath the concrete composting pads was granted following a resolution by Regulatory Committee in February 2017 and the decision issued on 27 June 2017 following the signing of a Section 106 Agreement relating to vehicle routing.

1.3 The principle of the composting operation as a result of the previous planning consent has been accepted in this location. The difference between the planning application as approved and the application now proposed is the replacement of the underground storage tanks with two surface water lagoons. The lagoons would be positioned to the north of the previously approved concrete pads with the result that the red line site area of this application is larger than the previous.

1.4 The location and size of the concrete pads is as previously approved; 60 metres by 100 metres for the shredding/leaves and road sweepings area (Phase 1) and 60 metres by 60 metres for the PAS process pad (Phase 2).

1.5 The Planning Statement clarifies that the method of operation of the composting process, the quantities of waste to be delivered and exported from the site and the hours of operation would all be as approved in the previous planning application.

1.6 As the principle of the composting operation has been accepted on this site the consideration of the current application is centred on the principle of the creation of the two surface water lagoons which are ancillary to the approved composting operation.

2 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 1.7 The surface water lagoons would be 56.5 metres x 18 metres with a depth of 1.8 metres for Phase 1 (900 cubic metres volume) and 47 metres x 18 metres with a depth of 1.1225 metres (700 cubic metres volume) for Phase 2.

1.8 The concrete pad hardstanding area would be bounded by perimeter kerbing designed with a capacity to retain all liquid run-off based on a 100 year plus 30% storm event to ensure that no contamination leaves the site. All water within the site would be drained towards the two separate surface lagoons.

1.9 Suspended solids in the water drained into the lagoons would settle out. The lagoons would be periodically cleaned and the solids placed into the windrows for further processing. The water in the lagoons would be sprayed as necessary over the windrows as part of the composting process. Any excess water would be removed from the site via tanker to an appropriately licensed facility.

1.10 As previously approved, the development includes the provision of mobile shredding, screening and compost turning plant and associated equipment.

1.11 The hours of operation of the composting operation would be as previously approved and the same as those for the permitted landfill; 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday; 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays and with no working on Sundays, Bank Holidays or public holidays.

1.12 The Planning Statement informs that the composting operation would generate a total of three full time roles, one during Phase 1 and two additional positions once Phase 2 is operational.

1.13 The planning consent granted previously (RBC/16CM021) was subject to a number of pre-commencement conditions. The applicant has provided additional information with a view to avoiding the need for pre- commencement conditions on the current application. The previous conditions relate to:

Condition 6 – Odour Mitigation Scheme Condition 10 – Construction and Environmental Management Plan Condition 11 – Programme of Archaeological work Condition 12 – Surface water and foul water drainage scheme.

3 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 2. Consultation

2.1 Rugby Borough Council – Planning: No comment – advised to seek comments from Rugby Borough Environmental Health.

2.2 Rugby Borough Council – Environmental Health: No objection but initially commented that the conditions set out in the decision for application RBC/16CM021 should also be applied to this application as they remain relevant and the only change is to replace the underground tanks for waste water with surface water lagoons.

Due to the change from underground tanks to surface water lagoons an insect management plan is required to prevent a nuisance from occurring to the surrounding area.

The odour assessment carried out as part of the Air Quality Assessment has identified that the impact of odour exposure would be insignificant and that permit conditions will be in place to mitigate potential releases. However it has been deemed that the odour assessment is very theoretical and to provide a robust asessment there is an expectation to provide additional real data from similar processes and actual sites to seek to validate the results of the assessment. Therefore unless a more robust assessment is submitted prior to the commencement of the development an Odour Mitigation Scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. In addition the following conditions and advisory note should be attached to any succussful planning decision:

The applicant subsequently provided additional information (see paragraphs 5.46 to 5.50 below) to which the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) responded stating:

Having read through the submitted documents the EHO is satisfied that the consultant had negotiated the concerns and shown that they and their client are satisfied that there will be no issues in relation to odour and flies. They have also correctly identified that if issues do occur they will be dealt with under the permit regime which is regulated by the Environment Agency. For this reason the previously proposed pre- commencement conditons with regard to odour and to flies may be removed.

2.3 Coventry Airport: No comments received

2.4 Wolston Parish Council: No comments received

2.5 Long Lawford Parish Council: No comments received

4 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 2.6 Church Lawford Parish Council: Objection:

People who live (and work) in rural environments accept the many odours they are already subjected to e.g. from muck spreading on the fields. Many residents who live within range of the Coalpit Lane site could have their ability to enjoy the outdoors severely curtailed if pungent and noxious fumes from industrial scale composting are prevalent. The NPPF states that odour from development would only be acceptable if “adverse impact cannot be avoided or the adverse impacts have been avoided as far as possible.” The initial proposal for underground storage tanks seems to represent an obvious way of avoiding such adverse consequences.

The surface water lagoons will be of a considerable size, containing nearly 2 million litres of polluted surface water in Phase 1 and 1 million litres in Phase 2. The revised water storage method may be cheaper to install but will have a greater environmental impact with odours, emissions and risk of contamination. The Parish Council are aware of a similar plant at Brinklow and therefore challenge the impact as a comparison. One of the Parish Council’s main concerns is the impact on air quality and odour. The Air Quality report states that there would be no detectable odour impact for 98% of the hours of the year, but this would amount to 175 hours (7 days) a year when it would be detectable which would not be an insignificant amount of time especially in the summer when it is the norm to open windows.

2.7 Thurlaston Parish Council: No comments received as of 21 November 2017.

2.8 Councillor Howard Roberts: No comments received as of 21 November 2017.

2.9 Councillor Heather Timms: No comments received as of 21 November 2017.

2.10 Councillor Maggie O'Rourke: No comments received as of 21 November 2017.

2.11 Environment Agency: No comments received as of 21 November 2017.

2.12 WCC - Flood Risk and Water Management: No objection based on the drainage and surface water management details provided on 10 November 2017.

2.13 WCC - Highways: No objection.

5 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 2.14 WCC - Archaeology: Agree with the approach set out in the letter relating to archaeology submitted with the planning application, but further information would be necessary on the construction methodology before agreeing the stage at which the ‘watching brief’ would be implemented. A programme of archaeological work should be secured by an appropriately worded condition:

No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or sucessors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

2.15 WCC – Ecology: Agree with the safeguarding measures in the updated version of the Construction and Ecological Management Plan. Recommend attaching the following condition to any approval granted:

The development shall be timetabled and carried out to wholly accord with the detailed mitigation measures for the safeguarding of badgers, amphibians, reptiles and nesting birds within the site as set out in the document ‘Construction and Environmental Management Plan’ prepared by Wardell Armstrong in October 2017.

2.16 Site notices posted – 5 October 2017

2.17 Press notice posted on - 5 October 2017

2.18 35 nearest neighbouring properties individually notified on 5 October 2017

3. Representations

3.1 DK Group, Lawford Heath Industrial Estate: As neighbours to the landfill site currently (with smell and rubbish an almost constant issue), composting of green waste/wood chippings at another site locally could add to that issue if not controlled adequately.

3.2 An email received from Councillor Sally Bragg, Rugby Borough Ward Councillor for Wolston and the Lawfords raised a number of concerns in relation to the proposed development:-

• Changing from underground tanks for waste water to what appear very large surface water lagoons raises huge concern for residents (particularly homes in close proximity) being exposed to unpleasant odours and a reduction in air quality.

• Living in a rural area we are used to an odd day of farming odours when spreading the fields but this could be a far more frequent occurrence.

6 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 • In the summer of 2016, Brinklow, Binley Woods, Bretford and Church Lawford were inundated with flies which may have come from a similar plant at Brinklow – request that there be liaison with Rugby Borough Council Environmental Health to learn more of the ‘insect invasion’.

4. Previous Planning History

4.1 Planning consent was granted in February 2017 for the temporary use of land for open-windrow composting of green waste and wood chipping composting operation subject to conditions (Ref: RBC/16CM021). The red line of this previous application was smaller than the red line area of the current application.

4.2 Other planning consents on the Ling Hall site include the temporary consents granted for a concrete batching plant and a roadstone coating plant in 2010 (R16/10CM017 and R16/10CM018) and subsequently for their retention in 2016 for a further five years (RBC/16CM007 and RBC/16CM008).

4.3 Planning approval was granted in 2011 (RBC/11CM020) for a road sweepings recycling facility, conditioned to be removed from the site upon the cessation of landfill operations and the site restored in accordance with the provisions of the original consent (R16/890805).

4.4 Provision of an incinerator bottom ash recycling facility was approved in 2013 (RBC/13CM003). This consent has been implemented but the works not completed.

4.5 Planning approval was granted in 2014 for solar panels and associated infrastructure (RBC/14CM029) which is currently under construction.

4.6 Planning permissions have also been granted in the past for temporary recycling and composting operations within the landfill, although these consents were not implemented and have since elapsed.

4.7 The planning permissions for the concrete batching plant; the roadstone coating plant; the road sweepings processing plant; the bottom ash recycling facility and the previous consent for the composting operation are subject to a formal vehicle routing agreement secured via Section 106 Agreements.

7 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5. Assessment and Observations

Location

5.1 The application site forms part of the Ling Hall Quarry, which is located to the south-west of Rugby and west of Lawford Heath. The quarry is bounded to the west by Coalpit Lane, Ling Lane to the north and Lawford Heath Lane forming the eastern boundary. Access to the application site would as previously be via the existing access from Coalpit Lane.

5.2 The recycling operation has been previously approved to be located in the proximity of the northern end of the former north-south runway close to an area previously used for the extraction of sand and gravel. To the north and south of the site is the restored landfill area, with unrestored former sand and gravel quarry area to the east and a waterbody and wetland area to the south-west.

5.3 The Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy document submitted with the application states that the elevated ground levels of the site have been formed through backfilling of spoil material, primarily comprise of silts and clays. The ground levels would be reduced as a result of the proposed development with the silt removed to be used for restoration of the landfill.

5.4 The nearest residential properties to the west of Ling Hall Quarry are North Lodge and Badgers Close on Coalpit Lane within 400 metres of the application site. To the north of the application site on Ling Lane, Lawford Lodge Farm and the nearby Lawford Lodge Farm Cottage are within 500 metres. The dwellings of the settlement of Lawford Heath are located over 1 kilometre to the south-east.

5.5 Commercial properties are located to the east of the application site on the Lawford Heath Industrial Estate on Lawford Heath Lane within 500 metres and Bernhard’s Nursery on Coalpit Lane to the south of the application site is within 400 metres.

5.6 The site lies within the Green Belt and is designated as Flood Zone 1 by the Environment Agency.

Planning Policy

5.7 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF explains that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and what that means. What the presumption means in relation to a planning application is that proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay and, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, then permission should be granted unless:

8 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 • any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

• specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

In this case, there is a development plan in place which has relevant policies that are considered to be up-to-date so far as they relate to this proposal. Therefore, the application should be determined (as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) in accordance with those policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.8 The Development Plan relevant to the proposal consists of the Warwickshire Waste Core Strategy Adopted Local Plan (July 2013); the Adopted Rugby Borough Council Core Strategy – June 2011 and the saved policies of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan. The Rugby Borough Local Plan Publication Draft (Sept 2016) is the emerging policy document.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

5.9 The NPPF states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 187 of the Framework states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems and decision makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5. 10 The application site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states ‘inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.’ Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that ‘when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

5.11 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF lists the categories of development that are considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt including buildings for agriculture, sports facilities, limited extensions to buildings and limited infilling or the development of previously developed sites.

5.12 Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that other forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, including mineral extraction and engineering operations, provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. 9 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017

5.13 Paragraphs 110 and 111 of the NPPF state that in meeting development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value.

5.14 Paragraph 120 of the NPPF states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

5.15 Paragraph 122 of the NPPF makes it clear that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.

5.16 Paragraph 123 goes on to state that planning policies and decisions should aim to; avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW)

5.17 The Government published the NPPW in 2014 to be read in conjunction with the NPPF. The pivotal role of positive planning is emphasised in delivering the country’s waste ambitions towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management.

5.18 Waste Planning Authorities should:

● Consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity against the criteria set out in Appendix B of the NPPW and the locational implications of any advice on health from the relevant health bodies;

● Ensure that waste management facilities in themselves are well- designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located;

● Concern themselves with implementing the planning strategy in the Local Plan and not with the control of processes which are a matter 10 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 for the pollution control authorities. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced;

● Ensure that land raising or landfill sites are restored to beneficial after uses at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards through the application of appropriate conditions where necessary.

In determining planning applications, waste planning authorities should consider the criteria in Appendix B:

a) Protection of water quality and resources and flood risk management b) Land instability c) Landscape and visual impacts d) Nature conservation e) Conserving the historic environment f) Traffic and access g) Air emissions, including dust h) Odours i) Vermin and birds j) Noise, light and vibration k) Litter l) Potential land use conflict

Warwickshire Waste Core Strategy, Adopted Local Plan, July 2013

5.19 The Warwickshire Waste Core Strategy contains policies specific to directing future waste development including general development management policies which apply to all development proposals on waste sites. The Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.

5.20 Policy CS1 – Waste Management Capacity

The County Council will seek to ensure that there is sufficient waste management capacity provided to manage the equivalent of waste arisings in Warwickshire and, as a minimum, achieve the County's targets for recycling, composting, reuse and landfill diversion.

5.21 Policy CS2 – Spatial Waste Planning Strategy for Warwickshire

Preference will be given to proposals for waste management facilities on sites listed within the policy including sites operating under an existing waste management use, active mineral sites or landfills and previously developed land.

11 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5.22 Policy CS3 - Strategy for locating large scale waste sites (facilities managing 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum or more)

The policy states that new facilities will be located within or in close proximity to one of the listed primary settlements. While the proposed open windrow composting operation would be approximately 40,000 tonnes per annum, taken together with the other waste processes on the Ling Hall Quarry site the volume of waste would exceed 50,000 tonnes. The application site is located in close proximity to Rugby, one of the primary settlements listed and therefore considered to accord with this policy.

5.23 Policy CS5 – Proposals for reuse, recycling, waste transfer/storage and composting.

These activities will be encouraged provided that the proposals accord with all other relevant policies.

5.24 Policy DM1 – Protection and enhancement of the natural and built environment.

The policy states that new waste development should conserve and where possible enhance the natural and built environment by ensuring that there are no adverse impacts on natural resources, biodiversity, geodiversity, archaeology, heritage and cultural assets and their settings, the quality and character of landscape, adjacent land uses or occupiers and the distinctive character and setting of the County’s settlements and that the development satisfies Green Belt policies.

5.25 Policy DM2 – Managing Health and Amenity Impacts of Waste Development requires proposals to demonstrate that they would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the local environment, economy or communities through any of the following: noise, lighting/illumination, visual intrusion, vibration, odour, dust, emissions, contamination, water quality, water quantity, road traffic, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land or land instability.

5.26 Policy DM3 - Sustainable Transportation.

Developers must demonstrate that where road is the only viable method of transportation, that there is no unacceptable adverse impact on the safety, capacity and use of the highway network.

5.27 Policy DM6 – Flood Risk and Water Quality.

Planning permission will not be granted where waste management proposals would be at risk of flooding or would be likely to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

12 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017

5.28 Policy DM8 – Reinstatement, restoration and aftercare.

Planning permission will not be granted for waste management uses in the open unless satisfactory provision has been made for high quality restoration of the site.

Local Plan Policies

Rugby Borough Saved Local Plan Policies

5.29 Policy GP2 – Landscaping.

The policy requires the landscape aspects of a development proposal to form an integral part of the overall design.

5.30 Policy E6 – Biodiversity.

The policy requires the safeguarding, maintenance and enhancement of features of ecological importance, in particular priority habitats and species.

Rugby Borough Council – Core Strategy 2011

5.31 Policy CS1 (Development Strategy) states that development within the Green Belt will be resisted where national policy indicates it should be.

5.32 Policy CS16 (Sustainable Design) requires all development to demonstrate high quality, inclusive and sustainable design and will only be allowed where proposals are of a scale and design that would not cause any material harm to the qualities and character and amenity of the areas in which they are situated.

Policy Considerations

Green Belt

5.33 The application site is located within the Green Belt where the proposal represents inappropriate development as it does not fall within any of the exceptions to Green Belt policy set out in paragraph 89 of the NPPF. It is therefore necessary to determine whether there are material considerations which amount to ‘very special circumstances’ required by paragraph 87 of the NPPF.

13 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5.34 The previous planning approval for the composting operation on the site was granted following the conclusion that very special circumstances applied for the scheme as then submitted:

• There is a general need to move waste up the hierarchy in terms of increased recycling of waste that would otherwise be landfilled;

• The output material would help in the restoration of the landfill;

• The site is not a greenfield site and given the temporary nature of the development would ensure that the openness of the Green Belt would not be adversely impacted in the long term; • The proposed use has a strong link to existing uses in the site and co- location of activities would minimise amenity impacts;

• The use would be compatible with the nearest surrounding land uses;

• To locate the activity outside the Green Belt would be likely to result in development on greenfield land or at a significant distance away from Ling Hall.

5.35 The current application incorporates the addition of the two surface water lagoons which must also be considered against the Green Belt policy requirements.

5.36 The planning statement supporting the current planning application makes the following points to demonstrate very special circumstances:

• The need to move waste up the waste hierarchy in terms of increased recycling of waste that would otherwise be sent to landfill;

• Output material from the composting operation would be used in the restoration of the landfill in accordance with the approved restoration scheme;

• The site is located within an existing and active waste management facility and therefore can be considered as previously developed land and not a greenfield site until restoration is completed;

• The site is well screened, does not include above ground development and consequently would have only a limited impact on openness;

• The proposed development is temporary and its nature would ensure that the openness of the Green Belt would not be adversely impacted in the long term. On completion of the landfill, the hardstanding and the lagoons would be removed and the site restored in accordance with the existing planning consent for mineral extraction and landfilling (R16/890805);

14 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5.37 It is considered that the very special circumstances do continue to exist to allow development of the site to include the two surface water lagoons in the Green Belt.

Environmental and Amenity Issues

Neighbour Amenity

5.38 Planning policy seeks to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The amenity of neighbouring occupiers should be protected from any adverse impacts resulting from the development in terms of noise, visual impact, air quality (dust and odour) and traffic. The residential properties closest to the application site are North Lodge and Badgers Close some 400 metres to the south-west. Lawford Lodge Farm and Lawford Lodge Farm Cottage are approximately 500 metres to the north-east. South Lodge Farm is positioned to the south-west at a distance of over 900 metres while Blue Boar Farm and the residential dwellings at The Crescent are approximately 1 kilometre to the southeast.

5.39 The planning application is supported by technical assessments relating to noise, air quality, flood risk, ecology, and archaeology which have been updated since submission of the previous application to reflect the new application site area and the proposed surface water lagoons.

Visual Impact

5.40 Ling Hall Quarry is a large well established site that has operated for a number of years. The revised application site for the proposed composting is a small area within the larger site, located in a position that is visually screened from the majority of potential viewpoints into the site. The domed topography of the completed landfill to the north screens the site from view from Ling Lane. Similarly the topography of the landfill together with the established vegetation screens views from Coal Pit Lane. While there are more limited views into the site from the south and east, given the distance from a public vantage point and the vegetation in the area these are not considered to be significant. There are no buildings and no lighting proposed as part of the application. The previous planning application was considered to be acceptable in terms of visual impact. It is considered that the addition of the two surface water lagoons to the north of the approved concrete composting pads will have no greater visual impact and would be acceptable.

15 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Noise Generation

5.41 The Noise Assessment submitted with the application is an updated version of the Noise Assessment submitted with the previous planning application. The report as previously concludes that mitigation measures are considered unnecessary and noise should not pose a material constraint for the proposed open windrow composting facility.

5.42 Condition 37 of the original planning consent (Ref R16/89/0805) requires that associated operations, including recycling operations should not exceed the stipulated ambient noise levels measured one metre from the front of the relevant residential façade at a height of 1.2 metres.

5.43 Rugby Borough Council Environmental Health Officer has no objection to the revised composting scheme, but recommended that the conditions imposed on the previous planning consent should be applied to this application also as they remain relevant.

Air Quality

5.44 There are aspects of the current planning application including dust generated by the construction phase and the shredding and screening of composting materials that could result in Air Quality issues which were considered as part of the previous application and deemed to be acceptable.

5.45 A revised Air Quality Assessment submitted with the application again identified the sensitive receptor locations where the public may be exposed to dust or odour emissions from the site. The Assessment came to the same conclusions as the previous document stating that the impacts on air quality would be negligible and the effects are predicted to be insignificant and as such that air quality and odour would not be considered to represent material constraints on the development proposed.

5.46 The Rugby Borough Council Environmental Health Officer (EHO) raised no objection to the application but initially recommended that submission of an Odour Mitigation Scheme would be required by condition as it had for the previous approval granted.

5.47 In response to the initial comments from Environmental Health the applicant provided further information informing that the odour assessment had been based upon real data rather than being ‘very theoretical’ as stated by EHO. The odour emissions input into the modelling had been derived from odour samples collected at 40 plants processing and composting green waste. The dispersion modelling technique used the SCAIL model developed for the Environment Agency (EA). The applicant asserted that the assessment approach used is proportionately robust and that the conservative results 16 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 predicting insignificant effects are not considered to warrant further more detailed assessment.

5.48 The applicant made the point that the odour mitigation and management at the site is most suitably covered through the environmental permitting regime with regulation by the EA. The disadvantage of having two authorities to regulate an odour mitigation scheme as would result from the imposition of a planning condition, is that there may be future problems or conflict for example if the EA required an update to an odour mitigation scheme which would then no longer comply with the planning condition.

5.49 Comments and an objection received from a Rugby Borough Councillor raised the potential issue of insects as a result of the creation of the surface water lagoons. Mention was made of an ‘insect invasion’ during the summer of 2016 which may have been caused by the composting operation at nearby Brinklow Quarry. The Rugby Borough Council EHO had previously raised the issue of the potential of insects as a result of the lagoon and stated that he considered the provision of the two surface water lagoons as part of the composting operation in place of the underground tanks would require a condition to provide an Insect Management Plan. Additional information submitted by the applicant referred to the EA document ‘Fly management – how to comply with your environmental permit’ dated April 2013. The applicant stated that the concerns raised by both the local Councillor and the EHO relate to the waste material rather than the surface water lagoons. None of the six fly species that may cause a nuisance have an aquatic stage in their lifecycle and none would be expected to feed or breed within the lagoons. Further, while some of those fly species would be attracted to the green waste at the early stages following delivery, the regular turning as part of the composting process to provide even heating of the waste material would interrupt the life cycle of flies and prevent them from breeding. Currently the applicant operates 9 similar composting facilities across the country where fly nuisance has not been a problem. The composting process would be subject of an Environmental Permit to ensure that the site does not cause environmental problems.

5.50 Following consultation on the additional information submitted by the applicant, the EHO provided further comment stating that the previously proposed pre-commencement conditions with regard to odour and flies could be removed. It was recommended that an advisory note be added to any decision notice issued to inform that the mitigation in the planning application or the conditions of a permit do not necessarily prevent action being taken by the Local Authority or members of the public to secure the abatement, restriction or prohibition of statutory nuisances actionable under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or any other statutory provisions.

17 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Traffic and Highway Matters

5.51 The volume of vehicles proposed to use the site in association with the proposed amended composting operation and the hours of operation of the site are the same as those previously approved and for this reason are not considered again in this report.

5.52 Access for both construction vehicles and for vehicles associated with the proposed use would be via the existing access to the landfill from Coalpit Lane to the south-west of the application site.

5.53 Vehicles using the application site would access via the approved route set out in the Section 106 agreements that apply to the Ling Hall Quarry site. The agreement controls the routing of lorries towards the A45 and prohibits the use of Lawford Heath Lane unless making local deliveries, ensuring that the majority of vehicles have direct access to the main highway network without passing any residential properties. The previously approved composting application was issued when the S106 agreement had been revised. The current planning application would constitute a new permission on the site and for this reason it would be necessary for the S106 to be re-drafted to cover the revised operation.

Environmental Issues

Drainage and Flood Risk

5.54 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities, when determining planning applications, should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere; that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant and that priority is given to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

5.55 The application site is located entirely within Flood Zone 1 as categorised by the Environment Agency where the risk of flooding is at its lowest. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as the size of the proposed development is over 1 hectare.

5.56 The design of the composting development now proposes two surface water lagoons positioned to the north of the concrete composting pads. The perimeter of each of the concrete pads would be kerbed to retain surface water which would drain from the two pads via lined open drains to the individual lined lagoons. Water that collects in the lagoons would either be re-used within the composting facility to spray the windrows or managed by the site leachate system.

5.57 Any incidental rainfall to the composting area is considered to have the potential for contamination and would therefore be collected and managed before disposal.

18 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 5.58 The size and specifications of the two lagoons have been determined by the requirement to provide attenuation for events up to and including the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) plus 20% climate change 3 day rainfall event.

5.59 Flood Risk Management (FRM) stated that they had no objection to the amended composting scheme subject to a pre-commencement condition for a detailed surface water drainage scheme which should include a maintenance plan and a plan to provide information on the maximum depth to which water levels may reach before the lagoons are drained in order to ensure there is sufficient capacity within the lagoons to accommodate a 3 day rainfall event. The necessary surface water management and maintenance scheme details were subsequently submitted which FRM confirmed to be adequate to meet the previously suggested pre-commencement condition. A condition is recommended to ensure the development is implemented and maintained in accordance with the additional details submitted (Condition 10).

Ecology

5.60 A Preliminary Ecological Assessment dated September 2017 was submitted with the planning application which concluded that there would be a risk of the proposed works adversely impacting on some of the ecological receptors identified in the report, including badger, bats nesting birds reptiles and common toad. However, it would be possible to mitigate the impact on these species with precautionary working measures prior to and during construction.

5.61 The previous planning consent granted for the composting operation was subject to a pre-commencement condition requiring submission of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The necessary CEMP has been provided to meet this requirement with the aim of overcoming the need for the pre-commencement condition. The County Ecologist agreed with the safeguarding measures outlined in the CEMP but commented that the pre-checks should also be for great crested newts as required in the previous planning application. An amended CEMP has been subsequently provided which meets the recommendations of the County Ecologist who raises no objection to the application. A condition is recommended to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the CEMP (Condition 11).

19 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Heritage Assets

Archaeology

5.62 The proposed development lies within an area of significant archaeological potential, with field work undertaken across part of the application site having recorded a series of prehistoric archaeological features, including an Early-Middle Iron Age pit alignment and a Middle to Late Iron Age/early Romano-British curving ditch. There is the potential for the proposal to have an impact on any archaeological features which survive across the site. The applicant has suggested a programme of archaeological work comprising an archaeological watching brief during the ground reduction and the archaeological strip, map and sample of any areas not previously archaeologically excavated in order to mitigate any impact that the development could have on any archaeological features present across the site. The County Archaeologist has commented that in addition to the approach proposed, further information would also be necessary on the construction methodology before agreeing at which stage the ‘watching brief’ would be implemented. If significant archaeological features were identified during the course of fieldwork these would require full archaeological excavation. A condition is recommended in order to secure an acceptable programme of archaeological work (Condition 9).

6. Conclusions

6.1 While the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the existing use of the site and the benefits of the proposal are considered to constitute very special circumstances sufficient to justify approval. The composting operation and associated structures would be removed upon completion of landfilling, thus maintaining the openness of the Green Belt in the long term.

6.2 The proposed development differs from the previously approved composting application with the provision of two surface water lagoons located to the north of the approved concrete composting pads. The provision of the lagoons is considered to have no significantly greater impact upon the amenity of nearby residents by reason of visual impact, noise, dust and odour than the previously approved composting operation at the Ling Hall Quarry site.

6.3 The previous planning approval for the composting operation could be implemented if this application was not deemed to be acceptable.

6.4 The previous planning consent was subject to a legal agreement to control the routing of vehicles to and from the Ling Hall site. If the Regulatory Committee resolve to approve this application, it should again be subject to a legal agreement for vehicle routing.

20 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 6.5 There are very special circumstances in terms of Green Belt policy and the development is considered to accord with the NPPF and the Development Plan in all other respects and recommended for approval subject to planning conditions.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the application RBC/17CM021 be approved subject to:

(i) The applicant entering into a legal agreement to control the routing of vehicles to and from the Ling Hall Quarry site;

(ii) The planning conditions listed in Appendix B.

7. Supporting Documents

7.1 Submitted Planning Application – Planning reference RBC/17CM021

7.2 Appendix A – Map of site and location.

7.3 Appendix B – Planning Conditions.

Name Contact Information Report Author Sally Panayi [email protected] 01926 41 2692 Head of Service Mark Ryder [email protected]

Joint Managing Monica Fogarty [email protected] Director (Communities)

Portfolio Holder Cllr Jeff Clarke [email protected]

21 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Lawford Lodge Farm Cottage

Ling Lane

Application Site

e n a C L o h a t lp a i e t H L The Ryelands a Site d n r e Entrance fo w a L

The Crescent

Application No.: RBC/17CM021 - Open windrow composting of green waste & wood chipping with associated surface water lagoons Ling Hall Quarry, Coalpit Lane, Lawford Heath

Warwickshire County Council Regulatory Committee: 5th December 2017 Shire Hall Warwick, CV34 4SA Scale: 1:15000 Drawn by: Bee Yew-Booth Dept.:Communities Telephone: (01926) 410410 ´ www.warwickshire.gov.uk Appendix B.

The temporary use of land for open-windrow composting of green waste and wood chipping with associated surface water lagoons, Ling Hall Quarry, Coalpit Lane, Lawford Heath.

RBC/17CM021

Planning Conditions.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the planning application forms, Planning Statement dated September 2017, Noise Assessment dated September 2017, Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy dated September 2017, Air Quality Assessment dated September 2017, Preliminary Ecological Assessment dated September 2017, Construction and Environmental Management Plan dated October 2017, and drawings: site location plan numbered ST15852-001, Concrete Slab General Arrangement numbered ST15852-046B, Concrete slab and ditch sections numbered ST15852-052B and any samples or details in accordance with conditions attached to this permission, except to the extent that any modification is required or allowed by, or pursuant to, these conditions.

Reason: To define the permission and to ensure the permission is implemented in all respects in accordance with the submitted plans.

3. The open windrow composting facility shall be removed from the site upon cessation of landfill operations and the site restored in accordance with the provisions of planning permission R16/890805 or any subsequently approved restoration scheme.

Reason: To secure satisfactory restoration of the site.

22 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 4. None of the operations hereby permitted shall be undertaken except between the following hours unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority:

07:00 – 18:00 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 – 13:00 hours Saturdays

There shall be no operations on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect amenities of local residents.

5. No external lighting shall be used on the application site unless a detailed lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

6. Noise resulting from the development and operation of the facility, when measured one metre in front of the relevant residential façade at a height of 1.2 metres, shall not exceed the ambient noise levels set out in Appendix B.7.1 of the Environmental Statement relating to planning permission R16/890805.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents.

7. No loaded lorries shall enter or leave the site unless they are sheeted or the load is otherwise adequately secured.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents.

8. Reversing alarms on equipment or vehicles, including visiting contractor’s vehicles shall not be used unless they are of the broadband noise type or are of a type otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents.

9. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate opportunity is provided for archaeological research on this site.

23 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 10. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the details of the Surface Water Management and Maintenance Plan dated November 2017 and shall be maintained and managed after completion for the life time of the development.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality; to improve habitat and amenity; and to ensure the future maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures.

11. The development shall be timetabled and carried out to wholly accord with the detailed mitigation measures for the safeguarding of badgers, amphibians, reptiles and nesting birds within the site as set out in the document ‘Construction and Environmental Management Plan’ prepared by Wardell Armstrong in October 2017.

Reason: To ensure that protected species are not harmed by the development.

Notes to Applicant:

1. Warwickshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority does not consider oversized pipes or box culverts as sustainable drainage. Should infiltration not be feasible at the site, alternative sustainable drainage should be used, with a preference for above ground solutions.

2. Surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface water management. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are an approach to managing surface water run-off which seeks to mimic natural drainage systems and retain water on-site as opposed to traditional drainage approached which involve piping water off-site as quickly as possible.

3. The applicant is advised that the mitigation provided in the planning application or the conditions of a permit does not necessarily prevent action from being taken by the Local Authority or members of the public to secure the abatement, restriction or prohibition of statutory nuisances actionable under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or any other statutory provisions.

24 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Development Plan Policies Relevant to the Decision.

Warwickshire Waste Core Strategy, Adopted Local Plan, July 2013

Policy CS1 – Waste Management Capacity Policy CS2 – Spatial Waste Planning Strategy for Warwickshire Policy CS3 - Strategy for locating large scale waste sites Policy CS5 – Proposals for reuse, recycling, waste transfer/storage and composting Policy DM1 – Protection and enhancement of the natural and built environment Policy DM2 – Managing Health and Amenity Impacts of Waste Development Policy DM3 - Sustainable Transportation Policy DM6 – Flood Risk and Water Quality Policy DM8 – Reinstatement, restoration and aftercare

Rugby Borough Saved Local Plan Policies

Policy GP2 – Landscaping. Policy E6 – Biodiversity.

Rugby Borough Council – Core Strategy 2011

Policy CS1 (Development Strategy) Policy CS16 (Sustainable Design)

Compliance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

In considering this application the County Council has complied with paragraphs 186 and 187 contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

25 of 25

05 Ling Hall Quarry Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Item 6 Regulatory Committee

5 December 2017

Planning Enforcement Investigations

Recommendation

1. That Members note the information in this report.

1.0 Purpose

1.1 This report is to provide details on current active and recently resolved Planning Enforcement investigations by Warwickshire County Council Planning Enforcement where there has been either formal action taken by the Council or a planning application submitted.

1.2 This report does not cover matters being investigated by district or borough councils or other agencies or where the complaint has not been received by Warwickshire County Council.

1.3 Section 2.0 contains the current cases under investigation. The cases are divided by district.

1.4 Section 3.0 contains a list of recently resolved matters that are no longer under active investigation

1.5 Section 4.0 contains a list of sites on the regular regime of monitoring arranged by frequency of visit.

1 of 7

06 PUBLIC Enforcement Report Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 2. Planning Enforcement Cases

NORTH WARWICKSHIRE

Address Date Action to date Proposed Next reported Steps Daw Mill Colliery, July 2014 Planning application to Waiting for Daw Mill Lane, redevelop the site refused outcome of appeal Arley, CV7 8HS by NWBC. Appeal which will not be submitted; inquiry held before the end of Non-compliance February and May 2017. 2017 with restoration conditions Marston Fields December Lakes complete but issues Await outcome of Farm, Kingsbury 2014 of car park, landscaping and application Road, Marston, aftercare to be resolved. In NWB/17CM015 Sutton Coldfield, addition some works in and discharge of B76 0DP preparation for potential conditions future development carried Operating outside out, unconnected to lakes. of approved area, Details to resolve conditions hard surfacing; under consideration. planning conditions Application for bund also not discharged submitted. Field Brook Farm, July 2015 Letters and meeting late Appeal turned Spon Lane, 2015 early 2016. Advice away. Notice Grendon, CV9 2EX from Flood Risk compliance date is Management sought. May 2018. Importation of inert Planning Contravention waste to create Notices issued and replies balancing pond received. Enforcement Notice issued 3rd January 2017.

NUNEATON & BEDWORTH

Address Date Action to date Proposed Next reported Steps Newdigate Colliery, Not Enforcement Notice issued Landowner secured Astley Lane, reported; 2007. Most of site planning Bedworth, CV12 officer completed, but small area permission for 0LP observatio remains. Site meeting with another site which n Arbury Estates January will provide soils for Restoration of site 2017. Proposed schedule completion of the incomplete of works sent and work in early 2018. timescales provided.

2 of 7

06 PUBLIC Enforcement Report Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 RUGBY

Address Date Action to date Proposed Next reported Steps The Fisheries 2010 Enforcement notices served Next site visit Watling Street (A5) and prosecutions scheduled for Clifton on undertaken. Planning November 2017 Dunsmore, CV23 permission granted to 0AJ resolve and allow continued use for the storage and The importation processing of inert waste deposit and materials. Significant processing of inert progress now made to waste complete site in accordance with planning permission. Charles Trent Ltd, December Planning application Await outcome of Newbold Road, 2014 RBC/17CM011 submitted in planning Rugby, CV21 1HF relation to point 1. Planning applications and application RBC/17CM012 discharge of 1)Erection of submitted to retain point 2 conditions buildings for a temporary period. 2) Extension of Waste removed (point 3). area 3) Importation Details submitted to and storage of discharge conditions relating waste to point 4. 4) Breach of conditions Foxley Farm, March Informal visits & letter. PCN Compliance due Southam Road, 2015 issued and reply received. November 2017. Kites Hardwick, Amount of material Further site visit to CV23 8AA increased despite take place assurances it would be Waste importation removed. Enforcement and land raising Notice issued January 2017. Moonhill Barn, May 2016 Operator has site in Appeal against London Road, Warwick and has relocated Notice withdrawn Stretton-on- some activities to resolve by appellant. Dunsmore, CV23 issues at Warwick site. Use Deadline for 9HY did not cease in line with compliance March timescales given. 2018. Waste transfer Enforcement Notice issued station January 2017. Holywell House, June Site visit with operator and Solution proposed; Watling Street, 2016 owner. Application to waiting for Shawell, regularise submitted. additional Lutterworth, LE17 Working with Historic information to be 6AR England as part of site is supplied by Scheduled Ancient applicant Importation of inert Monument waste material 3 of 7

06 PUBLIC Enforcement Report Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Land on corner of October Site visits. Letter to owners No appeal Main Road and 2016 of land. Historic England submitted. Overstone Road, investigating as activity is Compliance with Withybrook, CV7 offence under appropriate Enforcement Notice 9LU legislation. No further due January 2018. Inert waste tipping importation has taken place. on scheduled Stop Notice and ancient monument Enforcement Notice issued June 2017. Land at Nettle Hill October Site visited. Further Appeal against Conference Centre, 2016 information required from Notice submitted. Brinklow Road, land owner to determine Await further CV7 9JL scale of operation. Planning information from Contravention Notices PINS. Inert waste tipping replies received. Enforcement Notice issued September 2017.

STRATFORD

Address Date Action to date Proposed Next reported Steps Land off Kings December Enforcement Notice issued Paperwork with Lane, Snitterfield 2012 but no compliance. Due to Legal Services for issues with original Notice a likely prosecution. Deposit of waste further Notice was issued August 2016. Compliance with Notice has not taken place. Landowner invited for formal interview under caution but did not proceed with interview. Folly Fields Farm, October Informal letters sent. Planning Ladbroke Road, 2014 Meeting with landowner and application Bishops Itchington, agent held. Planning submitted; CV47 2RP Contravention Notices reference issued and replies received. SDC/17CM020 Burning of imported Planning application for waste, importation importation of inert waste & of processed wood land-raising expected. waste, importation Waste wood processing of inert waste, ceased. Letter sent re: skip storage of skips storage. Skips removed.

4 of 7

06 PUBLIC Enforcement Report Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 Claverdon Sewage March Planning Contravention Await details of Treatment Works, 2017 Notice issued and reply appeal from PINS Saddle Bow Lane, received. Use continues. Claverdon, CV35 Enforcement Notice issued 8PQ July 2017. Appeal has been submitted but not yet Use of part of site registered by Planning for waste storage Inspectorate.

WARWICK

Address Date Action to date Proposed Next reported Steps 2 - 8 Lock Lane, May 2014 Application to extend time to Monitor for Warwick, CV34 provide building approved compliance. This 5AG by Regulatory Committee site is connected to April 2017 (ref Moonhill Barn Materials recycling WDC/16CM019). Conditions (above). facility being discharged.

3. Recently Resolved Cases

• 101 Bilton Road, Rugby, CV22 7AS - scrap use ceased and all scrap removed

• A B S Skip Hire, Midland Road, Nuneaton, CV11 5DZ – excess waste has been removed

• Bishops Bowl Lakes, Bishops Itchington, Southam, CV47 2SR – source of mud not from this location

• Bodymoor Green Farm, Coventry Road, Kingsbury, Tamworth, B78 2DZ – soil removed and no further screening taking place

• Cawston Grange Primary School, Scholars Drive, Cawston, Rugby, CV22 7GU – landscaping completed in accordance with the plans

• Cherry Tree PH, Haunchwood Road, Nuneaton, CV10 8DE – compliance with Enforcement Notice

• Clifton Lakes Farm, Watling Street, Clifton upon Dunsmore, Rugby, CV23 0AQ – waste removed following legal action by Rugby Borough Council

• Cwik Skip, 44, Arches Lane, Rugby, CV21 1BG – additional planning permission granted

5 of 7

06 PUBLIC Enforcement Report Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 • Field adjacent to access for New House Farm, Banbury Road, Bishops Tachbrook, Leamington Spa, CV33 9QL – application approved to retain some of the material and the rest has been removed

• Griff No.4, Gipsy Lane, Nuneaton, CV10 7PH – no further incidents of mud seen

• Heart of England, Meriden Road, Fillongley, CV7 8DX (two complaints) – importation is associated with works approved by North Warwickshire Borough Council

• Hammond Skip Hire, Colliery Lane, Exhall, Coventry, CV7 9NW – planning permission granted and all other uses in compliance with planning requirements

• High Cross Quarry, High Cross, Lutterworth, LE17 5BA – mud not from quarry operations

• Land next to Ferndale, Warwick Road, Gaydon, Warwick, CV35 0HD – works part of planning permission for development at Gaydon

• Land off Tamworth Road, Cliff, Kingsbury, B78 2DL – operation completed

• Land on Marsh Lane, Water Orton, B46 1NS – referred to North Warwickshire Borough Council as determined not to be a county matter

• Land west of Pet Central Hotel, Jill Lane, Sambourne, B96 6ES – importation is related to works that are subject of planning control by Stratford District Council

• Long Acre Yard, Hinckley Road, Wolvey, LE10 3HQ – land cleared in compliance with Enforcement Notice

• Malpass Farm Quarry, Parkfield Road, Rugby, CV21 1EY – remedial works carried out and no further complaints

• Nightingale Farm, Bentley, Atherstone, CV9 2JR – maintenance works to existing ponds not requiring planning permission

• Welford Boat Station, Binton Road, Welford on Avon, Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37 8PP – compliance with Enforcement Notice

4. Monitoring Visits

4.1 Sites visited once per year

• Cross Hands Quarry, Near Little Compton, Moreton In Marsh • Kingsbury Brickworks Landfill, Rush Lane, Dosthill 6 of 7

06 PUBLIC Enforcement Report Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017 4.2 Sites visited twice per year

• Bishops Bowl Lakes, Bishops Ichington, Southam • Brinklow Quarry, Highwood Farm, Coventry Road, Brinklow • Bubbenhall Quarry, Weston Lane, Bubbenhall • Bubbenhall Landfill, Weston Lane, Bubbenhall • Coleshill Quarry, Gorsey Lane, Coleshill • Dunton Landfill, Lichfield Road, Dunton • Griff No. 4, Gipsy Lane, Nuneaton • High Cross Quarry, Copston Lane, High Cross • Judkins Landfill, Tuttle Hill, Nuneaton • Kingsbury Brickworks Quarry, Rush Lane, Dosthill • Ling Hall Landfill, Coalpit Lane, Lawford Heath • Mancetter Quarry, Quarry Lane, Mancetter • Marsh Farm Quarry, Dunnington, Salford Priors • Middleton Hall Quarry, Bodymoor Heath Lane, Middleton, • Packington Landfill, Packington Lane, Little Packington • Southam Quarry, Southam Works, Long Itchington • Ufton Landfill, Southam Road, Ufton • Wolston Fields, Wolston Lane, Ryton-On-Dunsmore

4.3 Sites visited quarterly

• Marston Fields Farm, Kingsbury Road, Marston • Hartshill Quarry, Nuneaton Road, Hartshill

Name Contact Information

Report Author Laura White [email protected] Tel: 01926 412193 Head of Service Mark Ryder [email protected]

Joint Managing Monica Fogarty [email protected] Director (Communities) Portfolio Holder Cllr Jeff Clarke [email protected]

7 of 7

06 PUBLIC Enforcement Report Regulatory Committee 05.12.2017