Agenda item

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