Archived decisions

Contact: Peter Chadwick, ext 6728 email: [email protected]

Julia Davey, ext 6732 [email protected]

Neil Chester, ext 6496 [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report updates Members on the results of three recent planning appeals. Decisions on two of them, at Blackmoor Estate and Shirrel Heath require no further action. The third, at Ridge Quarry, will require further consideration and the Committee is recommended to support the proposed actions.

2. Green Waste Composting and Soil Recycling Facility at Blackmoor Estate

2.1 An application for a variation of condition to allow 60 lorry movements per day was considered by the Regulatory Committee on 5 January 2005, when it was resolved to refuse planning permission, contrary to the recommendation of the Chief Planning Adviser. The applicant appealed against the refusal, and the appeal was the subject of a Public Inquiry held on 21 March 2006. The Inspector's decision was to allow the appeal and to grant planning permission for the variation.

2.2 The reason for refusal was that the additional lorries would have an unacceptable impact in terms of noise and dust for local residents. Therefore these were the main issues considered by the Inspector.

2.3 The Inspector considered that "On balance, given there are existing controls and measures which help to limit dust nuisance, the proposed increase in lorry movements would not increase the amount of dust generated to such an extent to cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of local residents."

2.4 In relation to noise it was agreed by all parties that the residents likely to be affected were those in houses fronting the A325 and South Lodge on Blackmoor Road, adjacent to the site access.

2.5 In relation to the houses on the A325 the Inspector considered "Lorries slowing down on the A325 to enter Blackmoor Road, those leaving the appeal site in low gear and those joining the A325 from Blackmoor Road would generate additional noise that would be perceptible to local residents. However, due to the prevailing background traffic noise and the fact that an existing condition restricts the hours that lorries can enter or leave the site, the increase in lorry movements would not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of local residents living in properties along the A325."

2.6 In relation to South Lodge he considered "I accept that additional noise would be perceptible in the garden of this property. However there are already lorry movements associated with the appeal site and other agricultural related traffic that pass close to the garden. Any increase in noise associated with the proposal would not be significant when compared to the prevailing background noise levels. As a result, the proposed increase in lorry movements would not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupants of South lodge."

2.7 The Inspector concluded "that the proposal to increase total lorry movements to 60 would not result in an adverse impact on the living conditions of local residents due to noise and dust. Accordingly, the proposal does not conflict with Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policy 46 or with relevant national planning guidance. I have had regard to the fact that there has been a high degree of opposition to the proposed increase in the number of lorry movements. However, this level of opposition does not alter the planning merits of the case nor outweigh my conclusions on the main issue."

3. Ridge Quarry, Ridge Lane, Ridge, near Romsey

3.1 An application for a permanent facility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste and associated development including aggregate and compost importation for blending purposes, retention of concrete batching plant and extension of time for existing silt ponds at Ridge Quarry, Ridge Lane, Ridge, near Romsey was submitted on 29 September 2004. Planning permission was refused , notwithstanding a contrary recommendation by the Regulatory Committee on 24 November 2004.

3.2 The applicant appealed against this refusal and the appeal was heard at a local public inquiry which took place over 2 days on 28 February and 1 March 2006. On 18 May 2006 the appeal was dismissed.

Inspectors Decision

3.3 The inspector, in dismissing the appeal, generally concluded that "I fully recognise the need to provide the kind of facility proposed ...but the need for facilities of this type should be distinguished from the need for a facility in this location."

3.4 In relation to existing policy and choice of site the inspector said: "Overall, on the subject of planning policy, I conclude that while a location for recycling/secondary aggregates production in the countryside, while not expressly prohibited, is certainly not encouraged, especially on greenfield sites."

3.5 With relation to visual and other environmental effects the inspector concluded: "Overall, I have no reason to believe that the visual or environmental consequences of the proposal would, individually or collectively, render the proposal unacceptable..."

3.6 With relation to expectations that the site should be restored to agriculture the Inspector's view was: "...it is not unreasonable for local residents to want it to be returned, characterised at the inquiry as `healing the countryside'. But...the "reasonable expectation" argument does not, in itself, weigh heavily in the balance."

3.7 The appeal site has been put forward by the appellant to be considered as a preferred site in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF). And the Inspector noted: "...I agree that the proposed facility is of the right type and that it is important that it should be provided at the right time, this, in my judgement, is one such instance where the outcome of a key aspect of the HMWDF would be seriously prejudiced by a premature decision."

3.8 With regard to the future of the appeal site at Ridge a full audit is being undertaken and a meeting will be arranged with the applicant to discuss the way forward and timescales established for getting the site restored as quickly as possible. A report on restoration progress will be made to a future meeting of the Committee.

4. Shirrell Heath Scrap Yard

4.1 On 23 March 2005 the Regulatory Committee resolved to refuse planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building, upgrade existing hardstanding and installation of drainage system at the scrap yard, Bishops Lane, Shirrell Heath (Application No. 04/03023/HCS) in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief Planning Officer.

4.2 The applicant appealed this decision and the appeal was heard by way of a Public Inquiry on 25 April 2006.

4.3 On 23 May 2006 the appeal was dismissed. In dismissing the appeal the Inspector concluded that the use of the site as a scrap yard had been abandoned and a proposal for a new scrap yard use would be wholly inappropriate.

Recommendations

1. That the appeal decision in respect of Variation of condition 13 of Planning Permission F35283/001/CMA (correction of number of daily lorry movements) at Green Composting and Recycling Site, Blackmoor Estate, Blackmoor (F35283/004/CMA) be noted.

2. That the appeal decision and proposed action in respect of a permanent facility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste and associated development including aggregate and compost importation for blending purposes, retention of concrete batching plant and extension of time for existing silt ponds at Ridge Quarry, Ridge Lane, Ridge, near Romsey (TVS4326/14) (APP/Q1770/A/04/1171018) be noted, but a report on the progress of restoring the site will be made to the September meeting of the Committee.

3. That the appeal decision in respect of the demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building, upgrade existing hardstanding and installation of drainage system at the scrap yard, Bishops Lane, Shirrell Heath (04/03023/HCS) (APP/Q1770/A/05/1177600) be noted.

962/PDC