Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Cllr J Challinor, Cllr B Hitchcock and Cllr S McCormack.

To receive information on any changes in the membership of the Committee.

Note – When a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the relevant Political Group Leader (or their nominated representative) may, by notice to the Monitoring Officer (or their nominated representative) prior to the meeting, appoint a substitute member from within the same Political Group. The contact details on the front of this agenda should be used for notifications. 

Notification was received that Cllr Dr F Rice was substituting for Cllr B Hitchcock for this meeting.

Councillors are requested to declare any interests on items included in this agenda. Please refer to the workflow on the preceding page for guidance.

Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest

To receive any requests to speak on planning applications which the Planning Committee is considering at this meeting.

UPDATE ON SPEAKING AT THIS MEETING

When this planning application was deferred by the Committee on 12 September 2024 the Chair agreed to carry forward the list of speakers registered for that meeting. There are already three people registered to speak in objection to this application, which is the maximum number permitted.

Should anyone else register a wish to speak in objection Democratic Services will on request pass their details to the three speakers already registered.

Summary of speaking arrangements for this meeting only are as follows:

The Chair has exercised discretion to extend the speaking arrangements on this application as follows:

Speaking at Planning Committee (in person or virtually):

·       Up to three persons may register to speak in objection. Each speaker may have up to five minutes to speak in objection.

·       Up to three persons may register to speak in support. Each speaker may have up to five minutes to speak in support.

Anyone who has registered to speak by the deadline may, as an alternative to speaking/for use in default, submit a written statement to be read out on their behalf. This must be provided to Democratic Services by 10.00am of the working day before the meeting, must not exceed 900 words and will be treated as amounting to five minutes of speaking time.

Please refer to the full Protocol document for further guidance.

The deadline for the submission of requests to speak is 10.00am on 11 June 2025 [10.00am of the working day before the meeting]. Requests should be submitted to Democratic Services using the contact details on the front of this agenda. Further information about how public speaking is managed at meetings is contained in the Planning Committee Protocol for Public Speaking and Statements, a copy of which is included with this agenda sheet and is also published on the website on the following page:

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=614

Note: The public speaking procedure is separate from and is not intended to replicate or replace the procedure for submitting a written representation on a planning application to the Planning Offices during the consultation period.

There were a number of requests to speak on the planning application on the agenda as detailed below. For this meeting the Chair exercised discretion to alter the speaking arrangements to allow three people five minutes each to speak in objection and three people five minutes each to speak in support of the application.

To consider the planning applications as listed below.

See planning application reports circulated with the agenda, as updated by the agenda addendum sheet to be published one working day before the meeting.

Councillors are requested where possible to submit any technical questions on planning applications to the Case Officer at least 48 hours before the meeting to ensure this information can be provided at the meeting.

The running order in which planning applications will be considered will be as listed on this agenda sheet.

The Chair retains discretion to propose an amendment to the running order at the meeting if it is considered expedient to do so.

Members will appreciate that the copy drawings attached to planning application reports are reduced from the applicants’ original and detail, in some cases, may be difficult to read. To search for planning applications, please use the following link:

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/search-and-comment-on-planning-applications

Councillors are advised that if they wish to refer to specific drawings or plans which are not included in these papers, they should contact the Case Officer at least 48 hours before the meeting to ensure that these can be made available.

To view Local Plans, again, the following link will take you to the main webpage where you can click on a tile to view the local plan for that area. The link is:

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Planning-and-building-control/Planning-policy/Current-Local-Plans/Current-Local-Plan.aspx

The Committee considered a planning application report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appear as Appendix A of these minutes in the Minute Book. A Committee Addendum Sheet was published on 11 June 2025 and appears as Appendix B to these minutes.

The Committee conducted a site visit of the application site in accordance with its adopted site visit protocol on the morning of 12 June 2025.

Bearwood and Merley ward

APP/23/00822/F

Demolition and Removal of existing structures and the erection of a Carbon Capture Retrofit Ready Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility with associated Combined Heat and Power Connection, Distribution Network Connection and Temporary Construction Compounds and associated buildings and ancillary car parking.

Bearwood and Merley ward

APP/23/00822/F

Demolition and Removal of existing structures and the erection of a Carbon Capture Retrofit Ready Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility with associated Combined Heat and Power Connection, Distribution Network Connection and Temporary Construction Compounds and associated buildings and ancillary car parking.

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Paul Brelsford

v  Giles Frampton, Director of Powerfuel Limited

v  Frank Ahern, Magwatch

Applicant/Supporters

v  Nathan Ross – Managing Director of Canford Renewable Energy (landowner)

v  Rob Asquith – Planning Director, Savills

v  Paul Carey – Managing Director of MVV Environment Ltd (applicant)

Ward Councillors

v  Cllr Marcus Andrews, in objection

v  Cllr Richard Burton, in objection

v  Cllr David Brown, in objection

Other Councillors

v  Cllr Alasdair Keddie, in objection

RESOLVED to REFUSE permission contrary to the recommendation set out in the officer’s report subject to power being delegated to the Head of Planning Operations, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair, to agree the final detailed wording of the reasons for refusal, as discussed by the committee and summarised below:

• Impact on Green Belt

Members considered that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt due to the height, scale, mass and bulk of the building. Members did not consider that this harm was outweighed by other considerations to an extent that could justify ‘very special circumstances’.

• Impact on landscape character of the area

Members considered that the proposal would have a negative impact on the landscape character of the area due to the height, scale, mass and bulk of the building. The proposal was not considered to be compatible with the character and quality of the landscape area.

• Impact on designated heritage assets

Members considered that the proposal would have a negative impact on the settings of various designated heritage assets due to the height, scale, mass and bulk of the building. The harm to the designated heritage assets was not justified as it was not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. Members were concerned at the potential oversupply and the insufficient environmental benefits of the scheme.

• Absence of section 106 Legal Agreement to adequately secure Head of Terms in relation to Transport and Biodiversity

Members considered that the proposal did not accord with the development plan read as a whole and that material considerations did not support a different conclusion.

Voting: For – 6, Against – 3, Abstain – 0