Archived decisions

Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The annual tours for Members are a key feature of the Regulatory Committee's work. At its last meeting the Committee considered a report on the results of a questionnaire sent to all Members about the arrangements for future tours. One of the decisions was an agreement that the Chief Planning Adviser should prepare an annual report for the January or February meeting of the Committee recommending a theme for the year's tours based on event and discussions in Committee over the previous year.

1.2 This report looks back over the last year or so and identifies those sites Members may consider that it would be useful to visit so that they might judge for themselves if the impact of the development they had envisaged when coming to decisions have been borne out in practice. The tour could also provide the opportunity to see if planning conditions are achieving the expected mitigation of the impact of the development on the local environment or if restoration is enhancing the local environment as expected.

2. Development Proposals

2.1 The majority of planning applications submitted to the County Council, be they applications for the County Councils own development or applications from the private sector for minerals and waste development, cause few problems. Nearly three-quarters of all planning applications (74 per cent) are dealt with by the Chief Planning Adviser under delegated powers because, following publicity and consultation, no objections are raised. Many of those dealt with by the Regulatory Committee are similarly straightforward because any concerns are dealt with by conditions and agreements.

2.2 Over the last year or so the applications that have caused the greatest concern to the local community have been those where the physical impact of the development has been an issue. These have involved County Council developments such as Multi Use Games Areas on school sites (e.g. at Amery Hill, and Eggars Schools at Alton) and the nursing care homes being provided as part of the initiative developed in partnership with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority (e.g. at Emsworth and Tatchbury Mount). Few minerals and waste developments have been permitted against the background of significant local opposition although one or two small schemes, for example the skip business at Mill Farm Wellow and the recycling facility at Quay Lane, Gosport have raised local concerns. The closure of the footpath at Bridgemary School also raised a variety of issues.

2.3 At the same time some applications that have been dealt with under delegated powers by the Chief Planning Adviser or have had straightforward passage through the Regulatory Committee have achieved high praise from the local community and other commentators as examples of good architecture and sensitive planning including the Winchester Recycling Centre, the Alton MRF and the Alton Library.

2.4 Unfortunately not many of the permissions granted over the last 12-18 months have been implemented to the stage where the full impact of the proposal can be seen. However it may be useful for Members to visit some sites that are under development to see for themselves the measures in place to mitigate the disturbance caused by construction, for example Harestock Home.

3. The Success of Conditions

3.1 It is generally with minerals and waste developments that conditions have the greatest influence on the final impact of the development. On many sites although the impact of the conditions relating to working arrangements are immediately apparent, it is often many years before the full impact of the those relating to the final restoration of the site are apparent. The Farlington Redoubt aggregate recycling site appears to be working reasonably well, as does the enlarged compositing facility at Herriard. If Members are keen to visit some mineral extraction sites, Ibsley Airfield provides an example of wet pit restoration, Nea Farm an example of gravel pit working and progressive restoration for an agricultural after use, and Ibsley Quarry an example of a phased wet and dry restoration.

4. Conclusions

4.1 One of the concerns expressed by Members in the recent questionnaire on Committee tours was the regularity with which certain types of sites were visited. The opportunity exists this year to focus the tours on County Council developments promoted to achieve the aims and objectives of the Corporate Strategy and to look at the success of conditions in mitigating the impact of development or the successful restoration of areas once development has been completed.

Recommendations

1. That Members consider the suggestions for the type of developments that could be included in this year's Regulatory Committee tours and agree what sites they would wish to visit; and

2. In the light of the Committee's preferences the Chief Planning Adviser makes the appropriate arrangements.

9170/RL