Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding a planning application for Variation of conditions 2, 9 and 10 of Appeal decision reference APP/Q1770/A/11/2161324 (Planning Application Reference: 10/02712/CMA) to reshape and improve the existing peripheral north eastern landscape bund to facilitate enhanced screening from wider views into the site and improve biodiversity on the site’s periphery and to accommodate a temporary wash plant operation in the southern section of the site for a period of twelve months only at Salvidge Farm, Bunny Lane, Timsbury SO51 0PG (Application No. 20/01753/CMAS) (Site Ref: TV066).

Councillor Charles Choudhary joined the meeting for this item, taking the total number of votes up to 14

Variation of condition 2, 9 and 10 of Appeal decision reference APP/Q1770/A/11/2161324 (Planning Application Reference: 10/02712/CMA) to reshape and improve the existing peripheral north eastern landscape bund to facilitate enhanced screening from wider views into the site and improve biodiversity on the site’s periphery and to accommodate a temporary wash plant operation in the southern section of the site for a period of twelve months only at Salvidge Farm, Bunny Lane, Timsbury SO51 0PG (No. 20/01753/CMAS) (Site Ref: TV066)

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning regarding a retrospective application for a temporary wash plant at Salvidge Farm in Timsbury.

The officer summarised the application and the Committee was shown a location plan of the area, along with photographs from outside and inside of the site. It was confirmed that some conditions (2, 9 and 10) had been amended as part of an update report that had been published.

The Committee received two deputations on this item. Councillor Bob Davis spoke on behalf of Michelmersh and Timsbury Parish Council with concerns regarding the application. These extended to the size of the wash plant and the impact it hand on the landscape and also noise, which had been a previous complaint. The Parish Council were also against the wash plant being installed without permission. John Palmer addressed Committee on behalf of the applicant sharing how the site was an important provider of aggregate for the County and it was hoped the wash plant would enable more material to be processed on site in better time to keep stockpiles lower. The noisiest part of the site was below the area of the bund and Members were reassured that the wash plant would not generate any adverse noise.

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

·         Noise conditions were imposed in 2012 but the main concerns were around the visual impact of the wash plant;

·         Existing material was proposed to bolster the bunds;

·         The wash plant had been sought to be installed early due to the long process in installing it and components involved;

·         It was anticipated that the wash plant would help material get processed quicker to enable contracts for materials to be fulfilled and prevent a backlog and increase in stockpile heights;

·         If the wash plant was approved then the site would require an updated permit from the Environment Agency;

·         Waste water was collected in tanks underground and reused as part of the screening process.

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

·         The wash plant was a temporary permission being sought and installed at the applicants own risk;

·         Many additional conditions were featured in the update report, which had been circulated to Members and published on the website;

·         An ecological mitigation study was referenced in Conditions 22 and 23

·         Required boundaries and screening originally requested had been installed, but it was unknown as to how well this had been maintained.

In debate, Members had many concerns regarding the application and the impact of the wash plant on the local area.

RESOLVED

Planning permission was REFUSED due to breaches of policies 5, 10 and 13 of the Hampshire Mineral and Waste Plan.

Voting
Favour: 3
Against: 6
Abstentions: 5