The REGULATORY COMMITTEE met at WARWICK on the 15th DECEMBER, 2008

Present:-

Councillor Brian Moss(Chair) 2B “ Joan Lea (Vice Chair) “ Jose Compton “ Helen McCarthy “ Barry Longden “ Nina Knapman “ Sue Main 0B “ Ray Sweet

Councillor Colin Hayfield also attended for agenda item 2(2).

Officers1B

Peter Endall, Senior Solicitor, Performance & Development Directorate Ian Grace, Principal Planner, Environment & Economy Directorate Jasbir Kaur, Development Manager, Environment & Economy Directorate Matthew Williams, Planner, Environment & Economy Directorate Phil Maull, Senior Committee Administrator, Performance & Development Directorate

1. General (1) Apologies

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Peter Barnes, Richard Chattaway, Pat Henry and Ian Smith. It was noted that Councillor Helen McCarthy had replaced Councillor Michael Doody for the meeting.

(2) Members Disclosure of Personal and Prejudicial Interests

Councillors Jose Compton and Ray Sweet disclosed personal but non- prejudicial interests as members of Waste Management Partnership.

(3) Minutes of the meeting held on the 18th November 2008 and matters arising (i) Minutes

Resolved:-

1. That the minutes of the Regulatory Committee’s 18th November 2008 meeting be approved and be signed by the Chair.

(ii) Matters arising

There were no matters arising.

2. Applications for Determination (1) Stratford Agripark, Clifford Chambers – Animal Carcass Transfer Station

The report of the Strategic Director for Environment and Economy was considered.

Matthew Williams introduced the report

Councillors Jose Compton and Nina Knapman considered that the site visit had been very valuable and said that they had found the location ideal and a long way from any homes.

Councillor Sue Main considered that the objections raised by Stratford-on-Avon District Council were valid. The following answers were given in response to her questions:-

(i) The carcasses were previously taken to old facilities Ettington. The proposed new facilities were vastly superior. (ii) Fluid from the carcasses was gathered in drains and then transferred to tankers for transport from the site. (iii) A condition could be added to cover the question of water run-off.

Councillor Jose Compton, seconded by Councillor Nina Knapman, then moved and it was then Resolved, 4 members voting in favour and 1 against:-

That the application be reported to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Development Plan and subject to the application not being called in for her determination that the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission for the erection of a single storey portal framed building to accommodate a waste transfer station, for animal carcasses, together with internal offices, external service yard, access roadway and landscaping on land at Stratford Wincot Lands, Clifford Chambers, near Stratford-upon-Avon, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure: the removal of redundant/derelict former airfield buildings and structures; completion of a bat and barn owl survey and mitigation measures; and, a programme of archaeological work and conditions and for the reasons contained in Appendix B of the report of the Strategic Director for Environment and Economy.

2. 15th December, 2008

(2) Compaction of the Former Colliery Spoil Tip and Construction of a Biomass Power Plant and Anaerobic Digestion Plant at the junction of The Common and Merevale Lane, Baxterley,

The report of the Strategic Director for Environment and Economy was considered.

Ian Grace introduced the report. He said that the site was an old hollowed out shale tip, the interior of which was only visible from Folly Lane. Two new buildings would be constructed together with a new access road from Colliery Farm. There would be additional tree and hedge planting to screen the site. Although the new application was on a smaller scale than the previous application, its two main elements remained – two buildings, one for a biomass power plant and the other for an anaerobic digestion plant. These could be described as small industrial type buildings. The site was blending back after coal mining. He acknowledged that Baxterley was a very pleasant place in which to live. The applicants had recognised this and had stated that they had designed the proposed plant so that it could not be seen, heard or smelt. Opponents of the application hotly disputed this. There had been 147 letters of support. There were 218 letters opposing the application, six of which were unsigned. Mike O’Brien, M.P. had written opposing the application because, although it was smaller than the original application, it had many of the same problems. Those persons opposing the application raised the following points:-

(i) They were disappointed at the very short time allowed for analysing the application bearing in mind the size of the documents. (ii) The fuel source was not likely to be available locally. (iii) Merevale Lane was already dangerous in icy weather. (iv) Many of those who supported the development were tenants of the applicant and there was concern that undue pressure had been brought to bear on them. (v) Although coalmining had brought prosperity, residents had to suffer dirt and noise. Since the end of coalmining they had enjoyed the countryside. (vi) North Warwickshire Borough Council wanted to promote the area for tourism but the application would do more harm than good. (vii) There was danger from contaminated wood ash, which in itself cannot be used on the land. (viii) The chimney stacks would be 60 feet tall and would not be invisible. (ix) DEFRA recommended that anaerobic digestion plants should be established a mile away from dwellings.

He said that the applicants asserted that they had noted the Parish Council’s concerns. A section 106 Agreement would cover the routing of vehicles along Merevale Lane and the A5 to avoid roads nearer to residences. Eon was in discussion around linking in with the national grid. The Environment Impact Assessment showed the worst-case scenario.

3. He then gave the Committee an update:-

(a) The Regional Assembly confirmed that the application conformed to the Regional Spatial Strategy. (b) Shustoke Parish Council had no objections. (c) The Highways Agency had not yet responded. This was not necessarily a reason not to determine the application today as it could be assumed that the Highways Agency would have no concern as they did not object to the larger scheme. However, this could not be taken as certain and if Members decided to approve the application they could do so subject to the Highways Agency not objecting.

Ian Grace concluded that the proposed development was in line with policy ENV10 of the North Warwickshire Local Plan. There was no support from the technical advisers for refusal. The development gained support from the Government because it generated renewable energy; it diverted waste away from landfill and reduced reliance on imported fuels.

The Chair thanked him for a comprehensive and fair summary of the position. He then said that he had a list of speakers as follows:-

• Mark Walton – Alliance Planning (Planning Agent) • Matthew Dugdale – Applicant • Judy Vero – Campaign to Protect Rural • Chris Brett – Resident of Baxterley • Ken Broomfield – Chair of Baxterley Parish Council • Jim Beeston – Baxterley Heritage Group • John Steedman – Steedman Planning

Mark Walton The scheme represented a significant amendment from the previous scheme. The redesigned scheme would not involve shale extraction and would be for facilities for renewable energy only. The development platform was reduced by 8,000 square metres and the building footprint would be reduced from 12,000 square metres to 6,500 square metres. HGV movements would be reduced from 120 a day to 70 a day. The site would have a single access and traffic would be diverted along the A5. Ten new employment opportunities would be created on site and thirty to forty off site. The technology used would be carbon neutral, which was good for climate change. The revised scheme had received no objections from any of the environment agencies. The Borough Council Planning Officer had said that there were no planning reasons for refusing the application.

Matthew Dugdale He was the promoter of the development and lived within the Parish. The energy generated would be 4.5 megawatts, with 85,000 tonnes of material being diverted away from landfill. The increase in employment was important investment in the local economy. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association were excited by the prospect of the

4. 15th December, 2008

development. The Regional Assembly supported the proposal and North Warwickshire Borough Council had no objections. Nearly all those on the Merevale Estate supported the proposal. Residents would not be able to see, hear or smell the operation. He acknowledged the objections. If the objectors felt that the operation was suitable for urban locations it must be suitable for a rural location. There was a facility in Ludlow that was located only 140 metres away from houses whereas the current application was located 290 metres away and there was a hill in between.

As a matter of clarification, the Chair said that he was acquainted with the applicant as a governor of Kingsbury School.

Judy Vero She referred to paragraph 3.4(xxi) and said that the Civic Society had not complained about the proposed expansion of tourism in the area. The site was Green Field. North Warwickshire had overprovided for employment in the Borough. If the application was approved, more applications could be expected. Lorries would bring waste from Birmingham and would use back lanes. Once permission had been given for industrial use, the development could be used as a Trojan Horse for something else. Normally section 106 Agreements offered something to the community but the one connected with the development did not even propose the reopening of Baxterley Village Hall. Baxterley had paid a high price for coalmining in the past. She asked how the profile of the area could be raised with the proposed development. North Warwickshire was the County’s smallest local authority and was becoming the dumping ground of West Midlands.

Chris Brett Cyclists, walkers and riders used Baxterley. It was a Green Field site in a tourist area. A very big industrial complex was proposed that was very similar to the previous application. Although there were to be fewer HGVs, there would still be an increase in traffic on a road that was already dangerous. It was estimated that use of this form of energy generation would add 15% to the cost of electricity. Sufficient fuel could not be sourced locally, leading to a massive importation of wood for the purpose. The Council to Protect Rural England and the Energy Minister, Mike O’Brien, opposed the application.

Ken Broomfield DEFRA recommended that this type of facility should be located at least a mile away from the nearest residence and yet the proposed development was only 300 yards away. Incineration was a more effective process. The ash could not be spread over the same area year on year because of the build up of pollutants. The Borough already had the lowest average life expectancy in the County and this would worsen the situation. The proposal was totally unsustainable.

5. Jim Beeston He said that he had a petition of a thousand signatures opposing the application and Mike O’Brien had sent a letter against it. There had been a lack of consultation. Sweeping statements had been made that the enough energy would be produced equal to that required for Atherstone. When coalmining was in process in the area, Baxterley had been famous for its black snow and black daffodils. A further period of pollution was not needed. It was a pleasant village with duck ponds and morris dancing. The Borough Council wanted the area to be a tourist/leisure centre but all the activities related to this would be jeopardised if the application were approved.

John Stevens The development was proposed in the countryside. The Parish Council was concerned that the proposed buildings were larger than for similar plants elsewhere. They considered that the buildings were too large for a rural area and should not be approved unless there was good reason to do so. The danger of approving the application was that if the generation plant did not go ahead, there was legacy for the site to be considered an industrial estate. The Parish Council’s preference was for the Committee to refuse the application, however, it considered that the following options were available:-

• Refuse the development as being unjustifiable in a rural location. • Defer a decision for further justification of the application. • Approve the building to a size for housing the generator only and require the applicant to submit designs for approval. Require the applicant to submit evidence of arrangements for supplying electricity to the national grid. Impose a condition that in the event of the generator closing the applicant would be required to have the building dismantled and the site restored. The applicant be required to create a community chest.

The following matters arose during the ensuing discussion:-

(a) The Highway Agency was responsible for that part of the HGV route involving the A5 and the County Council was responsible generally for that part of the highway from the A5 to the site. The County Council was happy with the proposal. (b) Mark Walton confirmed that he had spoken to the Highways Authority who had confirmed informally that it had no objections and was producing a report. (c) The Environment Agency and the Borough Council Environmental Health Officer were broadly happy with the application certain to conditions. It was acknowledged that the British Standards were not as high as the Californian standards but the Committee had to operate in accordance with British Standards. (d) John Stevens said that he had not been able to find any buildings already constructed or not constructed. Mark Walton confirmed that he had responded to the Parish Council on this issue and that the size of the

6. 15th December, 2008

building was not overgenerous as unlike other similar schemes provision was made for storage inside rather than outside. This was better for controlling material and was better for the environment. (e) Matthew Dugdale said that the Estate was keen on finding ways of helping the community. He suggested possible options for the village hall. (f) Councillor Joan Lea recognised that there were concerns about the size of the buildings but said that there was even if the Committee wished to approve the application, it would be referred to the Secretary of State. She accepted that the question of a community chest was very important from a community point of view. She also recommended that a community liaison group should be appointed as such groups had proven invaluable elsewhere. (g) Ian Grace explained that any community benefits derived through section 106 Agreements had to be proportional to and link with the development. It was easy to identify a link when the development was for a housing estate as it would generate the need for schools and other services. In this case it was less easy to do so. An applicant could always offer benefits and agree them. However this would have to be by mutual agreement. He confirmed that a community liaison group could be very useful. (h) Councillor Barry Longden said that he considered the site to be brown field but he noted that others seemed to consider that it was a Green Field site and asked for clarification. He refuted the suggestion that the facility was better located in an urban location. All the statutory bodies had no objections and therefore he felt that it would be difficult for the Committee to refuse the application. He accordingly said that he would move the recommendation. (i) Councillor Ray Sweet had concerns. He was concerned of the pollution being produced in the vicinity of Baxterley Village, a school and a nursing home. There would be an increase of 70 HGVs on Merevale Lane and the A5 but recently the A5 was flooded and when that happened the traffic would have to find an alternative route. Kitchen waste would be brought from all over the county and beyond and it was likely that the routing agreement would be ignored. He supported the creation of a community liaison group if the application was approved. (j) Ian Grace said that in his view the site was brown field but accepted that there was not a definitive answer. The key point was whether the site had blended back into the landscape and this called for a subjective judgement. (k) Councillor Jose Compton said that she had heard no reasons that could be used to refuse the application and said she would second Councillor Longden’s motion. (l) Councillor Nina Knapman said that she found the proposal unacceptable because she believed the site to be Green Field, the proximity to residences and the increased traffic on the roads.

7. (m) Councillor Colin Hayfield said that he appreciated the concerns but he understood that it was a reduction from the previous application. There were a number of positive points and negative ones but overall the latest proposals were much more acceptable. Councillor Barry Longden, seconded by Councillor Jose Compton, moved and it was Resolved, 5 members having voted in favour and 2 against:-

That this application be referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with departure procedures and subject to the application not being called in for determination by the Secretary of state the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission of application NW5707CM001 subject to the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement and the conditions and for the reasons detailed in Appendix B attached to this report.

Ian Grace explained to the objectors the process that would now be followed.

The Committee adjourned from 11. 48 a.m. to 12 noon.

(3) Materials Recovery Facility, Longstaples, Ettington – Variation of Permitted Hours of Operation

The report of the Strategic Director for Environment and Economy was considered.

Matthew Williams introduced the report.

The following points arose during the discussions:-

(i) If the extension to the hours was not agreed, the contracts with Rugby Borough Council and Stratford-on-Avon District Council could be put at risk. It could also cause difficulties for those Councils. (ii) It was noted that bleepers that warned when vehicles were reversing could be extremely irritating. However these were a Health and Safety requirement and once completed most vehicle reversing would take place inside the building. (iii) Matthew Williams advised against a suggestion to agree a temporary approval as the extended hours were necessary for the operation of the local authority contracts. (iv) Residents could be provided with forms on which to record any problems they had with noise and then give them to the Environmental Health Officer as evidence. (v) It was possible that residents were being affected by construction noise. (vi) The nearest residences were some distance away from the facility was across the A429.

It was then Resolved, 6 members voting in favour and 0 against:-

8. 15th December, 2008

That the Regulatory committee authorises the grant of planning permission for the variation of condition 6 of planning permission S4365/07CM026 and condition 4 of planning permission S4365/08CM028 to extend the permitted hours of operation of the materials recovery facility at Longstaples, Warwick Road, Ettington, subject to the conditions and for the reasons contained in Appendix B of the report of the Strategic Director for Environment and Economy.

(4) Rokeby Primary School, Anderson Avenue, Rugby – Multiple Extensions to the Existing Building, Internal Alterations, the Erection of Canopies and the Extension to the Schools Car Park

The report of the Strategic Director for Environment and Economy was considered.

After Ian Grace introduced the report, it was Resolved, 7 members voting in favour and 0 against:-

That the Regulatory Committee authorises the grant of planning permission for the extension of the existing school building, the erection of canopies and the extension of the schools car park at Rokeby Primary School, Anderson Avenue, Rugby, subject to the conditions and for the reasons contained in Appendix B of the report of the Strategic Director for Environment and Economy subject to a note being attached asking the applicant to investigate providing additional parking on site.

3. Application for Foundation Trust Status – Coventry & Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust

The Committee agreed the appointment of Councillor Jill Dill-Russell to the Coventry & Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust.

4. Any other items (1) Site Visit Lower House Farm

Jasbir Kaur referred to a planning application for Lower House Farm that was going to the next meeting of the Regulatory Committee on the 20th January 2009 and suggested that the Committee might wish to make a site visit before that date. This was agreed. It was noted, however, that the North Warwickshire Borough Council would not be considering the issue until the 19th January.

(2) Visit to a Recycling Centre

Following a request from Councillor Sue Main, it was agreed that the Committee would make a site visit to a recycling centre to see how it operated.

9. (3) Development Control Forum

It was noted that the Development Control Forum planned for 17 January would go ahead; as the applicant had confirmed that the application was still live despite the owners of Judkins Quarry withdrawing support for it.

………………………………. Chair of Committee

The Committee rose at 12.30 p.m.

10.