Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

1. Executive Summary

1.1. The proposal seeks permission for a change for use of an existing complex of seven B1 units (light Industry and offices ) to be used as a waste and recyclables transfer station (WRTS). The site has a long planning history. The application will involve bringing into site up to 100-150 tonnes per day of Commercial/industrial, contractors skips and collected recyclables. This will involve up to 12 skips and use of a trommel and enclosed conveyor belt with picking stations, storage bays and baling equipment. There will be approximately up to 30 vehicle movements per day visiting the site.

The following main issues are discussed in the report:

(i) concern over potential pollution to the River Wey and the wildlife it supports;

(ii) the site is accessed through a single track road and constrained by narrow roads and junctions with parking, traffic calming measures and cycle use;

(iii) concern over the noise generated from the moving of vehicles, material and plant within the site and accessing the site;

(iv) potential of dust being a nuisance and giving rise to health and environmental risks; and

(v) the physical capacity of the site.

1.2. It is concluded that the location and size of the application site is not deemed appropriate for the proposal as the only access is through a single track lane and it is immediately south of a river and surrounded by houses. It is recommended that planning permission in respect of the change of use from B1 to waste and recyclable transfer station and minor internal and external alterations at Lindford Business Park, Chase Lane, Lindford, Hants GU35 0FE (Application No.52268) be refused, for the following reasons;

(i) the location of the site is inappropriate for a waste and recyclables transfer station proposal as it will significantly impact on local amenity through noise and dust disturbance, due to limited size of the site and the close proximity of the houses. This is in conflict with Policy W17 of the South East Plan, Policy DC8 of the with Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2007 and GS2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan.

(ii) there will be unacceptable impacts on the local road network in terms of amenity and highway safety due to the size of the roads, junctions and existing uses. This is contrary to Policy DC6 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2007 and Policy T4 and T12 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan.

2. Site and proposal

2.1. Permission is sought by Teale Waste Management for a change for use of an existing complex of 7 B1 units to be used as a waste and recyclables transfer station.

2.2. The application site is roughly rectangular in shape and is approximately 0.25 ha in area. The modern industrial units are rectangular in shape and form three buildings of varying sizes: Unit 1 is 33 metres x 10 metres x 6 metres, Unit 2 is 20 metres x10 metres x 6 metres and Unit 3 is 32 metres x 13 metres x 6 metres (approximately 950 m2 of internal floor space). This allows for an outside working area of approximately 750 m2 in the centre of these buildings. The units are enclosed by fencing and the site is hard surfaced with a macadamed road way and apron.

2.3. The site has houses on three sides with a residential care home for special needs adolescents to the south east (within 10 metres). The plot to the north east is currently being developed as housing with a B1 offices. There is dense secondary woodland with some nice mature trees to the northern side of the site. There is a parcel of land to the south west of the site which is unkempt with rough vegetation and piles of rubble. This area has the potential to support low numbers of reptiles. There is a small stand of Japanese Knotweed in the north east of the site on the boundary fence.

2.4. The site appears to be within about 350 metres of the Broxhead Common Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and within 575 metres of the Broxhead Common Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is part of the Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA. It is approximately 65 metres south of the River Wey. There does not seem to be a hydrological link with the SPA/SSSI. The River supports a number of highly values wildlife species, such as the Water vole, Kingfishers and otters. The Environment Agency shows this site to be within a marginal flood plain (Zone 2).

2.5. The site is served by an un-adopted road known as Chase Lane. This comes off Chase Road, which is a residential street that feeds on to Liphook Road (B3004). Another main traffic flow route onto the B road is via Taylors Lane. Traffic calming measures in the form of speed tables and speed cushions are currently being constructed on other local residential roads; Washford Lane and Windsor Road, as well as the length of Chase Road.

2.6. The WRTS will involve the sorting and transfer of waste to various recovery and disposal facilities elsewhere. Up to 100-150 tonnes per day of Commercial/industrial, contractors skips and collected recyclables are predicted. This involves 12 types of waste materials which are to be stored in separate skips once sorted: Plasterboard, Asbestos, Oil, Glass Bottles, UPVC, Metal, Cardboard, Wood, Fines, Hardcore and Landfill material.

2.7. There will be approximately up to 30 vehicle movements per day visiting the site. This is presented as

(i) skip lorries - existent at 16 per day; (ii) roll on/roll off lorry - existent at three per day; (iii) transit vans (or similar) - existent at seven per day; (iv) flat bed lorries - existent at three per day; (v) articulated lorry - existent at one per week.

2.8. There will be no changes to the physical form or layout to the existing buildings or surroundings. The applicant proposes to operate within the units. Waste collection vehicles will enter the buildings and discharge their contents on to the floor space. Materials will be transferred to a trommel via conveyor, where preliminary sorting and separation takes place. `Air knife' separation and hand picking processes will also take place with internal baling and storage..

2.9. The provision of welfare facilities, offices and workshops will be met within the envelope of the existing buildings.

2.10.The planning history is important to establish as the proposal is for a change of use and the scale and degree of that change needs to be assessed. The application site itself had a general industrial planning use up until the mid-2000's. In 2000 a company called PSP Plastics was operating a general industrial use (Class B2) at the site. It was an established use and it is not know when the B2 use of the site started. There are no records of complaints in terms of noise or traffic associated with this activity.

2.11.In 2000 an application (number 26232/002) for seven dwellings was refused on the basis of loss of commercial use and because of the access lane being inadequate. In 2001 an application (number 26232/003) for seven dwellings was refused. In 2002 an application (26232/004) for B1 use and six dwellings was refused. In 2003 an application (26232/005) for B1 use was granted outline permission; there were some local objections to this but it was noted that the B1 use complied with policy with regard to retaining commercial uses and that a B1 use could operate within a residential area without causing disturbance to neighbours and the lane was to be made up to adoptable standards. In 2005 the reserved matters were approved and building commenced.

2.12.The adjacent site is known as Hazel Cottage, and shares the access road. In 1980 permission was refused to replace Hazel Cottage with five houses (25432). In 1982 an established use certificate was granted for the use of the land as plant haulage, breakers yard and storage of tyres and vehicles (25432/001). In 1988 there was a refusal for workshop and store (25432/002). In 1990 planning permission was granted for a workshop (25432/005). In 2002 there was a refusal of a Certificate of Lawful Use (CLU) for storage of waste (this was a County Application, ref 25432/007). In 2004 alleged panel beating and crash repair was investigated. In 2005 an alleged breach of Enforcement Notice was investigated for running a skip business from the site. In 2008 permission was granted for 12 dwellings and B1A offices (25432/011).

3. Development plan

3.1. The proposal does not meet the criteria of Policy W17 - Location of waste management facilities of the South East Plan.

3.2. The proposal is in conflict with Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2007 (HMWCS); policies DC8 - Pollution, health, quality of life and amenity and DC6 - Highways.

3.3. East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review has local policies with which the proposal does not accord: GS2 - Location of Development, T4 - Pedestrians and Cyclists and T12 - Parking Standards.

4. Consultations

4.1. Local Member Councillor Carew has raised serious concerns that the site is situated within a densely populated residential area, at the end of a lane with small residential roads. The escalation of lorry movements will cause major highways problems along residential roads which are already effectively narrowed by on street parking, adding greatly to traffic congestion and the increased volume of traffic from the new Chase Road housing estate. The site could have adverse impacts on the River Wey in turn which hosts a number of wildlife species that are of high ecological interest eg Water Vole, Kingfisher, Brown Trout - many of which need good water quality free of contamination and minimal disturbance. Councillor Carew wishes to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that strong objections have been received from over 80 local residents, Lindford Parish Council, neighbouring Whitehill Town Council, and the Highways Authority and strongly supports officers recommendations for refusal.

4.2. East Hampshire District Council raises objection on the following points:

(i) "insufficient information has been supplied to fully assess the impact of the proposed use, to the potential detriment of neighbours. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GS1 and GS2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review;

(ii) on the basis of the information provided, the proposal would result in unacceptable use of the site by Heavy Goods Vehicles to the detriment of highways safety at the access and within Chase Lane and on the safety and capacity of the local road network. It would discourage cycling and walking in this residential area and would be contrary to Policy W17 of the South East Plan and T1, T4 and T12 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review;

(iii) the proposed use is inappropriate in a residential area in terms of its impact on the amenities of neighbours from noise from Heavy Goods Vehicles accessing the site, impact from dust and from light pollution from the site contrary to Policy P5 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review;

(iv) run-off from the site may cause pollution of the River Wey and adversely affect the ecology of the area contrary to Policy C9 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review;

(v) materials brought to the site may attract vermin to the area contrary to policies GS2 and C4 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review;

(vi) the proposal involves the unjustified loss of an employment site, thereby adversely affecting the range of employment opportunities available in the District, and increasingly the pressure for employment development on Greenfield sites contrary to Policies IB4 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review".

4.3. A further response was received by East Hampshire District Council upon receipt of further information by the applicant, on 1 December 2009. The contents of this additional information did not remove their objections

4.4. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at East Hampshire District Council has raised a number of concerns. "Lindford Business Park is located on the edge of a residential area and is surrounded by noise sensitive residential premises on three sides. The site's current use, class B1, covers types of activities that can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to the amenities of that area. It may be difficult to control noise from all of the proposed activities; for example, it may be possible to reduce the impact of activities taking place inside the industrial units by implementing a sound insulation scheme to reduce plant noise, however it will be much more difficult to control external noise sources such as reversing alarms, forklift trucks and vehicles passing through the residential area to reach the business park".

4.5. The EHO lists the following as areas of concern: noise from internal activities such as the waste handling activities, noise from vehicle movements to and from the site, noise from reversing alarms on the site and potential dust and external lighting.

4.6. The EHO strongly recommends that in the event permission is granted that conditions are attached to minimise impact on residential amenity:

4.7. The Environment Agency has no objection to the development as proposed.

4.8. Natural England objects to the proposal as there is insufficient information to determine the effect on the Wealden Heaths SPA. .

4.9. The Highway Authority recommends that the proposal is refused for the following reasons:

(i) insufficient information has been submitted in order to properly assess the application;

(ii) it has not been demonstrated that the site has a safe and appropriate access for the proposed use; and

(iii) the local highway network is unsuitable for the potential increase in HGV traffic.

4.10.Subsequent to these comments, the additional material of 1 December 2009 was reviewed and the following has been supplied by the Highways Authority:

4.11."It is considered that there are still a number of issues that remain outstanding and that the site location is inappropriate for a waste recycling facility. As mentioned previously there is a Section 228 agreement in place in relation to the existing permitted uses accessed by Chase Lane, namely permission 26232/005 (the application site) and 25432/011 (adjacent site). It should be noted that these works are required to make Chase Lane up to a suitable standard for the B1 and residential use, but would not result in a suitable standard for the use of a recycling facility. It is considered that such a use will be associated with HGVs and it has not been demonstrated tat two HGVs can pass on Chase Lane, the access and other possible conflict points In addition, it has not been demonstrated that HGVs will be able to turn on site and leave in forward gear when all plant and apparatus are present on site. Should turning on site be unachievable, this may result in reversing on the road to the detriment of the safety of other road users.

4.12.It is estimated that the application would result in approximately 30 movements per day involving skip lorries, flat bed vans and articulated lorries. Whilst small number of HGVs on occasions may be expected in connection with the permitted B1 use, as waste recycling use has the potential for consistent daily use by HGVs; for which the location is not considered suitable. Consequently, the objections still stand."

4.13. Lindford Parish Council objects on the following reasons:

(i) the location of such a facility, in terms of the closeness of the houses and narrow access road;

(ii) the extremely adverse effect on the residential amenities, with potential problems of noise, dust and odour;

(iii) the access to the facility through inappropriate local residential roads;

(iv) the extreme numbers of heavyweight vehicle movements causing congestion on Chase Road cycle way; and

(v) potential river contamination as there could be run-off and the area is believed to suffer from flooding.

4.14. Headley Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds:

(i) it is commercial waste in a residential area with movements of large commercial vehicles along residential roads;

(ii) these lorries will impact on neighbouring parishes on unsuitable roads and add to the already increased traffic due to the new estate;

(iii) there could be leeching of hazardous materials into the nearby watercourse;

(iv) noise pollution including the reversing of lorries;

(v) pedestrians, including children walking to school, could be vulnerable to lorries arriving and leaving.

4.15. Whitehill Town Council totally opposes the proposed development on the following grounds:

(i) river pollution and lack of protection for protected species, particularly water voles;

(ii) the number of lorry movements;

(iii) disturbance for nearby residents;

(iv) the location;

(v) limited access; and

(vi) highways concerns.

5. Representations

5.1. As at 20 December 2009 there have been 81 letters of objection received from local residents and interested parties. The main concerns include

(i) the site abuts a former water meadow, which is liable to flood and it is also likely to receive runoff and groundwater from nearby land, which can then discharge via old watercourses etc into the main river. The waste will need to be transferred and there will be the opportunity for spillage. There could be the potential for harmful substances to appear on site. All these factors would have an adverse impact on the River Wey and effect the wildlife it supports;

(ii) the impacts of additional traffic in terms of the unsuitability of the local residential roads, with the double parking and intended cycling uses. There is a pre-school within an active Church on Chase Road, which increases the potential for congestion and accidents. There are traffic calming measures being implemented on these roads and Chase Lane is a single track, therefore there is no where for any vehicles to wait to access the site and there is a lack of parking for cars and HGVs. The site is small and will not be able to accommodate HGVs turning. Also, Liphook Road is currently too narrow for HGVs. As Chase Lane is un-adopted by the Council, it is not maintained. There is a worry that in icy weather a vehicles could crash into the properties that back on to the lane;

(iii) the noise will be a significant issues. The moving of skips and the material is not taken into consideration. The Acoustic Report relies on the doors of the sound-proofed building being shut and all activities taking place within the units. This is not expected to be the case in reality. The noise from the A325 does not mask the expected volume. The Acoustic Report does not take into account the significant noise created from the Trommel;

(iv) the dust generated from the site will be health hazard and a nuisance;

(v) that the site is to be used of economic benefit for the applicant to get rid of any building debris that his other businesses encounter. There would be a decline in house values and prevent re-sales in the future;

(vi) the full terms and conditions of the B1 permission have not been met. Chase Lane has not been finished nor hand rails installed. Therefore, a change of use should not be granted;

(vii) the site is currently used as a waste transfer station for cardboard and paper. This is a breach of the permitted B1 use and permission should not be given;

(viii) it is believed that the adjacent site will not be finished as housing, but the applicant will expand to create a bigger waste operation;

(ix) the site will cause vermin and litter problems;

(x) there will be light pollution from the light attached to the units and from vehicle head lamps;

(xi) the site is not fully screened by trees, and these are deciduous, so offer little protection during half of the year;

(xii) the material will not be able to be stored inside as the buildings are too small and it is not known how long it will be left on site outside.

6. Commentary

6.1. The location and size of the application site is not deemed appropriate for the proposal as the only access is through a single track lane and it is immediately south of a river and surrounded by houses. This is contrary to Policy W17 of the South East Plan which requires waste sites to have good transport connections and be capable of meeting a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria and is echoed by the requirements of East Hampshire District Local Plan Policy GS2, Location of Development.

6.2. There has been strong concern voiced over the potential pollution of the River Wey it habitat and wildlife. The area surrounding the site is within a flood plain and there is a potential for surface water to reach the river. The applicant has not demonstrated that the appropriate storage and management of materials will remove this risk, nor has the details of the existing drainage been supplied to remove this concern. This has been detailed as a reason for refusal by the District Council, as contrary to their conservation policies of C 9 and C4. However, as there has been no objection raised by the Environment Agency, it is not recognised as a reason for refusal at this time.

6.3. Natural England's objections to potential adverse impacts on the SPA are noted but could be addressed through appropriate so it is not considered as a reason for refusing the proposal, but it does add to the overall concerns of the appropriateness of the location for the waste use.

6.4. Local residents and others have raised objection on a number of traffic issues. This view is shared by the Highways Authority who do not feel that the location is appropriate for the type and amount of vehicles associated with a waste and recyclables transfer station development and is therefore contrary to Policy DC6, Highways of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

6.5. In addition, local circumstances have changed which add other constraints on the proposal. The traffic calming and permitted additional housing sharing the access were not in existence when the B1 use was considered. Also, the access road is now determined not to be of a standard that warrants adopting as a Highway, and so is not suitable for industrial traffic flow and will not be maintained to recognised safety standards by the County Council.

6.6. The noise of the waste laden vehicles navigating these roads with traffic calming is another concern in terms of noise. The skips being loaded and un loaded, together with the material being moved around has raised objection from the EHO as activities that will give rise to noise nuisance. The Acoustic Report supplied assumes all activities that generate noise will take place within the sound-proofed units with the door shut. This presumption has been queried as the units seem to small to accommodate all the waste types and volumes expected and the applicant has not supplied information to remove this doubt. It is also asserted that the noise from the A325 road will provide some background noise and reduce the impact of the noise generated by the proposal. However, the local residents dispute this and this is taken into account when assessing other sporadic noise such as reversing alarms and material being processed in the Trommel.

6.7. Dust is also an area of objection from local residents and the EHO. The operations on site could give rise to unacceptable dust if not properly managed and so could the transportation of the material. This issue has not been ameliorated and remains of concern for health and environmental pollution risks. Therefore, this proposal is in conflict with the amenity protection policy of Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, DC8 - Pollution, health, quality of life and amenity.

6.8. Whilst there is a concern that the proposed storage is insufficient for the proposed volume of material, and so raises questions as to where and for what length of time materials will be kept, the possibility of the site attracting vermin is not considered significant due to the types of waste involved. Litter has also been given as a concern by residents and this is not deemed as a reason for objection as waste transfer stations can be managed without litter problems.

6.9. There has been dispute as to the assertion by the applicant that the site is screened by deciduous trees. There has been some tree removal on the north east boundary and the screening is seasonal in any case. Therefore, there is some concern that the activities carried out on the forecourt could have adverse visual impact as well as cause amenity issues. In connection with this point, the issue of lighting pollution has been raised as a concern for local residents from vehicle headlamps and external site lighting and a reason for refusal by East Hampshire District Council- Policy P5. However, the Waste Planning Authority did receive confirmation that there were to be no changes to that already accepted under the B1 permission and so does not raise the possibility of lighting pollution as an objection.

6.10.It is acknowledged that there has been some unlawful waste activity on site. Whilst this is being investigated through the correct channels, it is not a part of this determination process and not a material planning consideration. Also, there has been speculation as to the neighbouring site and possible expansion of the proposal, should it get permission. Again, this does not form part of the planning review for the application as it is not the development put forward for planning approval.

6.11.It is noted that the District Council objected on a number of grounds, including the adverse impact on employment opportunities available in the District. Whilst this is noted, as the proposal offers a number of employment opportunities it is not deemed as a robust reason for refusal.

6.12.In conclusion, the location of the site is inappropriate for a waste and recyclables transfer station as the associated uses will significantly impact on local amenity through noise and dust disturbance, due to limited size of the site and the close proximity of the houses. This is in conflict with Policy GS2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan, Policy DC8 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and W17 of the South East Plan.

6.13.There will be unacceptable impacts on the local road network in terms of amenity and highway safety due to the size of the roads, junctions and existing uses. This is contrary to Policy T4 and T12 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan and Policy DC6 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

7. Recommendation

7.1. That planning permission in respect of the Change of use from B1 to waste and recyclable transfer station and minor internal and external alterations at Lindford Business Park, Chase Lane, Lindford, Hampshire, GU35 0FE (Application No.52268) be refused, for the following reasons.

7.2. The proposals will significantly impact on local amenity through noise and dust disturbance, due to limited size of the site and the close proximity of the houses. This is in conflict with Policy W17 of the South East Plan, Policy DC8 of the with Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2007 and GS2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan.

7.3. There will be unacceptable impacts on the local road network in terms of amenity and highway safety due to the size of the roads, junctions and existing uses. This is contrary to Policy DC6 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2007 and Policy T4 and T12 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan.

2281Rpt/KS

Links to the Corporate Strategy

Other Significant Links

Annexe to Reasons for Refusal

(as required by Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

South East Plan (also known as the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East) adopted on May 6 2009.

W17: Location of waste management facilities

Waste development documents will, in identifying locations for waste management facilities, give priority to safeguarding and expanding suitable sites with an existing waste management use and good transport connections. The suitability of existing sites and potential new sites should be assessed on the basis of the following characteristics:

i. good accessibility from existing urban areas or major new or planned development

ii. good transport connections including, where possible, rail or water

iii. compatible land uses, namely: active mineral working sites previous or existing industrial land use, contaminated or derelict land, land adjoining sewage treatment works, redundant farm buildings and their curtilages

iv. be capable of meeting a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria.

Waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt. Small-scale waste management facilities for local needs should not be precluded from Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks where the development would not compromise the objectives of the designation.

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2007

DC6 - Highways

Major mineral extractions, landfills and `strategic' recycling, aggregate processing and recovery and treatment facilities, will be permitted provided they have a suitable access to and/or route to the minerals and waste lorry route as illustrated on the Key Diagram.

In all cases, minerals and waste development will only be permitted if it pays due regard to the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposal and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected.

Consideration should be given to highway capacity, road and pedestrian safety, congestion and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements are required and whether these could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact.

DC8 - Pollution, health, quality of life and amenity

Minerals and waste development will only be permitted if due regard is given to the pollution and amenity impacts on the residents and users of the locality and there is unlikely to be an unacceptable impact on health and/or the quality of life of occupants of nearby dwellings and other sensitive properties. Where necessary minerals and waste developments should include mitigation measures, such as buffer zones between the site and such properties.

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review

GS2 - Location of Development

In its determination of an application for planning permission for development within a settlement policy boundary, the Council will have regard to the following material considerations:

i) the full and efficient use of land;

ii) sympathy with the character and appearance of the area and the suitability in scale, massing, design, appearance, materials, layout and siting, both in itself and in relation to nearby buildings, spaces and views; landscaping;

ii) protection of the living conditions of existing and future residents from, for example, noise, dominance and loss of light and privacy;

iii) safety and convenience on the public highway; and

iv) any other environmental matters.

T4 - Pedestrians and Cyclists

Development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect the amenity of users of footpaths, bridleways, or cycleways or where the rights of way network or cycle network is disrupted and no equally attractive, safe and convenient satisfactory remedial measures, such as re-routing, can be undertaken.

T12 - Parking Standards

Planning permission will not be granted for a proposal unless any parking of vehicles, including cycles, is provided in accordance with adopted parking standards.