Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding an application for variation of numerous conditions of previous permissions to enable the continued use of the site for composting and other ancillary uses at Little Bushywarren Compost Site, Bushywarren Lane, Ellisfield RG25 2NS (Site Ref. BA103).

1) Variation of conditions 2 and 14 of planning permission BDB/56369 (No.18/03065/CMA);

2) Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 14/00398/CMA (No.18/03067/CMA);

3) Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 15/03422/CMA (No.18/03069/CMA); and

4) Variation of condition 5 of planning permission 17/03430/CMA (No.18/03073/CMA)

to enable the continued use of the site for composting and other ancillary uses at Little Bushywarren Compost Site, Bushywarren Lane, Ellisfield RG25 2NS (Site Ref. BA103)

As a previous Chairman of Project Integra, Councillor Roland Dibbs abstained from voting on this item.

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Transport (Item 8 in the minute book) which considered four separate planning applications forvariation of the conditions on previous temporary permissions to enable the continued use of the site for composting and other ancillary uses up to 31 December 2030 inline with the Veolia contract.

A location plan was shown with local areas of interest highlighted. Photos of the site were shown along with machinery, as well as of the access to and from the site.

It was confirmed that Ellisfield Parish Council had objected to the variations, but no other statutory consultees had issues with the proposals.

The current conditions were on pages 110-113 of the pack, which would be updated if the application was to be approved as some would require further information before being changed.

An update report had been circulated and published online, which provided clarification from the application on objections relating to odour and traffic. There were also some minor amendments including that to Conditions 10 and 12.

The Committee received four deputations on this item. Patricia Pegg, a local resident, told Committee how the site was in a highly sensitive area with significant ecological importance and the site had been allocated as one unsuitable for permanent development. There was concern over the decline in dormice in the area and fears that the adjacent ancient woodland was contaminated because of operations on the site.

            Susan Deane spoke as the nearest living resident to the site, and also on behalf of the Ellisfield Village Association. Mrs Deane enforced that the site was not suitable for permanent development and temporary permissions had gone on for long enough already following a previous extension. The number of vehicle movements caused concern, as well as the weighbridge, which caused delays in vehicles getting onto the site. The smells from the site had increased over the years and was an issue regularly brought to the liaison panel, but was not something that had/could be mitigated. There had also been complaints from residents that they had not been consulted regarding the 2021-2025 extension.

            Gordon Dunse spoke on behalf of Ellisfield Parish Council against the proposals and reiterated that the previous extension had not gone out to consultation. Mr Dunse also had concerns that a restoration plan had not been submitted in October 2018 as it should have.

            Simon Mckee was in attendance at the meeting to speak on behalf of the applicant. He confirmed that the extension was to fulfil the requirements of Project Integra[1] and that the site managers were proactive with issues and concerns raised by residents. The parked vehicles were not Veolia, but external partners and customers had been informed to not arrive at the site early cause obstruction on the road. Veolia regularly reviewed woodland and environmental schemes but were happy to look at again.

During questions of the deputations, the following points were clarified:

·         Veolia did attend the liaison panel meetings, which were a good forum for discussions;

·         The smell mentioned by local residences had been investigated generally disbursed before causing issue, but in certain conditions turning was kept to minimum to help manage odour. The smell was not down to chemicals, only the composting process.

During questions of the officer, the following points were clarified:

·         No highways incidents from the last 10 years were in relation to the HGV’s going to and from the site;

·         The site had expanded since its establishment from processing 16,000 tonnes per annum to 75,000 tonnes.

·         The applicant was seeking to update the conditions around restoration at the same time as seeking the extension, which is why a restoration plan had not been submitted at the end of 2018.

·         Composting was a sustainable activity in the interest of Hampshire and its residents.

RESOLVED:

a).     Planning permission was GRANTED for planning application 18/03065/CMA (variation of Conditions 2 and 14) subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A1.

Vote:
Favour: 14
Abstentions: 2

b).     Planning permission was GRANTED for planning application 18/03067/CMA (variation of Condition 2) subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A2.

Vote:
Favour: 15
Abstentions: 1

c).     Planning permission was GRANTED for planning application 18/03069/CMA (variation of Condition 3) subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A3.

Vote:
Favour: 15
Abstentions: 1

d).     Planning permission was GRANTED for planning application 18/03073/CMA (variation of Condition 5) subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A4.

Vote:
Favour: 15
Abstentions: 1