Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding Planning Application for temporary extension to Pennington Recycling Facility for associated parking and storage use at Land to the west of Pennington Recycling Facility, Milford Road, Pennington. Application No. 19/10523. Site Ref: NF042.

Councillor Carter left the meeting, taking the total voting number for this item down to 14

Councillor’s David Harrison and Neville Penman declared personal interests as Members of New Forest District Council

Temporary extension to Pennington Recycling Facility for associated parking and storage use at Land to the west of Pennington Recycling Facility, Milford Road, Pennington SO41 8DF (No. 19/10523)

(Site Ref: NF042)

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning (item 7 in the minute book) regarding an application for a temporary extension to Pennington Recycling Facility for associated parking and storage use at Land to the west of Pennington Recycling Facility, Milford Road, Pennington, which was recommended for refusal.

The officer confirmed that the development was within the South West Hampshire Green Belt and no very special circumstances exist that would support the proposal. It was therefore considered inappropriate and harmful to the openness and permanence of the Green Belt and as such is contrary to Policies 5 (Protection of the countryside) and 6 (South West Hampshire Green Belt) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (2013), Policy CS10 (Spatial Strategy), point (o), of the New Forest District Council Core Strategy (2009)and Paragraphs 133, 134, 143,144,145 and 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

Photos from various elevations close to the site were shown and a location plan showed the various designations within the area. It was felt that a 10 year permission would be too long and the County Council Landscape Architect objected to the application due to the risk of harm to the Green Belt. It was confirmed that since publication, the applicant had written a letter summarising the case for development and this had been made available to Members.

The Committee received one deputation on this item. Susan Hughes spoke on behalf of the applicant. Ms Hughes told Committee how the extension would improve operations within the site in a quieter area of the site and the 10 years was a worthwhile amount of time for the development and subsequent restoration. Stockpile management could be improved and the site contributed to the County’s waste and recycling the applicant was happy to do further screening.

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

·         The tank was double-bunded and on concrete hardstanding;

·         A solar farm was not financially viable;

·         The permission sought was originally going to be permanent, but it was felt that a temporary permission would have more chances of being successful; and

·         The mileage of vehicles travelled was 240km a day on average.

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

·         The entrance to the site was very wide and therefore there was nothing to screen from that direction;

·         The application anticipated a reduction in HGV movements, but there were not figures to support this;

·         The temporary permission was not recommended to the application but provided as an option.

·         There is a requirement to demonstrate very special circumstances, and this was for the Committee to determine.

During debate, Members discussed how the application felt to be an encroachment and it was important to protect the Green Belt, however others felt that the role of the site was equally important and there was an increasing need for the County Council to encourage recycling.

Councillor Gary Hughes proposed an amendment to approve the application, which was seconded by Councillor Alexis McEvoy, but this was lost on the following vote:

Favour: 2

Against: 11
Abstentions: 1

The recommendations in the report were then put to Committee.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was REFUSED for the following reasons:

(1)       The development is within the South West Hampshire Green Belt and no very special circumstances exist that would support the proposal. It is therefore considered inappropriate and harmful to the openness and permanence of the Green Belt and as such is contrary to Policies 5 (Protection of the countryside) and 6 (South West Hampshire Green Belt) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (2013), Policy CS10 (Spatial Strategy), point (o), of the New Forest District Council Core Strategy (2009)and Paragraphs 133, 134, 143,144,145 and 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

(2)       The proposed development does not maintain and enhance the distinctive character of the surrounding landscape. It is not considered high-quality design and does not contribute to achieving sustainable development. Therefore, the proposed development is not in accordance with Policy 13 (High-quality design of minerals and waste development) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (2013).

Voting:
Favour: 13
Against: 0
Abstentions: 1