Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence received.

Apologies were received from Councillors Oppenheimer and Harvey.

All Members who believe they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting must declare that interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3 Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore all Members with a Non-Pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at the meeting should consider whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 2 of the Code, consider whether it is appropriate to leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.

Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter considered at the meeting they must declare that interest at the time of the relevant debate and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3, Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Non-Pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at the meeting they considered whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 2 of the Code, considered whether it was appropriate to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed and agreed

To receive any deputations notified under Standing Order 12.

It was confirmed that ten deputations had been received for the meeting., which were all for Item 7 on the agenda; Waterbrook Esate, Alton.

To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.

The Chairman announced that Rob Storey from Planning was leaving Hampshire County Council, and on behalf of the Committee thanked Rob for his hard work on Regulatory over the past several years.

Members were also reminded to inform Members Services of any requests for PPE equipment and the importance of bringing it along to site visits.

To consider a report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services, for the purpose of exercising functions under the Commons Act 2006 as the Commons Registration Authority ('CRA') regarding an application in Headley.

The Committee received a report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services (Item 6 in the Minute Book) regarding an application to correct a mistake made by the commons registration authority at Broxhead Common in Headley.

The report was for information only, and it was confirmed that an application had been made and was due to be processed according to the details within the report. Following this stage, the outcome would be reported back to Committee.

Members were happy with the report.

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding an application for variation of conditions 5, 11 and 18 of planning permission 51471/003 to allow for importation of road planings and the night-time importation and exportation of waste at Unit 7 Waterbrook Estate, Waterbrook Road, Alton. (Application No. 51471/006)
(Site Ref: EH156)

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning (Item 7 in the Minute Book) regarding an application for variation of conditions at Unit 7, Waterbook Estate in Alton.

Committee were reminded of the location of the site in an aerial photograph, following a site visit a few weeks previously. Residential areas and industrial areas were marked, along with the preferred route for HGV’s. A site plan also depicted activities and movements that took place there and it was confirmed that activity would be at a minimum at night.

The issues surrounding the application were summarised, and whilst noise had been a concern of residents, a noise evaluation had found this to be at a satisfactory level with no adverse noise impact. A location plan was shown, stating where the noise analysis had been done at four points in the surrounding area in a ‘summer’ setting, to account for windows being open on residential properties. Whilst there had been complaints of a ‘gunshot’ style noise disturbing residents, this was confirmed as being from a neighbouring concrete plant and not related to the application.

Ten deputations had been received for this item, including local residents Peter White, Helen Boyce, Martin Boyce, Doreen Dye, Nicholas Weeks, Justin Laughton and Rachel Palmer who all spoke against the application. Mr White felt that the noise assessment was misleading, and did not take into account the topography of the land, with his house being several stories higher than the industrial estate, which was nestled in a valley. Consequently, there was no screening or dampening of noise for the upstairs of the house. Mr Boyce spoke of sudden noises, like that of metal on the site, being intrusive and disruptive compared to constant road noise. Mrs Dye expanded to say that noise at night travelled much further and would disrupt the sleep of residents and it was important that residential amenity was preserved. Mr Weeks told Committee how he felt the application went against policies including that of the Control of Pollution Act and the Hampshire Mineral and Waste Plan, by causing inappropriate noise and dust. He also stated how the World Health Organisation includes the right to privacy and the right to a good nights sleep. Mr Weeks felt the guidelines had already been broken and approving the application would make a mockery of having them in place at all. Mr Laughton confirmed he had written to the applicant five times requesting that HGV’s respect the speed limit and agreed that the noise assessments were not sufficient. He also asked why the location for the deposit of road planings on site was so close to the houses rather than the opposite end of the site. Rachel Palmer had concerns over the noise of the HGV’s entering and leaving the site and the fact that this was not witnessed by Members at the site visit. It was requested that the application be refused, or at least deferred pending another site visit and further investigation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding a Protocol for dealing with breaches in planning control relating to Regulation 3 developments, which sets out Hampshire County Council’s approach to planning enforcement for the County Council’s own developments.

The Committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Planning (Item 8 in the Minute Book), which detailed Hampshire County Council’s approach to planning enforcement for the County Council’s own (Regulation 3) developments.

It was confirmed that enforcement was usually done by the District or Borough and that it was good practice to have something in place.

Members were happy with the Protocol.

RESOLVED:

Members noted the contents of the Protocol for dealing with breaches in planning control relating to development undertaken by the County Council under Regulation 3 and approved the Protocol for publication on the County Council’s website.

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding the Monitoring and Enforcement work undertaken by Strategic Planning during the period January 2018 – June 2018.

The Committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Planning (Item 9 in the Minute Book) which updated Members on Monitoring and Enforcement work undertaken between January and June 2018.

The officer reassured Members that enforcement officers were very responsive to issues, but that it was important that the County were made aware of them so issues could be investigated.

It was confirmed Newlands Farm in Fareham were currently working to process some of the existing stockpiles, but that a notice was still in place and no further material was being imported.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the contents of the report.