Agenda item

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.

 

·         The deputees reported that residents had been through stress and anxiety.

 

·         A petition had been signed by more than 3,220 people and 629 representations had been received.

 

A deputation was received from John Palmer, who spoke on behalf of the applicant.

 

He explained that there was an aggregate demand that needed to be met, with pressure on larger quarries and that the supply of aggregate and minerals needed to be available at the right place at the right time.

 

He referred to the Welborne Garden Village site which is 2.8 miles from the Five Oaks Farm site and explained that the development would help with the requirement for soft sand.

 

He reported that the six local residents to the east of the site had been fully considered. A noise assessment had been completed in line with the correct guidance which had shown a negligible effect and that the digging would be ‘down’ and not ‘up’.

 

The deputee further stated that:

 

·         The effects relating to climate change had been addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Statement, with no significant effects.

 

·         Comments about surface water had been misunderstood and that water was controlled at a quarry by the operator and managed by pumping.

 

·         The Covid pandemic had made consultation more difficult and that the applicant could have done better in this respect.

 

Local County Councillors Hugh Lumby and Patricia Stallard spoke against the application.

 

They both reiterated comments made by the deputees for the Parish Council and residents, in particular the lack of engagement from the applicant and increased access and road safety risks, including those related to access routes by pavement.

 

They each thanked the Parish Council and the local residents group for their work.

 

In response to questions from Members to the deputees:

 

·         The Committee was shown the predominant wind flow direction on a map.

 

·         It was confirmed that the knowledge regarding impacts on health from pollution had been shared with Winchester City Council.

 

·         It was confirmed that there was not satisfactory engagement from the applicant.

 

·         Clarification was given that the Welborne Garden site was being considered over a 12 to 15 year period in Fareham Borough Council’s plans over 30 years where the Five Oaks Farm site supply was of seven years.

 

·         It was confirmed that Shedfield was in flood zone one.

 

It was confirmed that the Council was currently below its level as per the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan Policies 17 and 20 and that this development could contribute to the supply, but that this needs to be balanced against other planning considerations.

 

The Highways Officer provided the Committee with some traffic data in terms of the percentage of which was heavy vehicles and buses and the number of accidents reported to the Police.

 

Members debated the report and discussed the reasons for the recommendation made, including the lack of community engagement, impact on the level of traffic and health. They considered the need for soft sand against the considerations in the report and the needs and views of the residents.

 

The Chairman summarised by reporting that the site visit was very helpful in this instance and that the impacts on the visual and amenity aspects could be seen. He added that the application had been in existence for two years, however, officers still had outstanding information that had not been supplied to them.

 

RESOLVED

 

Planning permission was REFUSED for the following reasons, as

outlined in Appendix A and the Update Report, (agenda item 9):

 

a) On the basis of the information submitted and notwithstanding the

proposed mitigation, it is considered that the proposal is likely to result in

unacceptable adverse visual and amenity impacts to occupiers of nearby

properties as well as wider amenity impacts associated Heavy Goods

Vehicle movements, contrary to the requirements of Policies 10

(Protecting public health, safety and amenity), 12 (Managing traffic) and

13 (High quality design of minerals and waste development) of the

Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) and Policy DM20

(Development and Noise) of the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part

2 (2017);

 

b) The development is considered to be contrary to Policy 2 (Climate

Change mitigation and adaptation) of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste

Plan as it has not fully evidenced mitigation or adaptation measures to

minimise its impact on climate change;

 

c) The development is contrary to the requirements of Policies 5 (Protection

of the countryside), 10 (Protecting public health, safety and amenity) and

11 (Flood risk and prevention) of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan

(2013) as it cannot be demonstrated that the development can protect

local amenity and can protect water quality and surface water drainage

and cause no additional flood risk;

 

d) On the basis of the information submitted, the development is contrary to

the requirements of Policy 12 (Managing traffic) of the Hampshire

Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) and Policy DM18: Access and Parking of

the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 2 (2017) as it does not have

a safe and suitable access to the highway network and does not include

suitable mitigation measures to mitigate any significant adverse effects

on highway safety.

 

On the basis of the above reasons, the proposal is considered to be

contrary Policy 1 (Sustainable minerals and waste development) of the

Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) as the proposal does not

constitute a sustainable minerals and waste development.

 

Voting

 

Favour: 13 (unanimous)