Agenda item

To consider a report from the Head of Strategic Planning regarding change of use of part of land forming Peacock's Nursery and Garden Centre to use for recycling of inert materials at land behind Peacocks Nursery and Garden Centre, Ewshot, Farnham.

The Committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Planning (Item 6 in the Minute Book) regarding an application for change of use at Peacock’s Nursery and Garden Centre.

It was confirmed that two letters had been received since the papers had been published, which were included in the update report circulated to Committee. It was confirmed that the site fell outside of the urban area as defined in the Minerals & Waste Plan area and also the strategic road corridor.

Members were shown a location plan of the area along with aerial photographs of the site, which confirmed that there had been no development on the land. Site photographs and existing elevations were also shown.

The Committee received three deputations on this item. Rebecca Wiles spoke on behalf of the Crondall Heights Resident Association and told Committee how local residents had been heavily impacted by the site, and how they had had growing concerns over the impact on ecology and the nearby water course. Rob Dance spoke on behalf of the applicant who told Committee that the Garden Centre use allowed on appeal should apply to the entire area and not one specific area of land and the land was in his opinion ‘previously developed’. The nursery and Garden Centre was a family company, and it more cost effective to serve local markets as opposed to sending material further afield. Finally, County Councillor John Bennison spoke in support of the officer’s recommendation to refuse to the application, and confirmed that there was a waste transfer station in Ewshot that was in a better position to take on the materials.

During questions of the deputations, it was clarified that the access to the site was felt to be adequate, being wide with good visibility. The agent also told Committee that permission was not originally sought for the use as it was thought the operation could work under the current permissions as an extension to the nursery and Garden Centre uses.

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

·         There are no conditions with the proposal due to it being recommended for refusal, but some could be put together should members be minded to support the application or in the event of an appeal being lodged

·         There would be no significant adverse impact on waste processing capacity to removing the operation as it was on a relatively small scale.

In debate, it was agreed that should the application go ahead, a weighbridge should be included as part of the conditions.

RESOLVED:

Recommendation 1

A) Planning permission was REFUSED for the following reasons:

(i) The development is not in accordance with Policy 5 (Protection of the countryside) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (HMWP) (2013) as:

· the site is located within the open countryside;

· The development is not a time limited mineral extraction or related development;

· the nature of the development does not relate to countryside activities, meet local needs or require a countryside or isolated location; and

· The site is not previously developed land.

As such the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in an area of countryside harmful to the character of the area.

(ii) The development is not in accordance with Policy 29 (Locations and sites for waste management) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (HMWP) (2013) as:

· it is not located in the locations identified for the development to provide recycling, recovery and/ or treatment of waste (pursuant to Policy 29(1));

· the applicant has not demonstrated that the site has good transport connections to sources of and/or markets for the type of waste being managed (pursuant to Policy 29 (3)); and

· a special need for that location and the suitability of the site has not been demonstrated (pursuant to Policy 29 (3)).

(iii) The application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development meets Policy 3 (Protection of habitats and species) and elements of Policies 10 (Protecting public health, safety and amenity) and 13 (High-quality design of minerals and waste development) as the development is likely to have a significant adverse impact upon on the immediately adjacent habitats, including the protected trees, hedgerows and water course and the development fails to demonstrate that the mitigation and compensation measures proposed are adequate to protect the biodiversity interests.

Recommendation 2

B) That authority be given to take appropriate enforcement action to secure the cessation of the use, removal of waste material from the site and restoration of the site to its former condition.

Voting
Favour: 11
Against: 0
Abstention: 1