The Staffordshire Council Planning Committee met on Thursday, October 2, 2025, to discuss three planning applications. Councillors voted to refuse an application for a clinical waste treatment facility in Hickson, and approved applications relating to Hintz Quarry in Tamworth, and Cauldon Cement Works in Earlsway.

Clinical Waste Treatment Facility in Hickson

The committee voted to refuse the application by In Waste Hickson Limited for a change of use of an existing building from B2¹ to B8² use, to create a clinical waste treatment facility at Hickson Industrial Estate in Hickson.

The planning officer, David Bray, explained that the applicant had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate due to the council's failure to make a decision within the statutory period. He clarified that the Planning Inspectorate needed an indication of the council's position to support its decision-making process.

Key points regarding the proposal:

• The facility would process 3,504 tonnes of clinical, medical, and hazardous waste per year, approximately 9.6 tonnes per day.
• The site would operate continuously, with waste deliveries and residue exports restricted to specific times.
• UBH Group Limited, experienced operators in the clinical waste sector, would provide staff training and expertise.
• The applicant stated the facility would address a national and regional need for clinical and hazardous waste treatment capacity, reduce waste miles, and recover energy as heat.

Objections to the proposal:

• Hickson Parish Council and Stowe by Chartley Parish Council raised concerns about health risks, proximity to Sir Peter's Primary School, emissions, and the applicant's credentials.
• Sir Gavin Williamson MP opposed the application and submitted a petition signed by 92 residents.
• Residents submitted 154 objections by letter and email, along with 196 standard objection cards, citing concerns about the impact on Hickson, the school, emissions, noise, odour, water pollution, dust, light pollution, local habitats, and the road network.

David Bray noted that no objections were received from technical consultees, including the County Council's Environmental Advice Team, Highways Authority, Noise Engineer, Flood Risk Management Team, Stafford Borough Council Planning and Environmental Health, the Environment Agency, and Natural England.

However, he stated that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated how the proposal met the locational criteria outlined in the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan, particularly regarding regional and national scale facilities. He said that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to justify locating the facility on a rural industrial estate, or demonstrated that the site selection process considered viable alternatives.

Amelia Garner, a local resident and parent at Sir Peter's Primary School, spoke against the application, stating that 80 metres was not a safe distance from the school. She said:

The applicants claim there is no significant risk, but that phrase admits there is some risk. And when it comes to our children, any risk is too much.

She also raised concerns about the applicant's lack of a proven track record and the lack of community consultation.

Councillor Brendan McKeown, Chairman of Hickson Parish Council, also objected to the application, raising concerns about the company's credentials and the potential for vermin and infection. He said that the application was a hoodwink .

Dudley Saunders, planning agent for In Waste Hickson Limited, spoke in support of the application, stating that the facility would address a national need for clinical waste treatment, support the decarbonisation of local industry, and provide employment. He said that statutory consultees had confirmed that the environmental impacts were acceptable.

During the discussion, Councillor Neil Parton raised concerns about the risk of fire and leakage into the water system, the openness of the company, and whether local residents would benefit from cheaper electricity. He also questioned whether there were alternative locations outside the village.

David Bray responded that the Staffordshire Fire and Rescue had no objections, and that emissions would be controlled by a permit issued by Stafford Borough Council. He also stated that there was potential for alternative locations within the county.

Dudley Saunders clarified that the drainage system would be closed to prevent contaminants from leaking into the surface water catchment in the event of a fire. He also stated that the company could potentially make information about the facility's throughput available to the public.

Councillor Warwick McKenzie stated that Staffordshire needed a facility like this, but that this company was not the right one to do it.

Councillor Nicholas Lakin asked for confirmation that the appeal was a result of delays caused by the applicant. David Bray confirmed that it was a combination of factors, including the need for more information from the applicant, elections, and training for new committee members.

Councillor Val Chapman said she would not be supporting the application, stating that clinical waste needs to be done, but this is the wrong site .

Councillor Jack Rose raised concerns about the mental health of nearby residents and school users, and the capacity of Stafford Borough Council's environmental health team to adequately monitor the site.

The committee voted unanimously to confirm that had the County Council been able to determine the application, planning permission would have been refused.

Hintz Quarry Extension

The committee approved an application by Tarmac Trading Limited and CEMEX UK Operations Limited for an extension to the extraction area at Hintz Quarry, located off Watling Street, Tamworth. The proposal involves extracting an additional 1.4 million tonnes of sand and gravel, in conjunction with the remaining 1.5 million tonnes of permitted reserves.

Matthew Weddle, the case officer, explained that the application site is approximately 99 hectares, with the proposed extension covering 4.2 hectares of mainly agricultural land. Access to the site is from Watling Street, via an underpass on the A5.

Key details of the proposal:

• Extraction would continue for around six years, until the end of 2031, at a rate of 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes per annum.
• The proposed after-uses are for nature conservation, including heathland, acid grassland, and woodland, as well as the reinstatement of agricultural land and public rights of way.
• The restoration works are proposed to be completed by the end of 2033.
• The depth of extraction would be limited to 5.7 metres below mean groundwater level, with groundwater pumping continuing to recharge the aquifer.
• The proposed restoration scheme is intended to deliver a 24% biodiversity net gain.

Matthew Weddle noted that no objections were received from technical consultees, but concerns were raised about the progress of restoration in other parts of the quarry, and objections were received from residents.

He stated that the proposal was in accordance with the Minerals Local Plan, and that the ongoing mineral and restoration operations were not inappropriate in the Greenbelt³. He also addressed concerns about restoration progress, traffic impact, and community liaison.

Councillor Neil Parton asked about the progress of restoration in other parts of the site, the timeframe for completion, whether the land would be returned to farmland, and how many trees would be affected.

Matthew Weddle responded that some parts of the quarry were already restored, and that the method of extraction allowed for progressive backfilling. He confirmed that agricultural land would be restored, and that any trees removed would be replaced as part of the biodiversity net gain.

Councillor Jack Rose questioned whether the materials would still be required for HS2, given that parts of the project had been abandoned. He also asked for more information about the cottages on the site, and the loss of history.

Matthew Weddle responded that Tarmac had contracts for a section of HS2 that was still underway, and that Hintz Quarry would cover for production if required. He also stated that the environmental advice team had requested a check for bats and a historical record of the cottages before demolition.

Councillor Nicholas Lakin requested that future plans include a Google Map of the area to provide context.

Councillor Richard Holland commended Matthew Weddle for a comprehensive report, and stated that the recommendations would receive his support.

The committee voted unanimously to permit the proposed development, subject to the applicant completing a Section 106 agreement⁴ and the imposition of conditions outlined in the report.

Cauldon Cement Works Feedstock Mix

The committee approved an application by Geocycle UK Limited to vary planning conditions relating to the feedstock mix at the alternative fuel facility at Cauldon Cement Works, Earlsway. The proposal involves revising the feedstock mix for the alternative fuel facility from the permitted 68% solid fuel and 32% liquid fuel, to 100% solid fuel.

Isabel Thornton, the case officer, explained that the applicant no longer proposed to proceed with the construction of infrastructure for liquid fuel, and sought to vary planning conditions to remove the liquid fuel element. The proposal also includes updating the approved layout to reflect solid fuel only, and revising permitted feed liquid fuels to 100% to the existing storage hall, and a second over road pipeline from the facility to the cement works.

Key points of the proposal:

• There is no change to the proposed total quantity of feedstock, operating hours, or hours for deliveries.
• The proportionate increase in solid fuels means there will be an increase of one vehicle load per full working day.
• External finished materials for buildings are proposed to match existing buildings.
• The proposed pipeline will feed high calorific value materials directly to the cement works.

Isabel Thornton noted that objections had been received from technical statutory consultees, but the County Council's Environmental Advice Team had recommended conditions in relation to tree protection and landscaping, and the planning regulation team recommended a condition in relation to litter control. The Environment Agency advised that a permit variation application would be required.

Waterhouses Parish Council maintained a holding objection, based on concerns about greater volumes of solid waste fuels from the facility over Ellsway to the cement works, and plastic debris on the ground below the conveyor.

Isabel Thornton stated that the operator had provided information regarding investigations and remedial works, including replacing rubber seals on the conveyor.

Chris Hinton, representing Waterhouses Parish Council, stated that the council had always been happy to accept alterations and improvements to the plant, provided that the company promptly and effectively addressed issues of pollution. He said that the council objected to the proposal to extend the capacity of the solid fuel storage until it could be demonstrated that the conveyor system was functioning in compliance with the original consent.

Joel Jessup, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated that the fuels facility was now operational and had already facilitated the reduction of carbon emissions from the cement plant. He said that the application did not propose to increase the overall tonnage of waste imported, but instead to change the proportion of solid and liquid fuels to 100% solids. He also stated that the issue of plastic escaping the conveyor was an operational matter relating to existing infrastructure, rather than a planning matter related to the development proposed in the application.

Councillor Neil Parton suggested that a team be set up to monitor plastic escaping from the site.

Isabel Thornton responded that the operator conducted daily inspections and used vacuum machinery to collect litter, and that the site was monitored by the Environment Agency. She also stated that the planning regulation team would respond to breaches of conditions and complaints.

Councillor Jack Rose asked whether the parish council had seen a marked improvement with the litter escaping.

Chris Hinton responded that it was difficult to determine the current state of any rectification, as the issues coincided with high winds, which had not been experienced recently.

Isabel Thornton reminded councillors that the issue was with the existing conveyor, and that the application before them was for an additional over road pipeline. She stated that the application gave them the opportunity to add an additional condition that could be enforced by the planning regulation team, specifically relating to the control of litter outside the site boundary.

Councillor Warwick McKenzie stated that the applicant should be commended for burning the plastic, as it prevented it from being buried in landfill.

Councillor Val Chapman requested a comment on the loss of green space and tree protection measures.

Isabel Thornton responded that the recommendation was to require the submission of details from the applicant to review the existing landscaping scheme and to update it, and to protect existing trees on site.

Councillor Nicholas Lakin asked whether there was a proposal to utilise green energy, and if not, why not.

Joel Jessup responded that he was not aware of the company's wider green energy proposals, but that the current process was the best balance of environmentally acceptable and a scheme that fits the requirements of the kilns.

The committee voted unanimously to permit the proposed development.