Archived decisions

Contact: Julia Davey, ext: 6732 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought to operate a waste transfer station on land at Quay Lane, Elson, Gosport. The proposal includes the erection of two general industrial units with associated offices and the refurbishment of existing offices on the site. The application was presented to the County Council's Regulatory Committee on 12 May 2004 where Members resolved to defer the application so that a site visit could take place. The site visit took place on 7 June 2004. The recommendation is to grant approval subject to conditions.

2. Site

2.1 The site comprises 0.15 hectares of land designated as industrial within the Gosport Borough Council Local Plan. It is bounded by Quay Lane to the west and Portsmouth Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and Special Protection Area (SPA), to the east.

2.2 The majority of the site is surfaced with hardcore and bounded by chain link fencing. The site was most recently used as a coach storage yard under a series of temporary planning permissions granted by Gosport Borough Council in 1992, 1994 and 1995. Outline permission for a two storey building for industrial purposes (class B2) was then granted in 1999. A mobile phone mast, currently on the eastern part of the site, was erected as `permitted' development. Gosport Borough Council granted planning permission in September 2003 for replacement boundary fences and gates and screen planting to the eastern boundary.

2.3 A public Right of Way runs alongside the site to the east.

3. Proposal

3.1 Planning permission is sought to operate a waste transfer station on industrial land at Quay Lane, Elson, Gosport. The proposal includes the erection of a waste transfer building and a maintenance repair unit, with associated offices, on the northern boundary and the refurbishment of existing offices on the site.

3.2 Sorting of mixed waste skips into designated material skips would take place within the waste transfer station. Lorries would reverse and unload inside the building. Materials, which would include brick/concrete rubble, timber, mixed metals, papers and plastics, would be sorted, principally by hand, to smaller skips for distribution to other dedicated recycling/waste centres. The total new build development would extend approximately 25 metres in length, 6.5 metres high and a maximum of 12 metres in width.

3.3 There would be approximately 30 vehicle movements per day for the delivery and collection of 5 cubic metres skips and 30 cubic metre containers.

3.4 Hours of operation would be between 0630 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1600 hours on Saturday.

3.5 There would be seven employees, including four drivers.

3.6 Parking for six cars and six cycle storage racks would be provided.

4. Development Plan

4.1 The following key policies apply and are attached to this report:

(i) Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (Adopted March 2000) Policy MW1, MW2;

(ii) Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) Policies 6, 7, and 46;

(iii) Gosport Borough Local Plan (April 1995), Policies BE1, BE2, CH9 and EMP4; and

(iv) Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (December 2002), Policies R/CH1, R/DP1, R/EMP5, R/EMP6, R/ENV6 and R/ENV8.

5. Consultations

5.1 The local Member, Councillor Searle, has been informed of the proposal.

5.2 The Environmental Health Officer (Gosport) raises concerns over the control of dust, smells and noise nuisance to nearby residents and businesses. The Environmental Health Officer states that any help the County Council can give to ensure that these matters are adequately addressed would be greatly appreciated. In particular, the possibility of conditioning loading and unloading operations to take place inside the building, and operating within best practicable means, and requiring an environmental management scheme that includes dealing with noise issues, such as pushing unloaded skips across the yard or dropping them from a height onto the yard.

5.3 Gosport Borough Council raises objections to the application for the following reasons:

(i) The site is located in a prominent position on the coast adjacent to Portsmouth Harbour. The building is of a stark industrial design and to be constructed of materials inappropriate in this sensitive location. Moreover, the close proximity of the two-storey side elevation to the foreshore will leave insufficient land to provide landscaping to soften the harsh appearance of the building. As such the development does not comply with policies BE1, BE2 and CH9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/EMP5, and R/CH1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

(ii) No information has been submitted regarding the measures to be taken to control noise or minimise dust. In the absence of such measures the development is likely to cause nuisance to occupiers of other properties in the vicinity, contrary to policies BE1 and EMP4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/EMP5, R/EMP6, R/ENV6 and R/ENV8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

Gosport Borough Council adds that its Members also raised concern about:

(i) the need for the application to be determined at Committee;

(ii) the environmental impact of traffic on local residential amenities;

(iii) the method of consultation;

(iv) more information generally needed about the proposal; and

(v) if permission is granted, the County Council, as Highways Authority, should impose a weight restriction on the residential roads that the traffic would be using.

5.4 English Nature raises no objection to the proposal. It considers the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the SPA and RAMSAR site, and therefore does not require appropriate assessment in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. In addition it considers the wider conservation interests of the SSSI are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposals, provided the conditions are attached to any permission granted preventing any loss of foreshore habitat and working on the foreshore; and preventing hammer piling during the wintering period
(1 October to 31 March inclusive) - alternative quieter methods of piling, such as screw piling, can be used during this period.

5.5 The Rights of Way Manager raises no objections to the proposal.

5.6 The Highways Adviser raises no objection to the proposal. The site is a vacant plot which has been used for coach storage and has an established industrial use. It could be used for many different employment and commercial activities which could generate significant numbers of vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles. There are some parking problems on the existing estate where units are using their parking areas for external storage and then parking on the street. However on-street parking is a matter for enforcement by Gosport Borough Council. It is advised that, in order to maintain adequate visibility, the applicant submits a plan showing a solid fence on part of the western boundary which would change to part solid/part `see through' polycarbonate type fencing on the southern-most section of the western boundary leading to the access. This would ensure that visibility would be maintained whilst protecting the neighbourhood from dust that could be caused on the site. The Highways Adviser states that the most convenient route to and from the site is via Heritage Way/A32 and does not see any reason why drivers would choose to take any other route apart from the need for local deliveries. The Highways Adviser therefore considers that it is not necessary to impose a lorry routing agreement in this case, although if Members consider it necessary the applicant has agreed to enter into such an agreement. The Highways Adviser also adds that the issue of road safety at the Heritage Way/Elson Road junction has been raised by some objectors. This `unconventional junction' did cause some confusion, resulting in accidents when it was first opened. However, the Highways Adviser adds that some additional measures have been carried out, including rephasing of the signals, signing and lining, etc.

5.7 Daedalus Airport Safeguarding - comments awaited.

5.8 The Environment Agency raises no objection, subject to conditions.

6. Representations

6.1 Twenty nine letters of objection have been received to the application, of which eight are from other businesses on the same industrial estate and the remainder are from local residents. A petition of 94 residents objecting to the application has also been received predominantly from residents of Elson Road and Naish Drive but including objectors from other roads such as Chesnut Walk and Priory Road.

6.2 Reasons for objection can be summarised as:

(i) access to the industrial estate has become severely restricted over the years and this application would worsen the situation;

(ii) parking on the industrial estate is already at a premium;

(iii) no information submitted relating to prevention of noise and dust pollution;

(iv) the industrial estate was built for `light industry';

(v) any vehicles unable to enter the site would have to proceed down Quay Lane industrial estate, where they would be unable to turn round because the road is a dead end;

(vi) vandalism and fly tipping is already a problem on the estate and this proposal would worsen the situation;

(vii) disruption to existing businesses with additional traffic causing delays and congestion;

(viii) such a proposal should be located away from busy industrial and residential areas;

(ix) the area is popular for walkers to common land north of the site and also attracts boat and yacht enthusiasts at Quay Lane Boat Yard;

(x) more suitable sites available, such as along A32 and within the existing amenity tip in Rowner;

(xi) cars park on the road facing the proposed entrance and consideration should be given to siting the entrance at the southern end to avoid obstructing the narrow road;

(xii) private business closed circuit television systems record difficulties currently encountered by traffic using the estate;

(xiii) Brent geese feed in surrounding area;

(xiv) noise and dust will not be able to be satisfactorily controlled;

(xv) visual impact - a large warehouse so close to the water's edge is not a suitable location;

(xvi) concern about liquid waste entering sea and damaging wildlife;

(xvii) lorries already have to use private forecourts in estate to turn around;

(xviii) noise from existing sites already causing noise nuisance to local residents;

(xix) site too small for this type of operation;

(xx) residents understood that hardway was a conservation area;

(xxi) impact to local residents from exiting transporters and coaches accessing the estate and using residential roads, in particular Quay Road and Priory Road;

(xxii) emergency vehicles cannot pass now due to traffic congestion;

(xxiii) if permission is granted, operating times should be restricted to between: 0700 to 1800 hours on weekdays; 0800 to 1200 hours on Saturday; and not at all on Sunday or recognised public holidays;

(xxiv) manoeuvrability of lorries on such a restricted site will be very difficult;

(xxv) Elson Road is a major bus route;

(xxvi) risk to children walking on pavements;

(xxvii) already a waste transfer station at Toronto Place run by A and J Bull Limited;

(xxviii) the area us vulnerable to vandals and with plastics and paper etc, the site could be subject to fire risk as it has been in the past; and

(xxix) winds along the shore will blow rubbish into the harbour.

7. Site Visit

7.1 The Site Visit took place on 7 June 2004 and members of the Committee met representatives of Gosport Borough Council, the applicant and a local resident. The comments of those present are outlined below. Councillor Price declared a personal interest as he was acquainted with the agent for the applicant who practices in his division.

7.2 The Chief Planning Adviser drew attention to important points concerning the application such as its location in the Quay Lane Industrial Estate and the use of the new Heritage Way Link Road by most of the vehicles using the site. The nearest houses in a southerly direction would be 200 metres away. The nearest houses to the west would be just under 100 metres away but would be separated from the site by the existing industrial units and the new Heritage Way link road. The Portsmouth Harbour SPA and SSSI adjoin the site to the east separated from it by a public footpath.

7.3 The agent for the applicant described the wall which would be erected along the western side of the site and which would take account of suitable sight lines for vehicles emerging from the site. The Highways Adviser felt that the number of vehicle movements generated would be modest in number and acceptable. He had no concerns with the access proposals and considered there was no need for a lorry routing agreement. The location of the buildings within the site had taken account of the need for all vehicles leaving the site to exit in a forward gear.

7.4 The Gosport Borough Council Planning Officer drew attention to the proximity of the Harbour to the site and the small amount of space available for landscaping. She drew attention to the various industrial buildings opposite the site entrance and the possible adverse impact on their operations and pointed out that some lorries visiting the site would pass through residential development. She confirmed that other B2 uses, such as a foundry, could be located on the site under Class B2 (General Industrial).

7.5 The local Member, Councillor Searle, was concerned that some of the traffic would go through Elson Village and drew particular attention to possible dust problems for adjacent premises when the wind blows from an easterly direction. Councillor Mrs Elshaw, Gosport Borough Council, expressed support for the views of Councillor Searle and did not feel that the proposed measures would solve dust problems. Local resident Mrs Jinkinson, who lives on the western side of Heritage Way was concerned about noise as well as dust and did not feel that the site was appropriately sized for the development proposed.

7.6 In response to questions raised by Members it was pointed out that a lorry routing agreement could prevent vehicles from using Elson Road apart from for access. It was confirmed that plans had been submitted and would be available at the meeting indicating how vehicles would turn within the site. The Chief Planning Adviser felt that the proposal had been adequately advertised with a notice on site and in the press. Consultation letters were delivered to houses situated further away from the site than the generally accepted distance. Elevation plans of the building will be displayed at the Regulatory Committee meeting. It was confirmed that most of the work on the site, including loading and unloading of waste transfer materials, would take place within the proposed building.

8. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

8.1 The site is located within an existing industrial area within the urban boundary and therefore the principle of the development is in accordance with policy.

8.2 Given the nature of the proposed development within an existing industrial estate, the main issues raised by the proposal are:

(i) whether the size and shape of the site would enable the adequate manoeuvrability of vehicles within it without having an adverse impact on surrounding land;

(ii) whether there would be any significant adverse highway impact to the local road network and users of the existing industrial estate as well as any adverse environmental impact of traffic to local residents by vehicle movements associated with the development;

(iii) whether there would be any significant adverse visual impact caused by the development;

(iv) whether there would be any pollution or wildlife impact to the Portsmouth Harbour SPA and RAMSAR site; and

(v) whether there would be any significant noise or dust impact caused by the development to local residents as well as users of the existing industrial estate.

8.3 It is noted that English Nature and the Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. The County Council's Landscape Adviser has also raised no objection in principle to the proposal.

8.4 Since the application was submitted meetings have taken place with the applicant and revised plans submitted that demonstrate that on-site vehicle manoeuvrability, staff parking, and skip storage can be accommodated satisfactorily on the site. This has been achieved by the relocation of the waste transfer building to the north eastern corner as opposed to the north western corner. This new layout would have benefits in terms of visual impact from Portsmouth Harbour as the waste transfer building being narrower than the maintenance building.

8.5 The comments of the Highway Adviser with regard to the current issue of congestion on the industrial estate being the responsibility of Gosport Borough Council to resolve and there being no highway safety necessity for a lorry routing agreement, are noted.

8.6 The concerns of the Environmental Health Officer (Gosport) in relation to noise and dust from the site are noted and these issues could be controlled by way of condition on any permission granted. The revised plans that have been submitted also include for a part solid brick, part "see through" fence on the western boundary which will replace the existing chain link fencing and will help contain to a satisfactory standard dust and noise. It is also noted that unloading and transfer of waste will take place inside the new waste transfer building.

8.7 The revised plans incorporate the principle of landscaping the eastern boundary of the site, with native species, to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority, the details of which could be controlled by condition attached to any permission that may be granted.

8.8 Concerns about easterly winds blowing dust across the local area are noted but research from local weather stations has clarified that prevailing winds are south/south-westerly.

8.9 It is recommended that planning permission for the development be granted, subject to conditions.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of Erection of two general industrial (class B1) units with associated offices and waste transfer station and refurbishment of existing building at Land at Quay Lane, Elson, Gosport (K13994/7) be granted for the following reason and subject to the following conditions.

Reason for Approval

It is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan (as summarised as attached) and would not materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience.

Conditions

Time Limits

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with approved plans within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Hours of Working

(2) No operations authorised by way of this permission shall take place other than between the hours of 0630 to 1800 Monday to Friday and between 0700 to 1600 hours on Saturdays. There shall be no working on Sundays or recognised public holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Environmental Management Scheme

(3) No development shall commence until an environmental management scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with that approval. The scheme shall include measures to minimise noise and dust produced by the development as well as matters such as site supervision, types of reversing alarms, and fencing.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(4) No development shall commence until details of specification of reversing alarms to be used on lorries and equipment within the site, have been submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Pollution Prevention

(5) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been approved by and implemented to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

(6) Any facilities for the storage of fuels shall be sited in impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 100% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks, associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

Layout

(7) The development shall be set out on site and constructed in accordance with the revised layout drawing 680/02 Rev A (27.04.04)

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory operation of the site in the interests of local amenity.

Nature Conservation

(8) Works involving hammer piling will not take place during the winter period (1 October to 31 March inclusive); alternative quieter methods of piling such as screw driving however, may be used during this period.

Reason: To protect the nature conservation interests of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and SSSI.

Landscaping

(9) Prior to the commencement of the development details of the landscape boundary treatment adjacent to the Portsmouth Harbour SSSI shall be submitted in writing to the Waste Planning Authority for approval. These shall include detailed cross sections, a planting plan and details of colour and type of fencing.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities and the visual enhancement of the coastline.

Other

(10) Only non-hazardous construction and demolition wastes shall be imported to the site.

Reason: In the interests of the local amenities of the area.

(11) Prior to the development commencing building material details, including colours of materials to be used in the construction of the development , including the proposed building, walling, fencing; gates and surfacing, shall be submitted to the waste Planning Authority for approval in writing.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

(12) No external lighting shall be erected on the site without the prior written approval of the Waste Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: In the interest of local amenity.

8809/JD

APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY STRUCTURE PLAN 1996-2011 (REVIEW) (ADOPTED MARCH 2000)

Policy MW1

Planning authorities will, through policies and proposals in local plans and day-to day development control:

(i) seek to ensure an adequate supply of minerals and provision of waste management facilities to meet needs having regard to the need to: maintain the environmental quality and diversity of Hampshire, including the protection of living conditions; safeguard important socio-economic interests; prevent pollution; and protect features of particular environmental or historical importance including those listed in Policy MW3, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation and historic parks and gardens;

(ii) seek environmental enhancement and public benefits through minerals and waste development;

(iii) conserve and prevent unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources and encourage efficient use of materials;

(iv) encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregate materials; and

(v) seek the management of waste in accordance with the following hierarchy;

1. reduction of waste;

2. re-use of waste;

3. recovery of waste (recycling, composting, energy from waste); and

4. waste disposal;

having regard to the proximity principle and the principle of best practical environmental option.

Policy MW2

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the mineral/waste planning authority is satisfied that:

(i) any adverse environmental or other impacts that the development would be likely to cause are outweighed by a clearly established need for the development; and

(ii) the proposals, where applicable, include a satisfactory scheme of working and landscaping including details of lorry routeing and, in all cases, include satisfactory measures to ensure that the development would not have any unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact; and

(iii) the proposals, where applicable, provide for the satisfactory and prompt restoration and after-care of the site to a high standard and to a landform compatible with the local landscape and suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use.

HAMPSHIRE, PORTSMOUTH AND SOUTHAMPTON MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN (ADOPTED 17 DECEMBER 1998)

Policy 6

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority is satisfied that:

(i) there is a clearly established need for the development (as assessed in relation to the other relevant policies of the Plan) which outweighs any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to cause; and

(ii) the development would not be likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of adverse environmental, traffic or other impact, pollution risk or danger to public health, particularly in respect of any of the factors specified in Policy 7 and measures would be taken to ensure that any such impacts would, as far as is practicable, be minimised; and

(iii) the proposals provide for the satisfactory working or operation and landscaping of the site and for its satisfactory restoration and landscaping at the cessation of the operations or use or at the end of the life of the facility to a condition suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use which is compatible with adjoining land uses and the planning policies for the area.

Notwithstanding any need there may be for waste disposal, permission will not normally be granted for mineral extraction with restoration by infilling with waste materials unless there is a need for the mineral to be extracted.

Policy 7

The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for minerals and waste development provided they are satisfied that, where appropriate, the proposed development pays due regard to:

(i) the relationship of the proposal site to other properties and land uses (particularly residential and other environmentally sensitive properties) and the likely effects of the proposed development on the locality by reason of noise, dust, smoke, fumes, illumination or any other factor and the need for buffer zones between the development and residential and other properties;

(ii) the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected, in terms of highway capacity and safety and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements required could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact;

(iii) the likely visual impact of the proposed development and the need for additional planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development;

(iv) the need to safeguard the character and amenities of individual settlements and to safeguard open gaps between settlements from permanent development, which would cause long-term harm to the function of the land;

(v) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to protect and safeguard sites of nature conservation, geological, archaeological, historic, architectural and landscape importance and their settings;

(vi) the extent and quality of agricultural land to be taken by the proposed development and the proposals for its subsequent restoration and the likely effects of the proposals on farm structure and management;

(vii) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to maintain the distinctive character of the landscape; the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard and protect individual species, habitats and landscape features, including woodland, trees and hedgerows; and the likely effects of the proposed development on forestry and woodland management;

(viii) the likely effects of the proposed development on sites used for recreation and public rights of way and the need to protect or secure the satisfactory diversion of public rights of way;

(ix) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard the flow and quality of watercourses, water supplies, floodplains, groundwater, the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the level of the water table in the locality and the likely effects of the proposed development on the immediate setting of any river;

(x) any potential danger to aircraft from birds being attracted to the site;

(xi) the possible amenity implications of any landfill gas that might be generated at the site and of any provisions that might need to be made to deal with it; and

(xii) the likely cumulative impact of the proposed development in combination with any other significant development taking place or permitted to take place in the locality and the need to minimise the impact of mineral extraction and waste disposal operations by securing, where appropriate, the phased release of sites and progression of working and restoration.

Policy 46

The Waste Planning Authorities will normally permit the use of land and the erection of plant and buildings for the recycling, transfer, storage and other treatment or handling of waste (excluding waste processing facilities covered by Policy 45) provided that:

(i) the proposed site is located near to the likely source(s) of waste and/or the market(s) for the recycled or recovered materials; and

(ii) the proposed site is located close to and has adequate access to the Hampshire Lorry Route Network (as shown on the proposals map), so that the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable traffic impact (including the environmental impact of traffic) on the local highway network; and

(iii) the proposed site is located:

(a) within an existing industrial site or on land which is permitted or allocated for industrial development; or

(b) within an area of land in the countryside that has already been disturbed by permanent development (a brownfield site); or

(c) at a waste disposal landfill or landraising site provided that the proposed development is connected with the waste disposal operation and is for a temporary period commensurate with the operational life of the waste disposal facility; and

(iv) the proposed site is located and the proposal includes adequate measures to ensure that no unacceptable impact would be likely to be caused to the occupants or users of houses, other residential buildings, schools, hospitals and other environmentally sensitive buildings and land uses by reason of noise, dust, fumes, smell or other cause; and

(v) the proposed site is located so as to avoid unacceptable impact on landscape, nature conservation and archaeological interests; and

(vi) the proposed site is located and the proposal includes adequate measures to ensure that there would be no significant risk of pollution or danger to public health or safety; and

(vii) the proposed site is located and, if necessary, the proposal includes landscaping measures to ensure that the development would not cause unacceptable visual intrusion.

GOSPORT BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN (APRIL 2005)

Policy BE1

Favourable consideration will normally be given to development proposals, provided:

(i) they are appropriate in terms of their location, form, scale, density, height, layout, and external appearance

(ii) no demonstrable harm is caused to the amenities of neighbouring uses

(iii) they have due regard to the setting of neighbouring buildings or structures

(iv) where they affect the setting of a Conservation Area, its character or appearance is preserved or enhanced

(v) they complement, where appropriate, existing built or natural features on the application site

(vi) they do not prejudice the comprehensive development of neighbouring land

(vii) where prior approval for demolition works is required, the method of any proposed restoration of the site will cause no demonstrable harm to any adjoining building or to the character or appearance of the local area.

Policy BE2

The Borough Council may require the submission of landscape details to accompany a planning application or as a reserved matter, favourable consideration will normally be given to their approval, provided they:

(i) have due regard to the character and appearance of the application site and any adjoining buildings and spaces

(ii) where appropriate, have due regard to the treatment of buffer spaces between uses

(iii) have due regard to the desire for the visual improvement of major transport corridors, the urban edge and coastline

(iv) contain an adequate site survey and appropriate details including a schedule of tree and shrub species and hard landscape materials and the phasing and timing of works

(v) incorporate satisfactory arrangements for the establishment of the proposed scheme

(vi) have due regard to the design guidelines set out in Appendix 9.

Policy CH9

Within the coastal zone policy area shown on the proposals map, favourable consideration will not normally be given to development proposals unless they are compatible with the conservation of the area's open character and appearance, and do not cause demonstrable harm to its nature conservation and geological interests or heritage features.

Policy EMP4

Favourable consideration will normally be given to development proposals falling within classes B1 and B2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) on existing industrial sites and appropriately allocated business development sites, provided the following criteria are met:

(i) it would not be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring residents or conflict with surrounding uses

(ii) appropriate landscaping provision is made both within the site and on its periphery to establish adequate separation of uses, and visual and acoustic screening from residential areas

(iii) adequate vehicular and pedestrian access can be provided

(iv) adequate parking arrangements are available or can be achieved in accordance with Policy T6.

GOSPORT BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN REVIEW (DECEMBER 2002)

Policy R/CH1

Development proposals within the coastal zone, as defined on the Proposals Map, will be permitted provided that:

(i) they are in keeping with the character of the coast and preserve or enhance the environment of the surrounding area;

(ii) they will not significantly prejudice landscape interests and will have regard to the importance of seaward and landward views;

(iii) they do not cause demonstrable harm to nature conservation and geological interests and will retain natural and other features of heritage importance;

(iv) they incorporate or improve public access to the shore where practical.

Policy R/DP1

Development proposals will be permitted within the urban area, as defined on the Proposals Map, provided that:

(i) they are in keeping with the character of the surrounding area in terms of scale, setting, density, design, layout, materials, landscaping and the retention of important views;

(ii) they do not have an adverse effect on the historic built environment, including buildings and structures of national and local importance;

(iii) they do not have an adverse effect on nature conservation areas or important landscape features, including trees and open areas;

(iv) they do not cause a significant loss of amenity in terms of traffic generation, noise, vibration, smell or pollution;

(v) appropriate infrastructure is available or can be provided;

(vi) the development is designed and laid out so as to reduce the potential for criminal activity and anti-social behaviour;

(vii) they do not unacceptably prejudice the comprehensive development of a site or neighbouring land.

Policy R/EMP5

Development proposals for the extension of existing employment sites and the redevelopment of redundant employment sites for employment purposes will be permitted provided that:

(i) they would not be detrimental to the amenities of any adjoining residential areas;

(ii) they would not be detrimental to the character, appearance or environment of the site or the surrounding area;

(iii) they would not restrict appropriate access and parking arrangements within the site;

(iv) they would not generate unacceptable levels of traffic.

Policy R/EMP6

Within the urban area on sites not allocated for employment use, the change of use of existing buildings or the redevelopment of underused or vacant land for Class B1 (Business) uses will be permitted, provided that:

(i) the development is of an appropriate scale and nature to the surrounding area, particularly residential areas;

(ii) the development does not result in the loss of residential accommodation;

(iii) proposals would not adversely affect the character of the area or have unacceptable environmental and amenity implications or create unacceptable levels of traffic.

Policy R/ENV6

Development proposals which are noise-sensitive will not be permitted if the users would be adversely affected by noise from existing or proposed noise-generating uses.

Development proposals which are noise-generating will not be permitted if they would be liable to increase adversely the noise experienced by the users of existing or proposed neighbouring noise-sensitive development.

Policy R/ENV8

Development proposals will not be permitted when they are likely to:

(i) lead to the National Air Quality Strategy standards or objectives being exceeded, either individually or in combination with other land uses; or

(ii) be adversely affected by existing poor air quality.