Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were no apologies or substitutions.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 21 April 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 April 2021 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

The Chairman noted the constitutional guidance to Members on determination of items considered by the Committee.

In discussion, Councillor Robert Yuill declared that he had previously been Portfolio Holder for Waste, which had involved some limited contact and communication with the applicants in a professional capacity. He stated this was not a close connection, including to other parts of the business not associated with the proposed application, and that he would have an open mind and consider all evidence before making any determination.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

It was announced there would be a site visit ahead of the next meeting in respect of Freeth Farm Quarry, Compton Bassett, references 16/05464 and 16/05708.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public. During the

ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures and the public are able to participate in meetings online after registering with the officer named on this agenda, and in accordance with the deadlines below.

View the meeting via this link

Statements

Members of the public who wish to make a statement in relation to an item on this agenda contact the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on 18 June 2021.

Statements should:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such

questions electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 15 June 2021 in order to be guaranteed of a written response.

In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on 17 May 2021.

Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice.

Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent. Details of any questions received will be circulated to members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

The procedure for public speaking was detailed. It was noted that the Chairman had exercised discretion available under the proscribed procedure to double the number of slots for objecting and supporting members of the public.

The Committee’s exercising of the role of local Planning Authority and need to follow local and national planning policy was noted.

Amended energy from waste facility to that consented under planning permission 18/09473/WCM.

Public Participation

Alison Rance, Arla Foods, spoke in objection to the application.

Marie Hillcoat, Westbury Gasification Action Group (WGAG), spoke in objection to the application.

Dr Andrew Murrison MP, South West Wiltshire, spoke in objection to the application.

Bill Jarvis, Wiltshire Climate Alliance, spoke in objection to the application.

Barney Jones, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Ian Cunningham, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Alex Young, Director of Northacre Renewable Energy, spoke in support of the application.

Michael Hill, Chief Executive of The Hills Group, spoke in support of the application.

Stephen Othen, Technical Director of Fichtner, spoke in support of the application.

James Brain, Managing Director of Westbury Park Engineering, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Mike Sutton, Westbury Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Val Jarvis, Dilton Marsh Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr John Masson, Heywood Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Guest, Major Projects and Performance Manager, presented a report which recommended that subject to conditions permission be granted for the proposal for an amended energy from waste facility to that consented under planning permission 18/09473/WCM, for the Northacre Energy from Waste Facility, Stephenson Road, Northacre Industrial Estate, Westbury.

In the event of the Committee supporting the recommendation the application would be referred to the Secretary of State for his consideration as to whether it should be called-in for his determination before any planning permission were issued.

The details of the site between the existing Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant also owned by Hills, and the dairy operated by Arla Foods, was provided. The history of applications on the site was explained, with an Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) plant approved in 2015, a revised ATT application refused in 2018 due to visual impact, and a further revised ATT application approved in 2019. The approved application did constitute a legal fallback position, although this was considered to be of limited weight in considerations due to it being unlikely to be implemented.

The earlier proposals had utilised gasification technology as opposed to combustion grate technology with the new application for an incinerator. It was stated that though different the technology was still up to date, the footprint compared to past applications was similar although the stack was higher, and arrangement of site and infrastructure was different. The throughput capacity would increase by a further 83,000 tpa, producing electricity o power a further 8000 domestic homes, up to 54,000.

Assessments did suggest an increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle movements, but no objection had been raised from Highways as the impact on the A350 was predicted to be <1% against 2025 baseline flows, which would be indiscernible.  Within the Westbury Air Quality Management Area the prediction was a 0.2% increase to daily all traffic baseline conditions in 2025, or 1.9% in HGV conditions, which is insignificant.

In the opinion of officers, the proposal complied with planning policies. Energy from Waste  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The extraction of minerals, provision of associated infrastructure including access and processing facilities, associated ancillary buildings, structures and operations, with site restoration using imported materials to agriculture and enhanced ecological interest and biodiversity.

Jason Day, Minerals and Waste Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that determination of the planning application be delegated to Gloucestershire County Council.

The application was for a new quarry, and all but a few metres of the large site were located within Gloucestershire, with a very small amount by the access crossing the county boundary into Wiltshire. Accordingly, it was considered appropriate that determination of the application be taken by Gloucestershire County Council.

Members were given the opportunity to ask technical questions. There were no public speakers.

On the motion of Councillor Howard Greenman, seconded by Councillor Adrian Foster, it was then,

Resolved:

That the following functions be discharged to Gloucestershire County Council in accordance with Section 101(1) of the Local Government Act 1972:

a)    determination of planning application ref: PL/2021/04232; and

b)    determination of any subsequent applications for the discharge of conditions or non-material amendments pursuant to that application;

subject to Wiltshire Council in its roles as mineral planning authority and highway authority, together with the local Divisional Member and parish council, being consulted for their views regarding the proposed development.

To receive details of planning updates as appropriate.

Public Participation

A statement from Helen Stuckey in opposition to the proposal was read.

A statement from Steve Perry, CAUSE, in opposition to the proposal was read.

A statement from Chris Caswill in opposition to the proposal was read.

A report was received from Sarah Marshall, Senior Solicitor, updating the Committee in respect of application 15/12351/OUT: Land at Rawlings Farm, Cocklebury Lane, Chippenham. Details of five statements received opposing the proposal were provided to the Committee. Questions were received and verbal responses provided, as detailed to these minutes at Appendix 1;

At its meeting on 16 September 2020 the Committee resolved to defer and delegate to the Head of Development Management to grant outline planning permission for this development subject to the prior completion of a
Section 106 agreement within six months of the date of the committee resolution. The resolution went on to state that in the event that the applicant declines to enter the agreement and/or it becomes clear that they will not do so, then to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposal fails to provide and secure the necessary and required services and infrastructure.

It had not been possible for the S106 to be signed within the six months detailed, due to the strategic and complex nature of the site, including some delays with the Applicant’s engagement  with landowners. However, the lack of agreement had not been due to the applicant declining to do so or it becoming clear they would not do so, as specified in the original resolution. It was also confirmed that the conditions agreed by the Committee remained, and the affordable housing element remained at 40%. There had been no changes to material considerations of the site or application itself, which had been fully considered by the Committee when making its resolution, and the update was not a reopening of the merits of that decision.

It was stated that the draft S106 agreement was almost ready for engrossment, the finalisation of the agreement, and the applicant had indicated to officers that they should be in a position to sign within a few weeks.

Accordingly, it was recommended that the period allowed for completion of the agreement be extended until 31 October 2021.

Statements as detailed above were read opposing the recommendation to extend the delegation to enable signing of the agreement.

A statement from the local unitary member, Councillor Dr Nick Murry, was also read opposing the recommendation and a response is attached at Appendix 1.

The Committee debated the report. It was considered that in the circumstances an extension was appropriate, though there were comments on how the initial resolution could have been more effectively drafted to avoid a situation where it had been unclear whether the item should be refused or extended, and how soon the extension could have been sought. It was debated whether an extension to October 2021 was necessary or appropriate, and it was agreed to amend the recommendation to make clear if the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Any other items of business, which in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent items.