Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence received.

Apologies were received from Councillors LuLu Bowerman, Michael Ford, Keith House and Adam Jackman. Councillor Wayne Irish was present as a deputy as was Cllr Hugh Lumby, who joined the meeting and deputised from agenda item number 7.

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 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 Personal Interest in a matter being considered at the meeting should consider, having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 4 of the Code, whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 5 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.

The Chairman confirmed that there were deputations for item numbers 6 and 7, which would be called at the relevant point in the agenda.

To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.

The Chairman thanked Katy Sherwood, Senior Democratic Services Officer, for her support to him and the Committee.

To consider a report from the Assistant Director of Minerals, Waste and Environment regarding the winning and working of up to 230,000 tonnes of soft sand with phased working and restoration through backfilling with up to 435,000 tonnes of clean inert waste/materials (inclusive of reinstatement of material from original extraction), associated internal access routes, plant and infrastructure at Five Oaks Farm, Winchester Road, Shedfield, SO32 2HS (No. 20/01483/HCS) WR242

The winning and working of up to 230,000 tonnes of soft sand with phased working and restoration through backfilling with up to 435,000 tonnes of clean inert waste/materials (inclusive of reinstatement of material from original extraction), associated internal access routes, plant and infrastructure at Five Oaks Farm, Winchester Road, Shedfield, SO32 2HS (No. 20/01483/HCS) WR242

The Committee considered a report from the Assistant Director of Minerals, Waste and Environment regarding the winning and working of up to 230,000 tonnes of soft sand with phased working and restoration through backfilling with up to 435,000 tonnes of clean inert waste/materials (inclusive of

reinstatement of material from original extraction), associated internal

access routes, plant and infrastructure at Five Oaks Farm, Winchester

Road, Shedfield.

The officer introduced the report, explaining that the recommendation to the Committee was to refuse the planning application.

The officer provided the Committee with a presentation, showing a number of location maps and aerial views to provide context. These included:

·         the surrounding area

·         the road network

·         the location of the local school and pub

·         rights of way, footpaths and proposed access roads

·         the location of a golf club and the nearest neighbours

·         views from various locations on the site, and

·         a site access map illustrated the proposed rerouting of the footpath and signage.

The officer explained that the recommendation to refuse the application was on the basis of the probability of unacceptable adverse visual and amenity impacts. Summarising the recommendation in the report, she stated that the development was contrary to:

·         Policies 2,5,10,11 and 12 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan

·         Policy DM18 Access and Parking of the Winchester City Council Local Plan (2013).

The Committee received deputations against the application from:

Shedfield Parish Council, (Cllr David Ogden, Professor Peter Milla and Kevin Freeguard), Kevin Joyce, speaking as a resident and Cllr Achwal, a Winchester City Councillor.

Their main reasons for objecting were as follows:

·         A lack of consultation and engagement from the applicant.

·         Concerns about the road safety impacts of dangerous traffic levels.

·         The impact of increased traffic on local roads.

·         The impacts of air pollution caused by chemical pollutants on lung cancer, deaths and hospitalisations and that only visual dust management testing had been completed during the application.

·         The close proximity of nurseries and schools and a golf course and hotel to the proposed development.

·         That the proposed bunding did not take account of dust, noise and light pollution with significant harm to properties, which would have to keep windows closed due to dust.

·         The impact of the development on flooding and sediment laden run off.

·         The significant concerns raised had not been addressed by the applicant and alternatives not considered.

·         The weather had been modelled on Southampton Airport which was not relevant to the location of the proposed application.

·         An increase in road safety risks with additional heavy goods vehicle movements, also resulting in damage and vibration to the roads.

·         Already narrow pavements, with road noise already a problem.

·         Costs borne by the residents and ratepayers.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

To consider a report from the Assistant Director of Minerals, Waste and Environment regarding the development of a Material Recycling Facility and Associated Infrastructure at Land off Chickenhall Lane, Eastleigh, Hampshire (No. CS/22/92463)  (EA110)

Cllr Hugh Lumby joined the meeting and Cllr Alexis McEvoy left the meeting.

The development of a Material Recycling Facility and Associated Infrastructure at Land off Chickenhall Lane, Eastleigh, Hampshire.

(No. CS/22/92463) (EA110)

Declarations of Interests

Cllr Parker-Jones declared that as the application was in a neighbouring ward to her own, she had been part of the consultation process, but that she would be basing her decision on what she heard today.

Cllr Broomfield declared that although he had no pecuniary interest in the item, his division is a neighbouring one to where the application was located, and that he would vote as he saw fit on the basis of the application.

The Committee considered a report from the Assistant Director of Minerals, Waste and Environment regarding the development of a Material Recycling Facility (MRF) and Associated Infrastructure at Land off Chickenhall Lane, Eastleigh, Hampshire.

The officer introduced the report and explained that the development was to be a new modernised facility to replace those at Alton and Portsmouth.

The Committee was shown location maps which illustrated the site and its proposed access from Bishopstoke Lane. The location of the railway lane and the M27 and M3 were shown as well as an aerial view which showed a sewerage treatment plant, the airport and nature conservation designations.

Other plans were shown including a proposed ground floor plan and the footprint of the MRF building.

The officer explained that the facility would allow Hampshire Waste Services to modernise and meet legal requirements and guidance in relation to waste management, while reducing waste and increasing recycling.

The indicative design picture showed the intention for steel cladding and a roof light which would be secured via a condition required by National Air Traffic Services, due to the proximity to the airport.

The officer explained the context of the extant planning consent at the site and its relationship with the proposal and how the proposal met Policies 25, 26 and 27 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan.

The officer reported that the Highways Authority had scrutinised the application and found it acceptable. Officers noted that air quality matters were covered by the extant consent. The recommendation was also subject to a section 106 agreement in respect of financial contributions for the Southern Damselfly Project, acoustic fencing, management of biodiversity net gain and a contribution towards monitoring of the Air Quality Management Area.

A deputation was received from Philip Rodin, Sam Horne and Paul Laughlin speaking on behalf of the applicant.

It was explained that:

·         The Council is lagging behind with its recycling levels at approximately 35%.

·         The development would allow kerbside recycling to be increased and of better quality, particularly where it was expected that a wider range of materials would be required to be recycled in the future.

·         The work had identified that carbon emissions could be reduced and the level of recycling increased by 13%, but this was predicated on new infrastructure.

In answer to Members’ questions, the Committee heard that:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To consider a report from Legal Services to inform Regulatory Committee members of the updated Local Protocol on Planning, Rights of Way, Commons and Village Greens Registration for Members of Regulatory Committee, Substitute Members of Regulatory Committee and Officers (“the Protocol”), the reasons for the update and the governance requirements required to bring this updated Protocol into effect.

The Committee received a report from Legal Services to inform Regulatory Committee members of the updated Local Protocol on Planning, Rights of Way, Commons and Village Greens Registration.

The Chairman explained that a lot of changes had been made to the protocol in conjunction with the officer and the Monitoring Officer and that he hoped it reflected Members’ wishes.

The officer explained the key proposed changes to the protocol.

In answer to a Member’s question regarding paragraph 11.3, the officer reported that the wording could be amended to make it clearer.

Members discussed site visits and officers explained how these were arranged and that the Committee could always request one, even if it was not in the Code of Conduct. Members felt that it was necessary to have more notice of specific site visits.

It was noted that some of the links in the document do not work, and officers confirmed that this would be resolved.

RESOLVED

The Regulatory Committee recommended adoption of the updated Protocol

together with the onward governance requirements necessary to give effect to

the Protocol.

Vote

Favour: 12

Against: 0

Abstained: 1