Meeting documents

Proposed extension to waste and recycling transfer station at Chiltern View Nurseries, Wendover Road, Stoke Mandeville, Buckinghamshire HP22 5GX.

APPLICATION NO:  13/20003/AWD

Electoral Division: Aston Clinton and Bierton

Local Member:  Bill Chapple OBE

Parish/Town Council: Stoke Mandeville

Report of the Planning Manager

APPLICATION NO: 13/20003/AWD

Members received the report of the Planning Manager, which sought determination of the application.

The Committee received a presentation showing photographs of the site and site plans. The Committee also received a revised recommendation which they were asked to consider.

The following members attended the site visit:  Roger Reed, David Schofield, Netta Glover, Andy Huxley and Chaudhary Ditta.

The Chairman reminded members that there was public speaking in relation to this item and welcomed to the meeting Adrian Hoy, agent for the applicant, who spoke in support of the application as follows:

·         The original planning application was withdrawn and resubmitted following a letter from the PAC Service Lead Officer, Compliance. Members were provided with a copy of this letter and given time to read its contents

·         The Case Officer then decided to refuse the application before looking at the detail of the letter, stating with regard to Policy CS10 that a need would have to be demonstrated.  Mr Hoy suggested that an additional 386,000 of waste material was sufficient demonstration of need. If the policy was applied as intended it would accord with all the aims of the application.

·         The Case Officer’s report does not mention the letter from the PAC Service Lead Officer, nor Policy CS10.

·         Mr Hoy suggested that the Committee should not make a decision if it was in doubt and he could provide further information in relation to Policy CS22 and LPP36 if needed.

·         The Core Strategy suggests an over reliance on landfill

·         The applicant is seeking to be self-sufficient with no public funding for the operation.

In response to Mr Hoy’s representation to the Committee, the Chairman stated that it was the Committee that made the decisions, the Planning Officers made recommendations and in this case it was to refuse the application.     He asked the Planning Officer for clarity regarding comments relating to Policy CS10, and the suggestion that the report undermined the aims of the Core Strategy and LPP36.

The Planning Officer made the following comments:

·         Policy CS10 is referred to in the report. It is not disregarded and is one of the reasons for recommending refusal.  It covers the County requirement to provide for waste and recycling and transfer stations and should be read in conjunction with other Planning Policies and not in isolation.

·         It was noted that the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Policy CS10 related to the area required for hardstanding to process amount of materials on site, not the amount of waste in relation to population

·         LPP36 sets out development control principles and is the overarching policy for development management practice for determining planning applications and how the Authority approaches planning applications.

A member considered whether the application should be deferred but the Chairman stated that all members should read the information put before them in relation to this application before coming to any decision.

With regard to the letter from the PAC Service Leader, it was noted this was not from the Planning Lead Officer, but from the Enforcement Team who were making suggestions on how outstanding issues could be rectified and addressed by the landowner.  On the basis of the evidence submitted in response to this letter, the recommendation from the Planning Officer was to refuse the application.

Those members who attended the site visit agreed that it was useful and informative and made the following points:

·         It was a tidy and clean site

·         With regard to the issues raised, and the lack of information submitted, this appeared to be a premature application.

·         Some policies relating to work on the site needed further clarification.  There may also be a need to look at Aylesbury Vale District Council policies.

A member proposed that the application be deferred until further clarity had been sought on the issues raised and further information had been provided.

RESOLVED:

The Committee AGREED unanimously to defer this item to the December meeting, pending receipt of further information.