The scheme entailed an office and mess facility in two portable steel containers, a weighbridge and a three metre high wall. An inspector found that their visually intrusive effect would be mitigated to a degree by the proximity of other buildings at the farm, by the reduction of an area currently used for open storage of farm machinery, by a bund and by a proposed planting scheme.
The appellant drew attention to the environmental benefits of the use of the fuel which would be produced, and to the current absence of known producers of wood fuel pellets or briquettes in the county. Most of the waste wood generated in Warwickshire was sent to Lockerbie, Middlesborough, Chirk or Manchester. The Warwickshire climate change partnership estimated some 107000 tonnes of waste wood to be available in the county for heat production. The inspector accepted that it would be advantageous to capture that resource and use it close to its origins, as part of a wider approach to sustainable waste management. He recorded that the renewable heat incentive policy was intended by government to encourage such an approach.
He acknowledged that PPS10 stated that green belts should be protected, but noted that the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, were material considerations that should be given significant weight. He pointed out that other sites were available in Warwickshire which were not in the green belt.
The appellant stated that the site was on the route of the High Speed 2 railway and suggested that planning permission could be given for a limited period. The inspector did not accept that this would be reasonable, remarking that the statutory process for the railway would be completed and would provide for land acquisition and compensation and perhaps for the consideration of alternative routes.
Inspector John Watson; Written representations
