Agenda item

To consider the above application.

Consideration was given to the above application as set out in the officer’s report including an oral summary and report of a site visit, a written up date and an oral report of a letter received on 23 April 2010 from the Applicant.

The public speakers were as set out below:-

(Councillor Parsons, Ward Councillor, Councillor McGrory, Ward Councillor,

Councillor Les Gilbert, Councillor Mrs G Merry, Councillor Miss S Furlong, Town Councillor Keith Bagnall, representing Middlewich Town Council, Town Councillor Holland, representing Sandbach Town Council, Mr Cartwright and Sula Stanley, representing CHAIN, Mr Macdonald, Holmes Chapel Action Group HCAG, Mr A Berwitz, an objector, Mr Wynne, an objector, Mr Wilson, an objector, Mrs Williams, an Objector and Mr Halman, the agent for the applicant).

Amongst other things those speaking against the application the following concerns were raised:-

Health

Size

Visual impact

Outside the waste plan

Traffic

Amongst other things those speaking for the application raised the following

All relevant information was contained within the report

The planning concerns had been addressed

It was noted that the agent for the applicant in his speech felt that the Board had sufficient information to make a decision without cause for any further delays.

(The meeting adjourned at 4.05pm and reconvened at 4.20pm)

RESOLVED

The application be refused for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed site is not shown as a preferred site on the proposals map of the Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan as adopted by Cheshire East Borough Council and the applicant has not demonstrated that the preferred sites are no longer available or in view of the proximity to housing are less suitable for the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy 5 of the Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan as adopted by Cheshire East Borough Council.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that existing capacity with planning permission is inadequate to meet waste management needs. It is therefore considered that there is no requirement for further capacity to be released and that the proposal is contrary to policy 3 of the Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan as adopted by Cheshire East Borough Council.

3. The proposed development would result in the overprovision of waste facilities and lead to a requirement to import wastes from outside Cheshire, thereby undermining the objective of enabling waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. The proposed development is therefore considered unsustainable and contrary to policy 1 of the Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan as adopted by Cheshire East Borough Council and Sections 9 and 10 of PPS1 Climate Change Supplement, DP1, DP5, DP9, EM10, EM12 and EM13 of the Regional Spatial Strategy.

4. It is considered that the objections to the proposed development, including the impact on the landscape, outweigh any benefits, and that as no overriding need for the facility has been demonstrated it is contrary to policies 2, 14 and 36 of the Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan as adopted by Cheshire East Borough Council, policy DP7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, and policies GR1, 2, 5 and 6 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan.

5. The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the application makes adequate provision by means of a grid connection for the recovery and export of energy from the facility. The proposed development falls low on the waste hierarchy and is considered contrary to policies 1, 12 and 34A of the Cheshire Replacement Waste Local Plan as adopted by Cheshire East Borough Council and EM11 of the Regional Spatial Strategy.