Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the REGULATORY COMMITTEE of HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at The Castle, Winchester on 29 July 2009.

PRESENT:

Chairman

p Councillor R.C. McIntosh

Vice-Chairman

p Councillor I.F.E. Beagley

Councillors:

11. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors James and West.

12. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should normally at the time of the debate declare their interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Code. The declaration should be made at the time of the debate.

13. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 July 2009 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

14. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman informed Members that the Chairman of Humbly Grove Oil Field Liaison Panel was no longer Councillor Kemp-Gee, but was now Councillor Mrs McNair Scott.

The Chairman informed Members that half day training would take place in October.

It was confirmed that the meeting would be held in two sessions, the second session being scheduled to commence at 1.30pm.

15. DEPUTATIONS

Members were reminded that they had approved a scheme which involved the suspension of Standing Order 21 to allow Members to ask questions of deputees. Standing Order 21 would be suspended to allow questions of clarification of facts to be put to all deputations on an agenda item. Questions from Committee Members would be asked through the Chairman who might seek the advice of the Committee's legal and other advisers as appropriate: the Chairman's decision on a question would be final. Local Members who requested to speak at the Committee might also be asked questions. Deputations had been duly notified in respect of Items 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

The Committee also agreed to suspend Standing Order 21 to give deputations 4 each minutes to speak, instead of one hour in total.


16. PROPOSED SOUTH EAST HAMPSHIRE RAPID BUS TRANSIT PHASE 1 FAREHAM TO GOSPORT FROM REDLANDS LANE, FAREHAM SOUTH VIA DISUSED RAILWAY CORRIDOR TO MILITARY ROAD, GOSPORT (APPLICATION NO. P/09/0278/CC; KC17678) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF: FAH004; GPH002)

Councillor Bryant declared a personal interest as a member of Fareham Borough Council Planning and Transportation Committee and Councillor Price declared a personal interest as a member of Fareham Borough Council Planning Development Control Committee which had considered the proposal.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 6 in the Minute Book) on the application to provide a dedicated bus way on a disused rail route between Redlands Lane and Military Road. Members received a short addendum to the report clarifying three matters referred to in the report.

In introducing the report, Officers informed Members that the proposal formed part of the strategy to improve the reliability and quality of public transport in South Hampshire and the access to Gosport and Fareham. A Traffic Regulation Order would be imposed on the bus way to allow only cycles, buses and emergency vehicles to use it. Members were advised that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required as the proposal was a free standing project that did not give rise to `significant environmental effects'. Notwithstanding that, the County Council considered that important nature conservation, amenity and traffic issues had to be properly addressed and reports on these matters had been taken into account. The addendum to the report provided reassurance that Natural England had no objection to the proposals and confirmed their view that an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations was not required and provided further clarification about the application and the issue of `screening' under the EIA Regulations.

Officers informed the Committee that the main issues with the application were need, visual impact, nature conservation, traffic and amenity. It was accepted that a solution to the access to Fareham and Gosport was needed and the works were not considered detrimental to the environment. The highways authority was happy with the proposed works and the proposal was in line with planning policy. Officers understood the residents' concerns, but these had been mitigated in the application by acoustic barriers, landscaping, defensive planting and the planned security measures.

Mr. G. Lidgey, Mr. S. J. Little, Ms J. N. Lucas, Mr. P. F. Thomas, Mr. M. V. Foster, Mrs. S. A. Clare, Ms K. Goodwin, Ms M. Omelan and Mr. T. Robbins all made deputations as local residents objecting to the proposal. Mr. B. Masterton of Haven Wildlife made a deputation objecting to the proposal. Mr. R. Soper, Chairman of South Hampshire Bus Operators Association and Mr. J. Osborne on behalf of Transport for South Hampshire, the applicant, made deputations in support of the application.

In considering the proposal, Members questioned Officers on a broad range of subjects including the screening opinion, the impact on the surrounding area, the road surface, the CCTV control room, Fareham and Gosport Borough Council's Local Plan Review policies, the impact on nature, the operation of the service, security and whether CCTV is effective as a preventative tool, flooding problems, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and the positioning of utilities.

Officers advised Members that the screening opinion requested of the County Council had concluded that the development was not EIA development and this opinion was shared by the other statutory consultees, a landscaping scheme was part of the application to reduce visual impact, CCTV would be monitored in the existing Fareham and Gosport Police control room and the scheme complied with Gosport and Fareham Borough Council's Local Plan Review policies. Full reports had been provided on the impact of the proposal on nature and translocation schemes for affected species were in place, an agreement would be made with local bus operators to operate the service, CCTV and the Police would act as deterrents, a mechanism to address any flood problems had been included under condition 10, all planning applications are considered taking into account the impact of human rights and that there was no intention of further utilities being placed under the surface.

Members accepted the acute problems with the access to Fareham and Gosport and supported attempts to alleviate this problem. However, there was concern as to whether this was the scheme to address the problem. Members were concerned about security and that the route would be used as a raceway at night when buses were not operating. They debated the viability of the proposal compared with the now abandoned South Hampshire Rapid Transport Scheme. Members debated the fact that the screening opinion had concluded that an EIA was not required, but noted that the statutory consultees agreed this was the case. Whilst Members had a number of concerns, the ability of the scheme, the subject of the application, to relieve pressure on the A32 and enable better access to Fareham and Gosport for local residents was broadly accepted.

Members were advised and noted that several of their reservations were not valid planning reasons for refusing the application and were advised that a condition could be placed on the recommendations to alleviate the security concerns, particularly the erection of barriers along the route.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the additional condition that barriers and restrictions be erected along the route:

(i) A screening opinion be adopted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 that the proposed development is not EIA development.

Voting: 7 for, 5 against, 1 abstention

(ii) The Council as a competent authority determine that the proposed plan is not likely to have a significant effect on the Portsmouth Harbour SPA and RAMSAR site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and that as a result no appropriate assessment is required under The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994.

Voting: 10 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions

(iii) Planning permission in respect of the South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit phase 1 Fareham to Gosport from Redlands Lane Fareham South via disused railway corridor to Military Road, Gosport (Application No. P/09/0278/CC; K17678) be granted for the reasons in the report and subject to the conditions in Appendix B of the report.

Voting: 6 for, 5 against, 2 abstentions

At this point Councillor Gurden and Councillor Mrs Bailey left the meeting.

17. CONSTRUCTION OF A MINI SYNTHETIC TURF PITCH (60.9 METRES X 42.6 METRES) WITH SIX 10 METRE HIGH FLOODLIGHTING COLUMNS, FOUR METRE HIGH GREEN WELDMESH FENCING, ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE AND ACCESS FOOTPATH. ENHANCE EXISTING TENNIS COURT WITH 2.4 METRE HIGH WELDMESH FENCING, SIX EIGHT METRE HIGH FLOODLIGHTING COLUMNS AND PART REINSTATE EXISTING FOOTBALL PITCH AT NOADSWOOD SECONDARY SCHOOL, NORTH ROAD, DIBDEN PURLIEU (APPLICATION NO. 09/93834) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF: NFE001)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 7 in the Minute Book) on an application for planning permission to construct a mini Synthetic Turf Pitch (STP), enhance an existing tennis court and part reinstate an existing football pitch at Noadswood School, Dibden Purlieu. Officers acknowledged that there had been some objections from local residents, but these objections did not relate to the proposal for the STP or the levelling of the football pitch, particularly as the STP had been moved further away from the SINC. Officers explained that the main concern was the noise and light spill from the tennis courts were the enhancement to take place, but that attempts had been made to mitigate these factors by adjusting operating times, using lower floodlights and planting trees to provide cover.

Mr. R. Beasley made a deputation as a local resident objecting to the proposal. Mr. C. Lord made a deputation as the applicant in support of the proposal.

Standing Order 21 had previously been suspended to give each deputee 4 minutes to speak and allow questions of clarification of facts to be asked.

Members were supportive of the proposal to construct the STP and part reinstate the football pitch. It was acknowledged that the main concern was the enhancement of the tennis courts and it was agreed that there were community benefits to the application. However, clarification was sought as to the level of light spill that the floodlights would produce. Members were pleased to note that mitigating factors such as acoustic fencing and planting of evergreen trees had been included as part of the application. They were informed that it would be for New Forest District Council to enforce any conditions of the planning permission. Members also sought reassurance that that the tennis court floodlights would not be used on public holidays as well as not being used on Fridays and Sundays and voted for a condition to be added to the recommendation that the floodlights on the enhanced existing tennis court not be switched on at all on these days.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission to construct a mini Synthetic Turf Pitch (60.9 metres x 42.6 metres) with six 10 metre high floodlighting columns, 4 metre high green weld mesh fencing, associated drainage and access footpath, enhance existing tennis court with 2.4 metre high weld mesh fencing, six eight metre high floodlighting columns and part reinstate existing football pitch at Noadswood Secondary School, North Road, Dibden Purlieu (Application No. 09/93834), be granted subject to the conditions in Appendix B of the report and the addition of a condition that the floodlights for the enhanced existing tennis courts not be switched on at all on Bank Holidays.

Voting:

11 for, 0 against.

18. CHANGE OF USE OF AN AGRICULTURAL BUILDING AND ADJOINING LAND FOR THE STORAGE AND PROCESSING OF BUILDERS' WASTE, PLUS THE PROVISION OF A NEW ACCESS AT HEBERDENS FARM, FINCHDEAN (APPLICATION NO. 22407/009) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF: EH158)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 8 in the Minute Book) on an application for planning permission to change the use of an agricultural building and adjoining land, for the storage and processing of builders waste as Heberdens Farm, Finchdean. Officers acknowledged previous concerns about the development, noting these to be related principally to the access to the site. However, the proposal was going to involve limited activity and a condition had been included that, in relation to the application, only one lorry enter and leave the site each working day.

Mrs. F. Davies made a deputation as a Finchdean Parish Councillor objecting to the application.

Standing Order 21 had previously been suspended to give the deputee 4 minutes to speak and allow questions of clarification of facts to be asked.

Members were concerned that more than one lorry a day had reportedly been entering the site and therefore believed it was necessary to include a condition to record all vehicle movements in and out of the site. Officers advised that any conditions imposed would only relate to the activities permitted by the application and not any of the other activities taking place on the Farm. It was confirmed that overlapping consents can exist and restricting the access to one lorry movement in and one out per day would only apply to this application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission in respect of the change of use of an agricultural building and adjoining land for the storage and processing of builders' waste at Heberdens Farm, Finchdean (Application No. F22407/004/CMA) be granted for the reasons as set out in the report and subject to the conditions in appendix B of the report and the addition of a condition that the applicant keeps a record of all vehicle movements in and out of the site.

Voting:

7 for, 4 against.

19. VARIATION OF CONDITION 8 OF PLANNNG PERMISSION BDB/58692 TO ALLOW EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO BE CONVEYED OVER RAMPTONS LANE, BY DUMPER TRUCK AT MORTIMER QUARRY, WELSHMANS ROAD, MORTIMER WEST END (APPLICATION NO. BDB/70626) (SITE REF: BA060)

At this point, Councillor Mrs Bailey returned to the meeting.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 9 in the Minute Book) on an application to vary planning permission at Mortimer Quarry, Welshmans Road, Mortimer West End. Members were informed that the company working the quarry had come across a pocket of poor material that was clogging the conveyor belt used to transfer material. Therefore, a request had been made to increase lorry movements to transfer the quarried material.

Mr. J. Robertson, Chairman of Mortimer West End Parish Council made a deputation objecting to the proposal.

Standing Order 21 had previously been suspended to give the deputee 4 minutes to speak and allow questions of clarification of facts to be asked.

The majority of Members felt the application was reasonable and most were satisfied that the applicant had made all reasonable efforts to continue working with the conveyor. Members were pleased to note that conditions had been placed on the application to ensure the road was repaired prior to any increase in lorry movements and that any damage caused by the increased movements would be repaired by the applicant.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission for the variation of condition 8 of planning permission BDB/58692 to allow excavated material to be conveyed by dumper truck over Ramptons Lane, Mortimer Quarry, Welshmans Road, Mortimer West End be granted for the reason as set out in the report.

Voting: 9 for, 3 against.

20. WASTE TRANSFER AND RECYCLING FACILITY AT LYNCHFORD LANE, FARNBOROUGH (APPLICATION NO. 08/00806/HCC) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF: RM033)

At this point, Councillor Simpson left the meeting.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 10 in the Minute Book) on an application for the development of a waste transfer and recycling facility at Lynchford Lane, Farnborough, for the processing of commercial, industrial and construction wastes.

Members were informed that this proposal was in an industrial area and the site had previously been used for an industrial purpose. Whilst there was concern over the width of the approach road, it was confirmed that the highway authority felt the road was safe. It was noted that the application was compliant with the development plan and that the proposal included enhancements had been made to the embankment of the River Blackwater in line with Environment Agency demands.

Professor M. Whieldon of Pentafoods Ltd. made a deputation objecting to the proposal.

M. J. R Holland as applicant and Mr. A. Lynham as Planning Agent for the applicant made deputations supporting the proposal.

Standing Order 21 had previously been suspended to give each deputee 4 minutes to speak and allow questions of clarification of facts to be asked.

Members were advised that traffic levels would not increase greatly from the levels they had been at previously. Members were keen for a decision to be made to resolve the application and noted that all the waste would remain contained in the building and that all statutory consultees were satisfied with the proposal, including the Environment Agency.

Members were advised that the issues raised by Pentafoods Ltd. were not for the planning authority to consider, but would be a matter for the Environment Agency when determining an application for an Environmental Permit. Members noted that the statutory consultees were satisfied with the proposal.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to a section 106 agreement being completed in respect of a financial contribution relating to transport improvements in the locality, planning permission be granted for the development in Hampshire, subject to the conditions in appendix B of the report.

Voting: 10 for, 0 against, 1 abstention

21. FORMATION OF A NOISE ATTENUATION BUND USING INERT WASTE AT PRIORY FARM, ANDWELL, BASINGSTOKE (APPLICATION NO. BDB/70797) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF: BA126)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 11 in the Minute Book) on an application to form a noise attenuation bund along the Northern boundary of the M3 motorway at Priory Farm, Andwell Lane, Andwell, Basingstoke.

Officers informed Members that this was a revised scheme for the construction of a bund and included modifications to the profile of the bund. However, it still failed to provide a strong case for noise attenuation and went against the policy on landfill.

Members considered that the proposed noise attenuation bund would not be an effective mechanism to reduce motorway noise and felt the case was not strong enough to accept the intrusiveness of the development.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission for the construction of a noise attenuation bund at land adjoining the M3 Motorway at Andwell Lane, Andwell, Basingstoke, be refused for the reasons as set out in the report.

Voting: 11 for, 0 against.

22. PROPOSAL FOR THE ADDITION TO THE DEFINITIVE MAP OF A FOOTPATH FROM THE U189 (MILL LANE SOUTH) TO THE U189 (MILL LANE) IN THE PARISH OF DROXFORD

At this point, Councillor Neal left the meeting.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Culture, Community and Rural Affairs on a proposal for a Definitive Map Modification Order to be made to record a footpath between the U189 (Mill Lane South) and the U189 (Mill Lane) in Droxford. It was explained that both Mill Lane South and Mill Lane had tarmac sections and this would be to provide a link between those sections.

Members noted that there had been no objections to the proposal and were therefore supportive of the application to connect Mill Lane in the North to Mill Lane in the South.

RESOLVED:

That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record a footpath between the U189 (Mill Lane South) and the U189 (Mill Lane), in Droxford, shown on the map as A-B-C, with a width that varies between 2 and 2.5 metres.

Voting:

10 for, 0 against.