Agenda item

To consider a report from the Head of Strategic Planning regarding the variation of conditions 5, 11 & 18 of planning permission 51471/003 to allow for restricted night-time activities including importation of road planings at Unit 5-6 Waterbrook Estate, (formerly referred to as Unit 7), Waterbrook Road, Alton GU34 2UD (Application No. 51471/007 Site Ref: EH156)

Variation of conditions 5, 11 & 18 of planning permission 51471/003 to allow for restricted night-time activities including importation of road planings at Unit 5-6 Waterbrook Estate, (formerly referred to as Unit 7), Waterbrook Road, Alton GU34 2UD (Application No. 51471/007 Site Ref: EH156)

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning (item 6 in the minute book) regarding variation of three conditions at Waterbrook Estate in Alton.

The officer introduced the item and the history of the application, which had been deemed by the Inspectorate to require a HGV routing agreement. Members were reminded of the location and details of the site following it previously appearing at Committee in 2018.

The Committee received 10 deputations on this item. Helen and Martyn Boyce, Nick Weeks, Rachel Palmer, Peter White and Justin Laughton all spoke against the application. There were concerns regarding long-term health with night movements of vehicles and it was felt that this would make a mockery of guidelines in place to protect residents. There was already a lot of noise at weekends and concerns after the applicant was felt to be breaching conditions previously. Little correspondence had taken place with the applicant and it was requested that a temporary permission be considered to monitor how disruptive the change to conditions would be.

Councillor Graham Titterington from Alton Town Council highlighted how despite being on industrial estate, the site was still close to housing and despite noise levels being declared appropriate, disagreed with the conclusion following tests on the projected sound levels.

Councillor Suzie Burns from East Hampshire District Council addressed Committee and questioned whether there was a real need for the change of conditions and night time operations. There were also concerns that the assessment was not accurate as they were done from the ground level of the properties and not the bedrooms, which were more in line with the site and would be subjected to any additional night-time noise. Councillor Burns also stressed that the screening proposed should be allowed to establish and be effective before work could continue.

County Councillor’s Mark Kemp-Gee and Andrew Joy also shared their concerns regarding the site and the proposed changes. Councillor Joy echoed Councillor Burns’ reservations over the sound assessment, agreeing that the receptors had not been accurately placed and therefore the result was not a true representation.

John Palmer spoke on behalf of the applicant and reminded Committee that all night-time noises were from the site, as there were other operators within the industrial estate that already worked through the night. The locations of the receptors had been approved from the Environmental Health Officer and were a recognised industry standard and felt the results were accurate. Whilst there was currently no liaison panel in place, Mr Palmer agreed that this would be beneficial and could be looked into.

During questions of the deputations, it was confirmed that residents hadn’t diarised incidents that had happened.

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

·         There had been four complaints made in 2020 on noise and dust and nine in 2019, which had been thoroughly investigated by the Monitoring Enforcement team;

·         Records and CCTV had verified that noise and dust issues had been from a different site within the industrial estate;

·         Issues with stockpiles heights had been addressed and posts had been installed to assist with measuring the limits;

·         None of the more recent visits had shown breaches of conditions, but the site would continue to be monitored.

During debate, Councillor Quantrill shared concerns over making a temporary permission, as it would only be delaying a permanent decision being made and would require it coming back to Committee. Councillor Philpott reminded the Committee that the modelling and projected noise implications at night were not guaranteed and it was important that the applicant could prove that they could operate without too much disruption to residents, and therefore a temporary permission could be a best outcome.

Members discussed how long would be most suitable for a temporary permission and the Head of Strategic Planning agreed that on balance a year could be appropriate. Following the debate it was concluded that the recommendation would be amended to reflect Members collective support to make the permission temporary.


RESOLVED

Subject to all parties entering into a Section 106 Agreement with the County Council to secure the routing of out of hours Heavy Good Vehicle movements to and from the site, the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment was authorised to GRANT permission subject to the conditions listed in integral appendix A and update report for a period of one year from the date of decision.

Voting
Favour: 13
Against 0
Abstentions: 1